Jump to content

Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

RfC: Should Columbus be described as an Italian or Genoese explorer in the introduction part?

I see no clear consensus for any change to Genoese in this discussion. I'm troubled by an apparent dedication to "win" this point by the OP. Many participants in this discussion have mentioned negatively User:Mikola22's driving this discussion, having raised it several times, including one previous malformed RFC process. Mikola22 is urged to drop the stick in the lede, given the ample opportunities to clarify the issue on the body of the page. BusterD (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Should Columbus be described as an Italian or Genoese explorer? Regarding this question, the sources speak differently that is, they describe differently who he was in this sense, and I'm interested in what you think?

@Tarl N., Warshy, Glendoremus, 악준동, CarolingianCitizen, Boynamedsue, Pincrete, Walrasiad, Eccekevin, Glendoremus, Ortizesp, Machinarium, Walrasiad, Machinarium, Fyunck(click), TulsaPoliticsFan, Strebe, Boynamedsue, TulsaPoliticsFan, Fieari, Carlstak, Strebe, and Pistongrinder: I ask the editors to repeat their answers. Mikola22 (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey

It is bludgeoning. Carlstak (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
To be more precise, the current phraseology in the lede, an Italian explorer and navigator from the Republic of Genoa is fine. No need to change it. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Retain as is. Why are we doing this again? Is the same proposer going to be doing this again and again until he gets the result he wants? Walrasiad (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • From Genoa The lede should not use either adjective, because the implication of the use of such adjectives is either to "nationality," which is anachronistic in this specific case, or to "citizenship," about which we possess no positive evidence. So the lede should simply and clearly state that "Columbus was an explorer and navigator from the Republic of Genoa..." per warshy. To repeat myself I don't understand the advantage of using a term like 'Italian' which is anachronistic, less precise and almost bound to be misunderstood by many unfamiliar with this period of history who would not know that it would have been a very broad geographic/cultural descriptor at the time, rather than tied to national identity/citizenship. Why be less precise and less informative? Pincrete (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Genoese because in my opinion, this information would be in accordance with the historical time context and with the sources, while the “Italian” in this case would be an anachronism. Mikola22 (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Retain as is since the description is not just succinct in dispensing information but this is what historical texts, aka reliable sources, use about the subject. (Checking back on the whole rigmarole of discussions, I wonder whence such passione. I suspect the sneaky hand of Venetian provocateurs.) -The Gnome (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • If you were thinking of me (sneaky hand of Venetian provocators), there is no conspiracy theory. I as an editor edited articles in which it was not possible to include information which was anachronistic or out of historical time context. And then I broadened my horizons a bit and saw that there is informations in other articles that are out of historical time context. And my intention is that all articles in this sense respect the same principle if there are sources which provide information in historical time context. Mikola22 (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, Mikola22. I do not know you from the Doge so my little aside remains what it is: A humble attempt at collegial humor. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • How is it succinct when we have to add an explanatory note to the word 'Italian'? A note that basically says 'Italian' doesn't actually mean 'Italian', but doesn't inform greatly as to what it did mean in CC's time. Pincrete (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
It is my understanding that Italian means Italian. The chronology is trivially presented in the text. Wikipedia routinely and quite correctly guides and points users in geography or history to modern times, which is why we have, for instance, the battle of Thermopylae situated in Greece, although that country did not exist before 1828 or thereabouts. The status quo is fine. -The Gnome (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Battle of Thermopylae, Location Thermopylae, Greece (with link to Ancient Greece. Short description information from the article. Mikola22 (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
My point. -The Gnome (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Battle of Thermopylae links its location to Ancient Greece, which is about a civilisation and era. So, although it's a bit anomalous for a battle to take place in a civilisation, there is little room for misunderstanding the place or political background. Within the Thermopylae article, we are told that defending Thermopylae was "an alliance of Greek city-states led by Sparta". So clear, apt, linked terms used for historical entities involved in the battle.
What should 'Italian' link to? Because the note merely says: "Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity." So what did/does this word mean when applied to Columbus? Someone from a broad cultural and civilisational region? A member of an ethnic or linguistic group. How do I know? Pincrete (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Matteow101 A signature, please. Mikola22 (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@Mikola22 sorry about that. Matteow101 (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Either Genoese or from the Republic of Genoa. Convincing argument can be made for either, large numbers of sources refer to him as Genoese, and they are of much higher quality than those that refer to him as "Italian". I find "from the Republic of Genoa" to be entirely satisfactory as a synonym of "Genoese", so that would work as a compromise if others are unwilling to accept "Genoese". Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Neither & Simplify lead sentence - The issue of nationality here is not straightforward. Yes. He was Genoese, which is part of what modern day readers will all recognize as Italy, but the thing he's primarily notable for (i.e. voyaging across the Atlantic) was mainly a Spanish affair. At the moment, we seem to be trying to squeeze all this information into the lead sentence, which is too much information for one sentence. We should keep the lead sentence real simple (e.g. Christopher Columbus was an explorer and navigator who completed several voyages across the Atlantic ocean that opened the way for the widespread European exploration and colonization of the Americas.). The lede sentence should be as simple as possible, and explain plainly why the subject is notable. Unless nationality is a central aspect of notability, it can simply to be excluded. In the following sentence, we can explain more clearly, and directly, Columbus's nationality, and the nationality of the folks who backed his trip. NickCT (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Retain as is (summoned from WP:Dashboard). I think the EFN explains this sufficiently. Would "Genoese-born" be an acceptable middle ground? It's the solution we use for pages like Adolf Hitler, introduced as Austrian-born German. (and with that I fulfilled Godwin's Law) InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Retain as is - The status quo suffices. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion section

  • Mikola22, your RFC statement, as copied by the bot (which does not include the section head) does not actually state the question. You should also clarify what is meant by the sources speak differently, the word choice is unusual. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Latin equivalent of the term Italian
Given that part of the editors considers that information from the article (was an Italian[c] explorer and navigator from the Republic of Genoa) should remain as it is, this question should be clarified. In the note 'Italian' there is this information: the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity.
  • 1 Which sources prove this information?
  • 2 In which context this information is in some source that talks about Christopher Columbus?
  • 3 Is it some universal term or information that all historical figures in this case from Italy will be marked with in wikipedia?
I as the initiator of this Rfc ask if someone is Italian or Genovese explorer, and I support information based only on the sources that say so about him. With my question I as an editor the not support wording or information from the article ie from the note if an additional explanation maybe is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or WP:FRINGE. This clarification is important for all interested editors who may not know how it happened that this information is included in the article. @Fyunck(click), Jpgordon, Carlstak, The Gnome, Pincrete, and Strebe: Mikola22 (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • The Gnome you have to explain from where informations in the Italian note comes from. If this informations are inconsistent with the sources regarding Columbus or if it happens to violate wiki rules then the opinion which is allowed 'Retain as is' is not relevant because it includes the information from the note which is not a question in this Rfc question. This is a question for other Rfc (are you in favor that in the Italian note write this or that? etc). My question is specific and does not concern the note, especially if the information inside is against the rules of Wikipedia. And in that context I will ask the admin not to take such answers into account. It does not mean that the admin will agree to it, but I will request it and explain it. I love your humor in this situation and I have no problem with it. Mikola22 (talk) 09:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Greetings, Mikola22. It's obvious that you are passionate about the issue, which might be the reason, yet not the excuse, for your intense presence in this RfC and elsewhere. I'd suggest you leave well enough alone; in other words, you have made yourself clear explicitly and in great detail and perhaps it's better to let the RfC play out as RfC's are supposed to do. I have exhausted my arguments and will not part in the RfC anymore. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
The Gnome I'm just telling you that your opinion 'Retain as is' include and this information the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity. Your opinion is allowed, but my Rfc question doesn't concern this formulation. Unless it can be proven that such wording is part of the sources which mention Columbus in the Italian context, because such wording or fact is not part of my Rfc question. To translate, your answer is not relevant in that case, because maintaining the situation as it is means having information in the article that Columbus was Italian with an additional explanation which is possible WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or WP:FRINGE. I say this to you and others to know because there is a possibility that such answers will not be taken into account. So that it doesn't happen later, 'we didn't know'. Greeting. Mikola22 (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't doubt that "the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity". The Romans and the Greeks had names for most of the peoples/regions of Europe, but what they meant by 'Italian', I've no idea and am left to guess it meant a broad geographic or cultural and/or ethnic descriptor. What I question is why we would want to use a generic term, which in modern usage is misleading, when we could be more exact and more succinct simultaneously. Pincrete (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Pincrete, In addition to the fact that this information is not part of the sources which talk about Christopher Columbus. We do not know from which source this information is or in which context is in some source. Therefore, information itself at this moment and in context of Christopher Columbus is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE. Even if in some source exist this information, claim that "the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity" could refer to parts of today's France as well as parts of Slovenia and Croatia, so this could mean that the term also refers to modern people living in those areas or historical figures from those areas. And(since antiquity) it can also mean a smaller part of Italy which is not part of where Christopher Columbus is born. These are assumptions because we do not have sources that say which geographical context of ancient Italy is. Mikola22 (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Mikola22, you need to stop bludgeoning this page in your attempt to get the result you want by "contradicting every viewpoint that is different from [your] own, and making the same argument over and over, to different people." It's disruptive. Carlstak (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Sources say that Christopher Columbus is Italian or Genoese. And everyone has the right to decide which sources to respect. But the note contains information which is not in the sources. It is about the term "Italian" which is "used" since "antiquity". The term in this context is for whom, for what, where, in which geographical space, in which context? Where are the sources that talk about it? There are hundreds of sources in which Christopher Columbus is Italian and in the article we do not have a single historian's source in this sense, but we have some information in the note that does not exist in the sources. WP:VERIFY (verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source, All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports). Where is RS for information in this context? Mikola22 (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
If you looked at the history, you would know it was cited to Pliny and this ended up being dropped in previous editing. You have been informed of this on the talk page of User:ActivelyDisinterested who suggested that you wait until the Rfc was closed before bringing this up. I think you have trouble listening to other editors. That is your choice. Anyways, I think you are misunderstanding WP:synth, WP: bludgeon, and the meaning of "anachronistic". Lastly, I believe there is a rule against discussing articles outside of that articles talk page. Again, your choice, but I don't think this is the way to go about improving an article. Best Regards. A15730 (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I'll talk about it when the Rfc is done. But to cite Pliny (AD 23/24– AD 79) in the Christopher Columbus (1451–1506) article if someone can explain on my talk page what they have to do with each other? I assume that this is also primary information? In several years of editing I haven't encountered such a combination. I don't have experience with such editing, so I wouldn't get into trouble. I've never really seen a situation like this. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
The city to Pliny was added in response to the oft-repeated claim that the term "Italian" only existed after Garibaldi. Which is patent bullshit. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
It's original research which has been deleted at least once. Nobody is saying there was no such thing as "Italians" before Garibaldi. Rather that it was an ambiguous ethnic and geographical label, and to apply it to citizens of the many polities that roughly approximated the territory of modern Italy in the Middle Ages and early modern period is anachronistic. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible OR information

I started a discussion about information from the article: "Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity; most scholars believe Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa" Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Christopher_Columbus. I would ask all the editors who participated in putting this information in the article to help decide if this information is OR. I don't know anything about that information, nor have I found it anywhere, so I would ask for help. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. Enough already, ANI is the next step. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
This has also been cross posted to WP:FTN#Christopher Columbus. I suggest centralising the discussion here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Enough is enough. ANI next. Carlstak (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


  • Last thing I know about information: "Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity" is that it is based on the letter of Pliny the Elder((AD 23/24 – AD 79), Letters 9.23. [23] L To Maximus. [[1]] "He said that he was sitting by the side of a certain individual at the last Circensian games, and that, after they had had a long and learned talk on a variety of subjects, his acquaintance said to him: "Are you from Italy or the provinces?" Tacitus replied : "You know me quite well, and that from the books of mine you have read." "Then," said the man, "you are either Tacitus or Pliny."
The same information has been deleted from the article Dante_Alighieri ie Italian footnote Talk:Dante_Alighieri#Possible_fringe_and_OR_information_​ as possibly WP:OR. Mikola22 (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with the history of Italy. The situation at the time of Columbus is summarized in Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire)#Imperial fiefs in the modern period. While the city states were de facto independent, they were titularly part of the Kingdom of Italy, which the Holy Roman Empire continued to claim sovereignty over and which the city states or their citizens usually acknowledged some kind of deference to. There is no scholarly controversy over whether Columbus’s European contemporaries knew what “Italian” meant, that “Italy” at the time included Genoa, or whether Columbus was sometimes referred to as “Italian” by his contemporaries. Please consider what being a lone, loud voice on this topic means to others on Wikipedia. Strebe (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Strebe first WP:NOTSOURCE, second, here we're talking about information which is possible OR information. Given that you concluded in the RFC response that article situation should be kept as it is although you were aware of the fact that information contained in the article(footnote) is possibly OR, despite that you were for information which is OR. In that context it's a matter of decency to say whether information you supported is OR information or not? As for the rest, open a new topic and you can freely discuss it. I think that this is okay answer from a sneaky Venetian provocateur? Mikola22 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTSOURCE is not relevant: I didn’t propose the Wikipedia article section as a reference for the Wikipedia article. I offered it as a way for you to begin educating yourself as to why other editors have no interest in engaging you on this topic. In short, it’s because there is no scholarly debate about “Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity”. It’s simply an obvious fact that you can infer by learning Italian history. Strebe (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
This information is not a fact because such information does not exist in secondary sources. If it were a fact then in this and other articles it wouldn't be based on WP:PRIMARY Pliny the Elder and based on that source is OR. It is also not a fact in context of Columbus because it does not exist in any secondary source that talks about him. This is clearly visible on the talk page of Dante Alighieri where this information is labeled as OR and also on WP:NORN. Wanting to justify your own support of this information, you refer to some kind of historical fact. Although it was clearly presented to you on the RFC that this information is possible or OR and that it was not cited. At no time did you try to verify this information to see if it same OR or not or that you tried to find citation. Therefore, it is not editing according to the rules. "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. Content must be written from a neutral point of view (It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research".), Include citations " Mikola22 (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Your access to information is not what determines “fact”. Consider learning something instead of focusing on enforcing your interpretation of Wikipedia rules. The fact that Italians had an identity and name as Italians in Roman times is so well known among scholars that they don’t normally bother commenting on it directly. I have seen this phenomenon in many fields: What is common knowledge among scholars doesn’t get stated explicitly. See, for example, https://journals.openedition.org/mefra/12224:

It has been argued that the experiences of the Italians in the Mediterranean played an important role in the creation of an ‘Italian’ identity: through their shared experiences, Italians as a whole came to identify themselves with each other and with the geographical unit called Italia, in addition to their continuing ties to their home towns and/or peoples. Important insights into the Italian view of their identity can be gathered from Greek inscriptions regarding Italians, mostly from Delos. Two expressions often appear in these texts, Rhomaioi and Italikoi, in Latin Italici. The use of these terms is revealing with regard to the identity expressed by those who set up these inscriptions. I have discussed the meaning of these terms elsewhere, but the fact that it was possible for Italians to use the term Italikos shows that they saw Italy as a united whole. It is clear, then, that the term Italia indicated a united geographical whole from the third century onwards; the term Italikos/Italicus included both Roman citizens and Italians without citizenship. The Italians abroad thus acted as a group, in a way they had not previously done in Italy itself. The Italians’ overseas activities ensured that throughout the Mediterranean, Italians enjoyed a reputation as successful businessmen. These experiences overseas significantly affected the way in which the Italians perceived themselves. They were continuously addressed as a coherent group by Greeks, and used one blanket term to indicate themselves. This indicates that for Greeks and others from outside of Italy, it was difficult to see the difference between those with Roman citizenship and those without. For example, when Mithridates carried out his attack on the Italians and Romans in the East, he did not distinguish between Italians and Romans.79 And why should he, since Italians had gained great wealth from their association with Rome? Remarkably quickly the Italians had developed from conquered and exploited by the Romans to assistants in conquering and exploiting the rest of the Mediterranean.

Does this source directly state “Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity”? No. But the material in Antiquité journal article would be nonsensical otherwise. There is no end to scholarly material that discusses Italians (Italicus, pl. Italici) in Roman times. Strebe (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
We can let this thread die a merciful death; the OP has been blocked from this page. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Glory hallelujah. Carlstak (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of "brutality" are outdated.

Read Carol Delaney's book. Columbus never owned slaves himself. He ordered those under his command to treat the indigenous people with kindness, going so far as to execute men under his command who disobeyed his orders. 151.200.20.36 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a specific change you'd like to make to the article and a source to support it? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

@Pyrrho the Skipper: Since you reverted my edit, I'm starting this discussion to give you the chance to explain why "Italian" is more accurate/relevant that "Genoese". I did mention that the Britannica source also describes him as "Genoese", which in this instance refers to his "nationality". Also, per MOS:CONTEXTBIO, we don't mention the ethnicity in the lead unless it's relevant to the subject's notability (something that needs to be substantiated in the article's body). M.Bitton (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Since you want the change, maybe you could explain why "Genoese" is a better choice than "Italian"? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I already did, so please read it again and let me know if there is anything that isn't clear.
What is "Italian" meant to represent, his ethnicity or his nationality? M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I must have been looking at an older version of your comment. "Italian" is more common in the sources I see, and Genoa (since 17-whatever) is no longer an independent republic. We don't say Plato was an "Athenian philosopher," we call him Greek. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
What is "Italian" meant to represent, his ethnicity or his nationality? M.Bitton (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
It's meant to represent what the sources say, when referring to his nationality. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Nope, the sources that mention his nationality describe him as Genoese and the note in the article is clearly about his supposed ethnicity. M.Bitton (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
"Nation" is a tricky concept, historically. We generally say "Greek" and "Italian," despite them being more modern national distinctions. Since this debate comes up all the time on Wikipedia with various bios, I suggest you take this to WP:THIRDOPINION. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
It's not tricky if a) it's properly sourced and b) it makes sense. I'll await more input before deciding what to do next. M.Bitton (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Blatant sealioning here. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam many times in the past. Please see above section RfC: Should Columbus be described as an Italian or Genoese explorer in the introduction part? for one of the more recent epic discussions. Please leave that alone, everyone is thoroughly tired of this. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in the above RfC that addresses the issues that I raised (which I will summarize below):
  1. If "Italian" refers to his ethnicity, which it clearly does through the note, then the following questions need to be answered. 1) why is what MOS:CONTEXTBIO says about ethnicity in the lead being ignored? 2) why link to the Origin theories of Christopher Columbus in the early life section and then ignore what it states (Most scholars agree that Columbus was Genoese)?
  2. If "Italian" refers to his nationality, then the first thing I would expect is the note to disappear and then RS that mention his so-called "Italian nationality" be supplied so that they can be discussed.
I don't think anyone would question his Genoese nationality, though reliable sources can easily be supplied if necessary. M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Groan. Read the entire above-closed discussions and then read the archives. It has been ‘’extensively’’ discussed, the most recent go-around in the last 2-3 months, resulting in three separate RFCs being filed and WP:ANI getting involved. Also, per WP:BRD, if you have been reverted and a discussion is on the talk page, the appropriate action is to leave it ‘’status quo ante’’ not force your edit in by re-reverting. You have made three edits on the same spot, dangerously approaching WP:3RR, please self-revert. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
If the issues that I have raised have been ‘’extensively’’ discussed, then it shouldn't be that difficult for you to address them or at the very least, provide a link to the discussions that you're referring to. The tag is there to attract input from others. M.Bitton (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Exhaustion. The same arguments, time and again, over and over. We JUST had a series of RFCs on the issue, which were improper because it had been less than six months since the previous RFCs on the same subject. What keeps you from reading the walls of text on the subject? Tarl N. (discuss) 01:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Your comment doesn't address the issues that I have raised. M.Bitton (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Summary of items in previous discussions which seem to me relevant:
  • "Italian" is a term dating back to antiquity, contrary to claims it can only be applied since the 19th century.
  • There is no perfect answer. Italian is used as a general description. The current sentence "italian born in Genoa" serves fine.
  • Changing to Geneose would be roughly equivalent to saying J.S. Bach was a Eisenacher composer, not meaningful to current readers (he's listed as German for a reason).
  • Sources vary on whether to call him Italian or Genoese. Previous discussions have resulted in using Italian.
Tarl N. (discuss) 01:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
None of that comes even close to addressing the specific issues that I raised and summarized above. The fact that you keep describing them as an it suggests that you haven't even bothered to read them M.Bitton (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@Pyrrho the Skipper: which part of BRD gives you the right to remove the tag without addressing the issues? M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Since there is already a third opinion on this, and the Italian/Genoese label has been already debated thoroughly in the past (even if some finer points you raise were not discussed, though you should read through them all to be sure), then it's not really appropriate to tag it "disputed". You could start an RfC about those specific issues to bring more editors here, but insisting that the tag stays up while we discuss nationality vs ethnicity again and again is not how this should go. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Just for completeness, a list of RFCs on this topic in 2023:
  • 2023-Dec-04 RfC: Should information from the note behind Italian be removed or not from introduction part and the article? (above)
  • 2023-Oct-31 RfC: Should Columbus be described as an Italian or Genoese explorer in the introduction part? (above)
  • 2023-Oct-23 RfC: Are you in favor of changing information from the introduction part ? (archive 17)
  • 2023-Mar-31 RFC: on qualifier Italian in Christopher Columbus lead (archive 17, never closed, fallout from Pliny source discussion)
Yet another RFC strikes me as an unwise use of Wikipedia resources (us!). Tarl N. (discuss) 06:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Since Tarl N is yet to opine on the specific issues that have been raised, let alone provide a convincing argument, then their comments cannot be considered as a third opinion. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Third opinion: This matter is dead. There is nothing new here. You can invent endless shades of variation in the questions you ask, but the result would be the same: Removing “Italian” as a descriptor, which is something the editors of this page have decided repeatedly over the years not to do. We are not obliged to satisfy you, regardless of how many times you come back with new user names and new variations of the same questions. Strebe (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
1) The issues that I raised haven't been addressed (I can't stress that enough). 2) As someone who's been in involved in previous discussions about other things, your opinion (about something else) is neither a third opinion (that I never asked for) nor a relevant one.
We are not obliged to satisfy you we're all obliged to respect the policies and the guidelines.
Anyway, I'll await a proper comment that actually addresses them and if none is forthcoming, I will take this to the next stage. M.Bitton (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The term “nationality” never appears in the article, so I don’t know why you’re talking about that. The term hardly applies to European polities of that era. The term “ethnicity” never appears in the article, so I don’t know why you’re talking about that or asking about it in the context of MOS:CONTEXTBIO. Ethnicity and nationality are not mutually exclusive and neither are they exhaustive, so posing your questions as “Which is it?” sets up a straw man unrelated to the article content. The reasons why “Italian” is used in this context have been exhaustively examined and debated, and since reliable sources do use the term and the editors of this page have retained that use over massive challenges over many years, whatever spin you put on your attempt to dispute or change the use in the article amounts to WP:BLUDGEONING. As for pointing out that you did not ask for my opinion, let’s be clear: You are not the owner of this page, this conversation, or the article page, and therefore I do not need your permission to offer an opinion. Nobody needs your permission, and for you to imply that anyone does thereby implies to me some disturbing things about your mindset. Strebe (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Your reply confirms what I suspected from the start: you haven't read what I wrote and are clearly too eager to dismiss it (with a battleground attitude to boot). So while you don't need my permission to offer your opinion about something else, I most certainly don't need yours to disregard it as completely irrelevant to the raised concerns. M.Bitton (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I removed the "disputed" tag on the basis that it is for inaccurate information. The information given is not inaccurate. I added a citation from a recent reliable source which supports this. If I am understanding you properly, your issue is related to what you see as the proper application of MOS:CONTEXTBIO. This would seem to be an editorial dispute unrelated to the accuracy of the information presented. ~~ A15730 (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
You can't remove the tag while a discussion about it is ongoing. An editor tried it before you and was warned by an admin, so please leave it alone and participate in the discussion instead (see summary and a simple question right at the bottom of the section). M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there is a discussion here. There was a lot of discussion previously, and it's a shame that you missed it. First and foremost, the purpose of wikipedia is to summarize reliable sources. Literally hundreds of sources refer to him as Italian. Many others refer to him as Genoese. It seems to me that the current wording is a good way to capture both of these. The general reasoning given previously to derogate the wording is to cite MOS:CONTEXTBIO. I did not find that convincing on the basis, among others, that it is not as clear an application as some would believe. That's just my opinion and others certainly disagree, which is why there have been a number of RFC's on this topic.
So, what change do you want to see? Your initial edit was to change "Italian" to "Genoese". This was the question for an RFC conducted less than two months ago. It seems that you don't think the people who participated in the RFC were intelligent enough to come to the correct conclusion? In any event, I don't think you are going to get a consensus for that change in this "discussion" at this time. So, if you have some other pathway to take, that might be more worthy of your time. A15730 (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion (it's happening), so feel free to answer the questions that I asked, starting with the simple one (see bottom of this discussion).
So, what change do you want to see? something that makes sense and is inline with our policies and guidelines (it will become obvious once we work out what the label is meant to represent). M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
A discussion would imply an exchange in which somebody may change their position. I don't see that happening. With regards to your question, if you really want to parse and examine the historical accuracy and implications of stating, "Columbus was Italian", I'd suggest that you contact Professor Delaney since she's the one who wrote it in the work cited.
As far as a change, I see no need for it since I think the current wording makes sense and is inline with our (wikipedia's) policies and guidelines. A15730 (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to change your position. As for the cherry picked and irrelevant source that you added to the label (in the middle of a discussion about what it stands for), it describes Columbus as Genoese and "Genoese citizen". The Italian part is only mentioned in passing when talking about modern-day Pasta. M.Bitton (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Since some editors either refuse or can't read what I summarized above, I'll try a different approach, asking one simple question at a time:

What is the label "Italian" meant to represent, his ethnicity or his nationality? M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

False dichotomy. As has already been pointed out, and the term “nationality” hardly applies, as has already been pointed out. Strebe (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your baseless WP:OR (as already pointed out, RS about his Genoese nationality are easily found). Please answer the simple question. M.Bitton (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Where’s your reference? Columbus’s citizenship was Genoan. That’s not the same thing as nationality. Maybe show your nationality references before you go making accusations of WP:OR — which doesn’t apply to talk page discussions anyway. You are the one making up things both in your false dichotomies and in claiming Columbus’s “nationality” was Genoan. Citizenship vs nationality in the modern sense; The virtual absence of national citizenship in medieval Europe along with what citizenship implied in Renaissance Italy; Civitas, republic, or commonwealth, which could be a region, kingdom, or the Church — but no “nation” anywhere to be seen; Nationality as a modern construction; On how modern discussions of premodern ethnicity and nationality are polluted by modern notions of nationality and modern academic scholarship; On, for example, the developing nationality of Germany (which has strong parallels to Italy — not any of its city states) in the early modern period; The nation state was nonexistent during the greater part of history, including early modern Europe; and so on ad nauseam. Strebe (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
We'll talk about the references once we establish what the label is about. I made this quite clear in the summary (something you would have known if you read it).
Since you mentioned citizenship, I will add it as another option to the previous question: what is the "Italian" label about, nationality, citizenship or ethnicity? M.Bitton (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@M.Bitton I know what it's like to be the only editor raising what seems is a logically valid argument and feeling gaslit, but you have to remember that this a collaborative project, and once it's clear that there is no support for your position, it's time to drop it. That doesn't mean there aren't other avenues, such as RfC, noticeboards, or Village Pump that you can go to to address a valid concern or suggest a change overall policy about something. It just means that your edit is not supported by the community at this time and you need to take it elsewhere and not edit war. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Support for what and drop what? M.Bitton (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Calling into question the "Italian" label. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
That tells me that you haven't read the very simple question that I asked. Please read it again and try to answer it. M.Bitton (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you saying you're not calling the "Italian" label into question? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you saying that you either can't or don't want to answer the question? M.Bitton (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you saying you can't/don't want to answer mine? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not playing this silly game. The question is there and it will be repeated however many times it takes until it gets answered. M.Bitton (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm looking through the entire conversation and I see a lot of responses to your questions, and you seem to want to ignore all of those responses, which tells me you're bludgeoning the conversation because you WP:DONTLIKEIT. It looks like the only outcome you will accept is "Genoese" or a disputed tag, and are not interested in hearing the counterarguments from multiple other editors. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Responses that don't address the issue are irrelevant and those that are not based on policy carry no weight whatsoever. Incidentally, one of them is yours: you claimed that the label is meant to represent what the sources say, when referring to his nationality.. Can you substantiate that? M.Bitton (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
No, I used "nationality" loosely. Now, will you answer one question of mine? What is your response to this comment: the purpose of wikipedia is to summarize reliable sources. Literally hundreds of sources refer to him as Italian. Many others refer to him as Genoese. It seems to me that the current wording is a good way to capture both of these. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Why use "nationality" at all and why make such a claim if you don't have the answer? Couldn't you just say I have no idea and then do what I'm trying to do here (work out what it stands for)? M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I answered a question of yours. Now please answer my question. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I already did (work out what it stands for). Now, I'm really questioning whether you're reading my comments. M.Bitton (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I guess the "disputed" tag will just have to stay there until someone else eventually removes it. See you around. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Until the issue is resolved. M.Bitton (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps M.Bitton doesn’t understand that their question amounts to a request for people’s opinions that have no relevance to the article. It doesn’t matter what we think reliable sources mean when they use the “Italian” label. If the sources explain why, then fine, M.Bitton can go look that up themselves. It suffices for the purposes of the article that reliable sources say so and that the editors of the article accept that. The meaning of the “disputed” template is that the editor disputes that reliable sources actually say what is claimed. That is a very different matter than what M.Bitton appears to be using it for, and so the template insertion is wrong. Strebe (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand the request or maybe you don't want to, either way, it doesn't make any difference because you made it clear from the start that you're only interested in sweeping it under the carpet. As for the meaning of the template, it's there to attract the attention of those who are here to build an encyclopedia, so we can discuss the exact meaning of the ambiguous word that is defended by those who don't even know what it stands for. In other words, you are wrong about what its use.
For those who missed it, here's the simple question:
What is the ambiguous label "Italian" meant to represent: his ethnicity, his citizenship or his nationality? M.Bitton (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the last user that tried to remove the tag was told by an admin, Daniel Case, that they should not have removed the tag and that their editing was problematic. So, I'm not sure what to do. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    I really don't understand. How can you possibly find the tag more problematic than the ambiguous label? How do you expect the average reader to understand a label when the editors can't answer a simple question about it stands for? Doesn't that bother you? M.Bitton (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Template:Disputed inline: This inline template helps highlight a particular disputed statement or alleged fact… This is particularly helpful when there are reliable sources supporting two or more different claims. The claims are not “different”, incompatible, mutually exclusive, or any other incoherency. That’s a straw man, again a false dichotomy, one that has been litigated repeatedly to no avail. The term “Italian” isn’t defended by those who don't even know what it stands for; it’s disputed by you. The hatnote makes one of its meanings clear. Strebe (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The hatnote makes one of its meanings clear here's what the note says: "Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity; most scholars believe Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa."
Please tell me, what is this note (meant to justify the Italian label) about: his nationality, his citizenship or his ethnicity? This is a very simple question, especially for someone who's adamant that the meaning of the note is clear. M.Bitton (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Please tell me, what is this note (meant to justify the Italian label) about: his nationality, his citizenship or his ethnicity? You are falsely constraining the choices, which I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring. It’s no wonder you’re not getting “an answer”.
  • It’s not his citizenship. As far as I recall, in the entire history of this poor horse beaten to hamburger, no one has (even incorrectly) suggested his citizenship was Italian, or anything other than Genoese. That’s true in this conversation as well. Hence, I am very confused about why you keep bringing it up.
  • It certainly could correctly refer to his ethnicity, but as is utterly plain in the hatnote, that’s not what it’s referring to.
  • The question of nationality is not simple, and so no, you can’t get a simple answer to a question that isn’t simple. Genoa was hardly ever “independent” during Columbus’s lifetime. It was subjugated to the Duke of Milan for a time and, for much of Columbus’s life, to France. However, both of those polities, as well as Genoa, were deferential to the Holy Roman Empire, which designated all of northern and central Italy the “ Kingdom if Italy”. Hence, his nationality could be Italian, depending on what you mean by your question that is absolutely not simple. But, as is utterly plain in the hatnote, that’s not what it’s referring to.
  • As is utterly plain in the hatnote, “Italian” is a term used since antiquity to refer to someone from the Italian peninsula. That is its usage in this context: not citizenship, not nationality, not ethnicity. Strebe (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
It’s not his citizenship great. The fact that he was a Genoese citizen is the only statement (which also happens to be clear) that everyone agrees with.
It certainly could correctly refer to his ethnicity does it or does it not refer to his ethnicity? Remember, the issue here is working out what the ambiguous word stands for.
his nationality could be Italian again, does it or does it not refer to his nationality? Also, can you back that up with a source?
“Italian” is a term used since antiquity to refer to someone from the Italian peninsula to refer to what exactly: someone's nationality, citizenship or ethnicity? M.Bitton (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
All our sources describe him both as Italian and as Genoese. "Italian from the Republic of Genoa" is the best solution.Barjimoa (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
We're trying to determine what the ambiguous word "Italian" (as used in the lead sentence) stands for. Please read the above discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Italian refers to someone belonging to the Italian people (or "Italian nation"). What's ambiguous about it? Barjimoa (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
That's as ambiguous as Hispanic, a term that we don't use when we have alternatives that are accurate and precise. The questions (that you're welcome to answer) should determine what it stands for. M.Bitton (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
No, that's not "ambiguous as Hispanic", it's as clear as Spanish, German, Greek etc. The question you are posing is is a false dichotomy as Strebe and Pyrrho the Skipper have also already pointed out; "Italian" is a general description referring to the people/nation to which he belonged (even tho' the modern concept of nationality, meaning citizenship of a nation-state, was not a thing yet) while Genoese refers to the citizenship of the specific Italian state to which he belonged. Per our sources, we can call him alternatevely Italian or Genoese (in my opinion the current solution is the best because both definitions are used as he is called "Italian from the Republic Genoa") but it is certainly not dubious nor ambiguous that he can be described as he currently is.Barjimoa (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
It is ambiguous because "Italian" could refer to a number of things, including citizenship, nationality and ethnicity. We already established that it cannot refer to the Italian citizenship, so all we have to do now is work out whether it applies to the other two.
Do you think that the word "Italian" (including the note) refers to his ethnicity?
Some editors suggested that it refers/could refer to his nationality. Do you agree with them? M.Bitton (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I already said I agree with those who said the current description is not dubious and your question is a false dichotomy. I can also agree with those saying Italian refers to his nationality in so far as "Italian" at the time meant someone belonging to the Italian nation. "Nationality" in that sense, the legalistic modern-day English meaning of "nationality" is anachronistic for the age of Columbus. This is irrelevant, however. What's relevant is that "Italian navigator from the Republic of Genoa" is a perfectly fine way to define this guy.Barjimoa (talk)
The ambiguous term may be fine for you, but it's certainly isn't for me. Can we cross the nationality from the list? If the answer is yes (assuming the others agree too), all we'll have left is the ethnicity and if the answer is no, please explain why (based on what you said about the nationality). M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
No, I would not cross it from the list. I have made my point above. Besides, you are insisting on the false dichotomy that if it's not his nationality then we are only left with the proposition that it's his ethnicity, which I and the others have rejected multiple times. "Italian" is an adjective that defines the people and region to which he and his state belong. Like we call Plato "Greek" because he was Athenian, we call Columbus "Italian" because he was Genoese. We do it for every ancient Greek, for every German, for every Italian of the Renaissance period etc etc, not just for Columbus. Everything seems very clear, not "for me" but per our sources and all the debates we have had on this topic. Barjimoa (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
You made no point whatsoever. In fact, by refusing to narrow down what the term could possible stand for, you are essentially stating that the term is ambiguous. Also, why compare him to Plato when we have Marco Polo who is rightly and succinctly described as Venetian? M.Bitton (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I did. You are pretending to not read what I and others have written to you. Italian means "belonging to the Italian nation". Does this even need to be specified? Marco Polo was described as an Italian just like Columbus until a few months ago when an editor removed it because he proposed a wrong theory (as he misread a source) that he was from Croatia. For me it's best to return to describe Marco Polo as an "Italian from the Republic of Venice" as well. In any case, most other famous figures of the Italian renaissance period on wikipedia are described as Italians. Again, "Italian" is evidently not an ambiguous term. It's pretty obvious what it means. Barjimoa (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
All I can say to that is that you refused to answer a simple question. I don't really why and I don't feel like guessing. Either way, the question is still there for those who are interested in narrowing down the meaning of an ambiguous word. Don't worry about the other figures for now, we'll get to them in due time. M.Bitton (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
This is starting to feel like a personal battle of yours. It's been more than week, we have reiterated a previous long-standing consensus and are 4 vs 1. Time to move on.Barjimoa (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
You're free to move on, nobody's stopping you. M.Bitton (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@Pyrrho the Skipper: why are you deliberately removing the tag despite, knowing full well that you're not supposed to do that while a discussion is ongoing? M.Bitton (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm going to have to take this to the admins. proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
That's your prerogative. M.Bitton (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@Barjimoa: you are not supposed to remove a tag that is meant to attract input from editors while a discussion is ongoing. Your responses so far have failed to address the raised issues, let alone solve them. M.Bitton (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: I thought you said you agreed to move on. Also, 4 of us have addressed the issue, you do not like the answers we have given but it's not like to overcome your objection we have to convince you personally. Barjimoa (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I never said such a thing, so please don't attribute claims to me again. Discussing the issues is much cheaper than having multiple RfCs. M.Bitton (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I thought this was a green light to move on: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1202436180. But I see it's not the case. Anyway, the only reason your tag has not been removed yet is because you are reverting other users who have debated this and agreed on something...so don't act like we are trying to forcedully remove it without discussing it, there has been a lot of discussion.Barjimoa (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
No idea why you thought that. Anyway, we are discussing it, or at least, I'm trying to do so. M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
{od}Discussing the issues is much cheaper than having multiple RfCs. It turns out that no, it hasn’t been, because this hasn’t been a discussion. It has been WP:BLUDGEONING by you who haven’t been willing to engage what people are saying when what they’re saying isn’t what you want to hear. We're trying to determine what the ambiguous word "Italian" (as used in the lead sentence) stands for. No, “we” are not. No one is trying to do this but you, and you would succeed if you accepted what everyone has been saying: You have been constraining the answers you are willing to accept to a list of answers that are not correct, and you reject the plain meaning given in the hatnote by not accepting the plain meaning of the hatnote: Italian refers to someone from the Italian peninsula. Instead, you continue to repetitively ask whether that refers to citizenship, ethnicity, or nationality, and continue to claim that a word referring to someone from a particular locale is somehow “ambiguous”. It isn’t. Strebe (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
It is irrelevant to the truth the "Italian" state. It has now been 10P0% proven by Dr. Manuel Rosa that the discoverer was not the Genoese wool weaver!
https://www.academia.edu/108558597/CRISTOFORO_COLOMBO_versus_CRIST%C3%93BAL_COL%C3%93N_by_Manuel_Rosa
Even Professor João Paulo Oliveira e Costa, the top historian in Portugal, now agrees with Dr. Rosa writing in his latest book, "No estudo recente de Manuel Rosa, que, respeitando escrupulosamente as fontes, deixa clara a impossibilidade de Colón ter nascido no seio de uma família de tecelões genoveses.”[1]
[1] CRISTOFORO COLOMBO versus CRISTÓBAL COLÓN - Cristoforo Colombo, the weaver from Genoa, was not Don Crsitóbal Colón, the navigator from Ibéria (Universidade dos Açores, 2023) page 402.
The world was fooled for 500 years by the court of Portugal into accepting a lie with the help of the Italian fraudsters who created fake documents in 1892 to convince the world that their weaver was the Captain General of four fleets, Admiral, Governor, and Viceroy of the New World!!!
The history has changed. 99.32.56.226 (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Too many references

@User:Stormbird, this edit’s citations proliferate beyond need. The content of the edit only requires one. Please pick the most apt. Also, it’s bad form to have a single sentence as a paragraph. This paragraph could be merged with the previous. Strebe (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Pear-shaped

This series of edits seems to me to be misleading. I think the article spends too much space on this topic. Columbus’s belief about the shape of the earth, and how he arrived at it, has nothing to do with the actual shape of the earth, and yet the article now hints that Columbus might have been onto something. He wasn’t. The “pearness” he imagined was exaggerated by thousands of times and justified by reasons unrelated to the modern understanding. The fact that Polaris had larger displacement from the celestial pole then, which the article now implies as an explanation for how Columbus arrived at his conclusion is also suspect: Columbus knew about the diurnal motion of Polaris and had to correct for the “circle described by the pole star about the pole”.[1] Overall, the section now reads to me as a synthesis that tries to make sense of Columbus’s conception, but that is supposed to be the job of sources. Not appropriate. Strebe (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The current wording doesn't imply that he observed anything of note. Feel free to improve on this, but please be careful about changing the meaning of complex details. Columbus falsely thinking Polaris had varying diurnal motion is a sourced fact; the declination was measured at various times throughout the night, and wasn't seen at a fixed 10°. You probably didn't introduce that error to the article but please be mindful. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Columbus, Ferdinand (1960). The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus by His Son Fredinand. Translated by Keen, Benjamin. London: Folio Society. p. 74.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Columbus/Archive_18&oldid=1250978994"