Talk:Voyages of Christopher Columbus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Illogical interpretation

The following passage,in the main article, appears to be flawed in it's interpretation of Columbus's log -

Early in the voyage, Columbus predicted that land should be found within 700 leagues (approx. 2500 miles), and ordered the commanders of the other vessels to refrain from sailing at night once that distance had passed to avoid wrecking.[6] He also hedged his bets by keeping two logs of the distance traveled - a secret log with the true distance, and an altered copy that he shared with the crew, showing much less.[5][6] -

Obviously, if Columbus really believed there was a risk of wrecking, because they might be approaching land, after the fleet had sailed 700 leagues, it would make no sense to misinform the crew, during the voyage, that the accrued distance sailed was less, because that would have put the fleet at risk. Columbus's log does indeed state that he noted smaller distances to the crew 'so that they would not be afraid'. Different historians have tried explain this curiosity but, so far, none have succeeded in providing a fully credible explanation. J. Fowler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.250 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A pretty bad article if you go by the references. Washington Irving is the author of the nonsense about the log -- historians consider his work on Columbus to be as fictional as his other stories. Irving also invented the myth that Europeans thought the earth was flat. I've edited it.--Dougweller (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a couple of templates but they may well be the wrong ones. The main references for this are 19th century writers, and I very much doubt its reliability -- I know that there are a lot of issues with what we know or think we know about the voyage, the business about the 2 logs being only one example.--Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC) See http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/art/KEEGAN02.ART for a comment on Irving's reliability.--Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the observations noted above. Considering the volumes that have been written about Columbus and his times, it's odd that so much of the mythology continues to thrive. Also, in that regard - with reference to the 'First voyage' section in the main article -. the paragraph which begins ' On September 8th.1492' seems to be a rather apocryphal interpretation of what was actually stated in Columbus's log, regarding compass errors and the crew concerns. In reality, the significance of the compass references in the Columbus log for September 13th. and 17th. aren't well understood. (It would take a brave historian to make the claim that fifteenth century compasses didn't normally have errors.The fact that Columbus's pilots appeared to be regularly checking the compasses only tends to confirm that they were aware that such errors occurred. Rather than 'panic', it's possible that they may have been demanding clear orders from their commander about the allowances to be made for compass errors in the courses which they steered.) Suggest that particular paragraph be prefixed as legendary - or provided with specific citations and references. J. Fowler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.140 (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Navigation plans

It seems worth mentioning here that America already had been described in the litterature for three centuries. St.Trond (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

BAD (first voyage) MAP!

The map labeled "The route of first voyage of Columbus in the Caribbean" is not only at odds with other sources (in print and on the internet), but contradicts the first map showing all of the voyages of Columbus.

Whoever wrote this article AND INCLUDED THE MAP LABELED "The route of first voyage of Columbus in the Caribbean" needs to offer some kind of citation to SUPPORT the insertion of this particular map in the article, with the strong implication that it is accurate. Although I am certainly no expert on Columbus' voyages, NOTHING that I have ever seen supports the accuracy of the map labeled "The route of first voyage of Columbus in the Caribbean."

The evidence seems to be overwhelming that Columbus headed generally northward or northeastward from Hispaniola, picked up the westerlies and then used them to return to the Azores, which are far, far to the north of the Canaries, from which he made his first significant move westward toward the "New World." Columbus seems to have caught on pretty quickly that one uses the easterlies to go west, and the westerlies to go east--thus heading generally northward or northeastward to find favorable winds to return to Spain. ONE CANNOT GET BACK TO SPAIN GOING AGAINST THE EASTERLIES WITH OLD SQUARE-RIGGED SHIPS!

WHAT IS SHOWN IS AN ERROR OF MAPS OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE, ONE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE OR BY MODERN SCHOLARSHIP. This kind of shoddy work is the reason that some very reputable scholars become indignant at times with Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.

I cannot believe that the two maps given which purport to show the first voyage DO NOT EVEN AGREE WITH EACH OTHER! no is an outrageous and egregious error!

The map labeled "The route of first voyage of Columbus in the Caribbean" NEEDS TO BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS SOME ONE CAN CITE SOME SOURCE(S) INDICATING THAT IT IS CORRECT! (Good luck finding that kind of evidence or supporting documentation!)

Landrumkelly (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't shout, most editors are likely to ignore shouting. You could/should have done that & I note that its creator makes it clear he won't mind. Dougweller (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

They were made nearly 5 years ago, suprised they were still here actually. Now replaced with svg maps. It was based on this, I guess because it was a Caribbean only map, they were not concerned with the exact direction after leaving the islands. --Roke 08:52, 3 july 2009 (UTC)

Typo in summary image

The .svg in the summary [1] has a typo -- "Atlantic" is spelled "Altantic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.3.229 (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

These lines are fragmented

"Columbus, desperate to repay his investors, failed to realize that Isabella and Ferdinand did not plan to follow or allow Portuguese slavery policy, its being counter to the [[. Rounding up the slaves led to the first major battle between the Spanish and the free indigenous people in their old homeland, called by those invading it 'the New World.'"

Not sure what to make of it. --Agamemnus (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. I went back through the history. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fourth Ship?

I've heard a few times that Columbus had a fourth lesser-known ship. Has anyone seen solid evidence? "In 1992, Rita M. Stark [...] research[ed] more about the so-called Fourth caravel of Columbus" in this city to corroborate Prof. Mazzanti's research. On January I8, 2004, while in Santo Domingo visiting "El Museo de Las Casas Reales", she found a picture of this fourth ship. This fourth ship was not a caravel, but a "fusta". '" [2] samwaltz (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Terrible map

The current map is terrible, because it currently doesn't show the direction of travel -- i.e. which routes correspond to Columbus travelling towards America and which were the return journeys. The first voyage even intersects with itself, making things even more ambiguous. 188.192.109.47 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, the word "Indians" mentioned in this article has nothing to do with actuals Indians live in Indian subcontinent (Hindavan mispronounced as Indian by Europeans) in Asia. Columbus thought he reached India via sea route but he landed in the land that was "unknown to Europeans" at that time. He called them Indians by mistake but they are natives. All references the word "Indian" in this articles refer to these natives but not to the actual Indians from Indostania (again mispronounced for Hindutaan or Hindavastaan). Another point, the discovery of these lands are "discovery to the Europeans and should be viewed within the context of Eurpeans history" but not to the rest of the world. It is unfortunate that colonialism and education substitution lead to this kind of universal acceptance - still being tought that way during the post-colonial era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.146.111 (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Because "Discovery of Americas" redirects here, a lot of interwiki links (certainly Dutch, German, French, but maybe more) are incorrect. Shouldn't the redirect - and with it the wrong interwiki-links - go?? Joost 99 (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Piloty Columbus Small.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Piloty Columbus Small.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Piloty Columbus Small.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

How many ships on the third voyage?

The Spanish ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago, which was sighted on this voyage, has said that Columbus was leading eight ships (Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, La Castilla, La Gorda, La Rábida, Santa María de Guía, La Gaza, La Vaqueña) and not just three (Santa Maria de Guia, El Correo ex-Gorda, La Vaqueños) as recorded in most English sources. One point in his favor is that instead of reading La Vaqueños, his list has La Vaqueña which seems like better Spanish. Another is that the Catalan wiki started out with our version and now uses his ship list.

So I'm thinking that he's probably right but that sourcing it is a problem, given that nearly every English-language source gives no ship names but insists that there were only 6 ships and that Columbus divided his fleet before going on a pleasure cruise of the Portuguese islands. — LlywelynII 07:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

One source that might explain it is this one, which says that Columbus began with eight ships, but two were sent directly to Española from port and Columbus chose to alienate another three later, leaving him the three generally known. — LlywelynII 10:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Discovery of America

This article should be called "Discovery of America" (or merged with an article with that title). The Discovery, its significance and place in world history are much more important than a simple set of "voyages". Fortis est Veritas (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's also an arguably much less accurate title. It's incredibly Euro-centric (although its impact on Europe, on the Americas, and the world can't be understated), it ignores the Ericson trips, and invites complaints about discoveries by natives, etc.

On the other hand, "Discovery of America" redirects here, so you sort of have your wish.Ischorr (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The Discovery of America is of course, from a European point of view, so it is redundant to say that it is "Euro-centric". The discovery of a new continent by those 15th century navigators is of huge historical importance for mankind. It led to the rise of new cultures, nations, trade and to a whole new perception of the world. There is no reason why it should not have its own article. The discussion about Viking trips to North America prior to 1492 is interesting, but not relevant to the discovery, as such hypothetical trips did not make the existence of a New World known to Europeans. Vikings, or Basque fishermen, as others argue, might habe been the first to cross the Atlantic, but such voyages did not lead to discovery. The natives obviously did not discover America as they were already there. They might have discovered Europe if they had crossed the Atlantic, but the fact is Europeans crossed it, leading to mutual discovery of each others' existence. Historical events should not be smeared with politics or ideology. They should be explained neutrally, as they are. For some reason "Discovery of America" not only lacks a proper article, but now not even redirects to the Voyages of Columbus. Fortis est Veritas (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is incredible how much effort is done trying to avoid the term Discovery of America. For that, you will hear the most absurd arguments. But if you are familiar with the envy that the Discovery of America and the position of Spain in the exploration of the world awoke in Europe, especially in the English speaking world, then you will understand this fact better. Next time that a scientist, researcher or explorer discovers something new, jealous people will use the same highly intellectual argument: But it was already there!!! Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.103.222 (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a good discussion to have. If you say that 1492 was "the discovery of America," then doesn't that imply that the world discovered America, or the human race discovered America? You could call it "Spain's discovery of America," though, because it's true that Spain never knew about the Americas before this event. Also, some of the posts above me seem to be saying that the word "discovery" implies significance in history, implies something that has a major impact on the world. That's not necessarily true. Consider the discovery of chemical elements. The discovery of iron certainly had a huge impact on the world, but the discovery of Yttrium in 1840 didn't. But we still use the term "discovery" for Yttrium. I think the word "voyages," as in the current article title, could certainly be applied to something historically significant. The Apollo program included our voyages to the moon. Navigatr85 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navigatr85 (talk • contribs)

That's why many modern historians use the term "European" discovery of America. It was a discovery and it was European. There is not much more to it. I wish our fellow editors would think twice before erasing this from the lede. Fortis est Veritas (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Discovery of Nothing

Vikings came from Scandinavia. It is in Europe. Columbus came from Genoa. It is in Europe.
He led the first European expeditions to arrive in Central and South America.
Columbus 'discovered' that if you sail west across the mid-Atlantic you will land in Asia (or so he thought). B. Fairbairn (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposing a major split

In my view Wikipedia is currently a mess when it comes to the discovery of America by modern Europe -- a hugely important historical event. "Discovery of America" links to this article, but then the article itself states that Columbus was important for inspiring exploration, but that he did not discover that it was a separate continent, massively miscalculating the well-established circumference of the Earth and deluding himself unto his deathbed that he had found a shortcut to Asia. For this reason historians usually demur from ascribing the title of "discoverer" to him; it usually goes to Amerigo Vespucci. But the Amerigo article is of a poor standard too, as it does not explain how he established that Columbus was incorrect.

The solution to me is simple; there should be a "Discovery of America" article which explains all of this; the native habitation, the Viking settlement, the role of Columbus, Vespucci, Waldseemuller, and ultimately the spread of the knowledge that the Americas were a separate landmass, leading to their settlement. It's a patent lacuna and I don't see any reason that it shouldn't be filled. --Denziloe (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I think there should be one simple article called Discovery of America because that's what it was: a discovery of a new continent called America. If editors wish, we can include a section called "The Discovery Question" and there address the different points of view, the trips of the Vikings, the Basque fishermen, and other interpretations. The matter of the fact is that Columbus stumbled upon a New World which Europeans initially thought was Asia, but a few years later, with the sighting of the Pacific Ocean by explorer Vasco Nuñez de Balboa in 1513, the Spaniards confirmed that it was not. A new continent was in fact discovered. The native Americans also discovered that other civilizations existed across that great sea. You know, there have been many historians and researchers before we were around, who have studied this issue in depth, and have always called it the same way. We should learn to respect and appreciate the knowledge that has been handed down to us, without questioning everything. There is a reason why things are called a certain way. There is a reason why the Discovery of America is called the Discovery of America. Fortis est Veritas (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for the voyage in the first place

Could somebody put in the specific reasons for the voyage with sources cited. There really in not enough information on the specific reasons for the voyage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.252.45 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with Christopher Columbus

This article is largely redundant with Christopher Columbus, which also covers the voyages in detail. The biggest difference appears to be that this article is whitewashed of Columbus' horrific treatment of the natives of Hispaniola. --Wormcast (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone marked a sentence as "dubious" that should not be dubious

Someone seems to think that "He described the new lands as belonging to a previously unknown new continent, but he pictured it hanging from China, bulging out to make the earth pear-shaped.[dubious – discuss]" is a false statement. Here is the source that supports it:

"Yo no tomo qu'el Paraíso Terrenal sea en forma de montaña áspera, como el escrevir d'ello nos amuestra, salvo qu'él sea en el colmo, allí donde dixe la figura del peçón de la pera, y que poco a poco andando hazia allí desde muy lexos se va subiendo a él, y creo que nadie no podría llegar al colmo, como yo dixe, y creo que pueda salir de allí esa agua, bien que sea lexos y venga a para allí donde yo vengo, y faga este lago." from Columbus' letter of his third voyage, I am quoting directly from the book ISBN: 978-84-206-9137-4

174.125.165.13 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Over four voyages to the Americas between 1492 and 1492

Over four voyages to the Americas between 1492 and 1492

Doesn't make sense. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.88.122 (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Down the river?

This seems unlikely: "By April 6, the garrison he had established captured the local leader El Quibían, who had demanded they not go down the Belén River." Columbus was camped at the mouth of the river, so there was no place to go "down" to. And his goal was to go up the river in search of gold. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutist History?

I for one, would LOVE to know why "Discovery of America" defaults to this article! Leif Erickson was here almost 500 years BEFORE Columbus made his voyage...Edit Centric (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the American Indians discovered America THOUSANDS of years earlier! Europeans were among the LAST people to find America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 07:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Greenlandic Norse didn't seem to be aware that they had entered the fringes of a vast new pair of continents. And even if they had been, nothing came of it. They left Vinland after a few years and never spread the word beyond their community in Greenland, and there were no big followup expeditions. And from the perspective of the Old World, Columbus very much did discover the Americas. If you'd rather say that he enabled the indigenous peoples of the New World to discover the Old that would also be technically correct, but it's more common to think of it the other way. Your statement that he was the "LAST" to discover it is a little absurd, like claiming that Alexander Fleming was the last person to discover penicillin. Once something's discovered, there's no need to discover it again until it's been forgotten. The existence of the Western Hemisphere, if any in the Old World were ever truly aware of it, was forgotten long before 1492. Trilobright (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Third voyage

In the section on the third voyage, the purpose of voyage is stated to be to verify the existence of a continent southwest of the Cape Verde islands that the king of Portugal claimed was there based on evidence from the western coast of Africa, but the section never states if such a continent was ever verified to exist. Did Columbus discover a continent southwest of the Cape Verde islands as suggested by John II of Portugal? If he did, shouldn't this section of the article make note of such a discovery? It would seem rather significant. I'm not joking. While I know that South America exists, readers of this article otherwise unfamiliar with the geography of South America would never know that it was the third voyage when Columbus first reached South America or that John II was correct as to its existence. --Acjelen (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitana is not the name of a ship

Another problem with our sources is that they really want to treat Capitana as the name of a ship on the fourth voyage. Capitana isn't a ship name, but just the Spanish for "Flagship". The Catalan wiki has the ship as yet another Santa Maria, although it doesn't explain whether this is the Santa María de Guía from the 3d voyage or a fourth Santa Maria in addition to the original, the Gallega's real name, and the de Guia one. — LlywelynII 07:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

From the wikipedio in Spanish, for the knowledge... Better late than never:

• Carabela Gallega
• Carabela Capitana
• Carabela Vizcaina
• Carabela Santiago de Palos

--FaustoLG (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Columbus was the first european to arrive in Americas

Oficially Columbus was the first european to arrive in Americas. The rest is still the subject of debate by the different anthropologists,so it can not be said with any force that the Vikings were the first. There are evidences for and against that version.

Look: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asentamientos_vikingos_en_Am%C3%A9rica https://web.archive.org/web/20090323233700/http://www.el-esceptico.org/ver.php?idarticulo=155

@JavierNF96: Nonsense. There is no debate over this. The Spanish article you link makes that clear. The fact that the Vinland Map is a hoax doesn't affect the solid evidence discovered by archaeologists. There's no doubt that Scandinavians beat Columbus. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: "There's no doubt Scandinavians beat Columbus"

Conclusion more infantile you have not been able to give. Likewise, even if they arrived earlier (Caught Tweezers), what influence did Escandinavians in the Americas? Nothing, and they abandoned it quickly. You can not call that discovering something.

I don't have to, reliable sources do. You're right however that it was Columbus who opened the Americas to Europe. But, again, there's no doubt that he wasn't the first European. Name-calling, by the way, usually shows that a person has a weak argument. And "caught tweezers" doesn't seem an English idiom. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:

I have not insulted you, I have simply said that you have used an extremely childish expression, quite unfit for someone I assume is adult and who "manages" Wikipedia.

I repeat, considering the discovery of America to be presumably settled for 1 or 2 years without generating any influence seems to me quite incorrect.

And in addition, there is no consensus among archeologists for more than insists. It has been shown that such settlement remains are dubious and quite susceptible to being a forgery, including the Vinland map.

But you know what? It really does not matter because people will really remember Columbus and not some Scandinavians who allegedly came to America "without pain or glory."

So you know who beat who.

A greeting.

Once again, the archaeological evidence is clear. The map being a hoax is irrelevant, L'Anse aux Meadows is irrefutable evidence of a Norse/Viking site in North America. Not dubious, not forged, not disputed by archaeologists. The length of time is also irrelevant. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Voyages of Christopher Columbus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20091014015153/http://www.columbusnavigation.com/v1a.shtml to http://www.columbusnavigation.com/v1a.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130330073312/http://www.thenina.com/the_original_nina.htm to http://www.thenina.com/the_original_nina.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513015327/http://www.americanistas.es/biblo/textos/cu03/cu03-03.pdf to http://www.americanistas.es/biblo/textos/cu03/cu03-03.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Discoverers of the Americas" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Discoverers of the Americas. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Discoverers of the Americas until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ɱ (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"Discoverer of the americas" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Discoverer of the americas. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Discoverer of the americas until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"European discovery of America" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect European discovery of America. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#European discovery of America until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"Discovery of the New World" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Discovery of the New World. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Discovery of the New World until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Captains of the Nina and Pinta on Columbus first voyage

Main Columbus pages states that Martin Alonso Pinzon and Vincente Yanez Pinzon are the captains of the other two ship. This page quoting Washington Irving states that Gomez Rascon and Christoval Quintero owned the ships? This can't be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasAquinas2019 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Date formats

Is there any reason not to convert this article to the international ('dmy') date format, as Christopher Columbus does? Since this is primarily an expansion of that article, there should be some uniformity. Not to mention it only directly deals with places that use the international format (i.e. not the United States). UpdateNerd (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Natives only seen as warriors - problematic narrative

This article is well written and mainly relevant to the subject. Perhaps it is slightly distracting to point out Columbus's observation of magnetic declination, provided that immediately proceeding this statement is the fact that Columbus played no role in actually discovering this phenomenon. Furthermore, the article briefly mentions the mistreatment of Native Americans, far from the extent of the actual brutality. For example, it is pointed out that Columbus's crew would bring home stolen Native American valuables. There is no discourse on the Native American perspective of these unethical and invasive behaviors. Rather, the natives are portrayed only as other people with their own unethical behavior, such as employing slavery.

Additionally, during Columbus's first voyage, the natives are described as "warlike" and "violent." In an article titled Second Thoughts on Colonial Historians and American Indians, James Merrell puts forward that identifying natives as only warrior-like provides a faulty interpretation of native-colonial relations. In a narrative dominated by conflict, violence, and oppression, it would be a disservice to history to offer blanket descriptions of the native people in this manner.--Kardon99 (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

There is much that needs to be moved here from the biographical article Christopher Columbus on his encounters with the Native Americans. I've done some work recently on that article, which will be appropriately summarized here in the near future. I encourage you to take a look then and see what still seems to be missing. Also, I think his rediscovery of magnetic declination is fully relevant to his first voyage, although it perhaps doesn't need to be focused on with its own subsection. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

References

"Discovery of America: Voyages of Christopher Columbus" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Discovery of America: Voyages of Christopher Columbus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 1#Discovery of America: Voyages of Christopher Columbus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: Columbus and his men's use of dogs as weapons to hunt, maul, and kill indigenous people. I didn't see dogs mentioned in the current version of the article at all. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. This is also discussed more at length at Christopher Columbus. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

I propose that 1492 light sighting be merged into this page. The light sighting alone does not seem to meet Wikipedia's policy on notability such that it would merit its own article. The entire article seems to boil down to (1) that Columbus and his crew saw a light shortly before landing in Guanahani and (2) some scholars have speculated as to its source. I don't see why this warrants its own article and I think it could be condensed and consolidated into the section regarding his first voyage in this article. DocFreeman24 (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This could be compressed to a single paragraph with a few notes. I will try to do something with this myself. UpdateNerd (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Maravedí

@UpdateNerd: Can you please point out where this previous mention of Maravedí is in the article? I came across this word and needed to find out what a Maravedi was, hence the link to explain it. The link is innocuous and useful so I don't see why you would revert the link? Avi8tor (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, it's under "Funding campaign", and we only link the first instance of a term. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Could we please refrain

From using the Map(or maps) theory. Yes, Columbus most likely observed other maps while in Europe, but stating it in this article is absurd. This will just lead to debates that Columbus discovered the new world by theft. --68.209.227.3 04:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree on the discovery argument but the voyage was indeed an expedition to find alternative routes to Asia. Nor Columbus nor any of the crew knew about the new world and so I wouldn't call it a "voyage to oppress and destroy", even if that was regrettably what happened later Maximipen (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The article is written in biased (pro European) manner. The article mentions "expedition " but it was a "voyage to oppress and destroy". The article mentions "discovery of America". There was NO America at that time, and the region Columbus ran into already existed and already had millions of people. The article is pretty racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.44.159 (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

New world naming

The continent was named after Vespucci as 'America' (singular). Explicitly saying otherwise is missinforming and that should be clarified even if 'The Americas' is the mainstream term in some regions. As far as I know there was no division of continents at that point and even today is not a universal view as a number of continental models describe a single american continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximipen (talk • contribs) 16:40, June 29, 2022 (UTC) —

@Maximipen: first, please don't ever reply to old dead posts, that one is almost 15 years old and the only post made by the IP. I see " In 1507, a year after Columbus's death,[180] the New World was named "America" on a map by German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller.[181] Waldseemüller retracted this naming in 1513, seemingly after Sebastian Cabot, Las Casas, and many historians convincingly argued that the Soderini letter had been a falsification.[179] On his new map, Waldseemüller labelled the continent discovered by Columbus Terra Incognita ('unknown land').[182]" The lead should reflect that and needs a rewrite. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

My bad, didn't notice the date. As for the map, Spanish sailor Juan de la Cosa from Columbus's first two voyages made a world map in 1500 and it's first ever map by an eye witness of the expeditions and that shows the name "America", predating Waldseemüller. The map was cited later by Pedro Mártir and others, currently kept in the Museo Naval in Madrid. Maximipen (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Maximipen Interesting as Naming of the Americas doesn’t mention that. Nor does Map of Juan de la Cosa. Doug Weller talk 17:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Royal funding

Could somebody outline why Columbus kept pestering monarchs for funding instead of just, well, raising funding elsewhere. It comes over as an obsession, just go to anybody else already! Save up money from other work, like anybody else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.251.164 (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Map of the first voyage must be changed

The map of the first voyage is based on Pickering's fringe theory that San Salvador/ Guanahani is Plana crays. I've reviewed an immense amount of academic literature on this topic and can find no support for Pickering's beliefs whatsoever.

Watling's/ Modern San Salvador clearly is the most favored choice among scholars. This is also acknowledged in the Guanahani article which says Watling's "remains widely accepted as the most probable candidate". (The statement is well-sourced too, referencing a 2012 encyclopedia entry which seems to be the most recent scholarly take on this issue)

Some historians have argued for Samana Crays or Grand Turk but even they remain minority viewpoints. Hence, the map must be changed to reflect the broad consensus on the route taken by Columbus.

There may be some copyright issues though. Can we attach this map from BBC? (Only including their "commonly accepted route" of course) Jack234567 (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Re: Pineapple

The article says that Columbus brought back the pineapple on his first voyage, but all the sources say he brought it back on his second voyage. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)