Talk:Christopher Columbus

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christopher Columbus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Core

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Central America

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Spain Top‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Italy Mid‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Middle Ages High‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 15, 2004, August 3, 2004, January 4, 2005, March 15, 2005, January 4, 2006, October 12, 2006, and October 12, 2007.

:::October 2006 Peer Review

League of Copyeditors, January 2007 copyedited

Why no mention of Columbus's sister in the article?

The article mentions his brothers: Bartolomeo, Giovanni Pellegrino, and Giacomo. But why no mention of his sister, Bianchinetta? She should be mentioned in the article. Shouldn't she? jpgordon, can you tell us? Cheers, ducky! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC) o you have any proof to back that story up? (Proof, please. Not hearsay and theories!) Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, the proof is that the guy was never called Columbus in any document. You show me 1 single document where he is called COLUMBUS and I will shut up. However I can show you tons of documents where he is called COLON including 3 letters from the Pope in 1493 written in Latin and yet the named does not appear as the Latin COLUMBUS but COLON which is Latin for the Greek Kólon. Furthermore there is a letter dated 1488 from Portugal's King John II where the guy is called COLON and not COLUMBUS. So unless you can show proof that the guy was known in his day to be called Columbus I suggest we stick to the facts and call him by his name COLON.

Cabot

I have now twice remove the sentence "John Cabot is also believed to have reached North America (Newfoundland) before Columbus" from the introduction. I have done this for two reasons: 1) Columbus never reached North America, so the statement doesn't make logical sense. 2) The information immediately before where this sentence was placed relates to verified European expeditions to the Americas prior to Columbus, a category that does not include Cabot, at least in mainstream historical thinking. Hopefully this is clear. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly clear, I was careless and not rewording - Morison phrased it correctly in fact as I said on your talk page. Is it entirely irrelevant to the article do you think? Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. As far as adding Cabot's travels to North America to the article, I don't see exactly where that would go, but if you can find a place, it seems like it could be a fine addition. ClovisPt (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about this talk page

For the last month, this talk page has been a complicated mess because of people (or maybe one person) continually modifying their comments, making the discussion real hard to follow. I'm quite tempted just to archive the whole thing up until the last section or two. Would anybody object if this quite inappropriate noise was archived? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding the page so much more interesting and informative with people updating their comments. There's nothing wrong with adding new information to make the page more informative. Now, is there? However, I wish some of the editors weren't so snide. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll be reverting any further edits you make on this page that either change already answered comments or are otherwise not in keeping with our talk page guidelines. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calgo, this page is a mess, one of the worst I watch (and I watch over a thousand pages). You are modifying comments made weeks ago without any indication of what you've done, including modifications of comments made after you've had a reply. Please read WP:TALK. You and others are using this page to carry out a debate and that is emphatically not acceptable, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article". The "Probably Colombus was a Spaniard" section, where you've been changing your edits, has indented comments without signatures.

And that arugment is WP:OR, we should simply be using the term (Italy or whatever) used by historians, not arguing about whether it was Italy. You also seem to be editing not logged in, and I'm pretty sure "simultaneously catty and vapid!" is your edit - and it's clearly a personal attack.

Worst of all, except for one edit to Peter Lupus, all your edits are on this page, none to this article. It's time for you to stop talking and start editing the article. I'm sure you have something to contribute there (seriously). As for the Peter Lupus edit, I'm reverting it. See your talk page for an explanation.

Yes, let's archive the page. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, Be fair! I was personally attacked, beforehand, by one of your own staffers (check the archives) by being asked "If you want to get down in the weeds...". I didn't appreciate this licentious attack, I assure you! The same staffer accussed me of "ignorance". Not a very friendly way to be on a website which is meant to promote knowledge! Much too hostile and aggressive! At any rate, you suggested that I start editing the article, itself. How is one to edit or contribute to the article, itself, when it is semi-protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 13:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have no staffers, I've said on your talk page that 'get in the weeds' (he didn't say 'down' I believe) is definitely not an insult. You can make suggestions here as to things you'd like changed/added, or start editing other articles and after a while you'll find you can edit this one. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, By staffers, I meant editors (or, whatever it is you people do here.) I didn't say that the "weeds" thing was an insult. I said it was an attack. It does have a licentious tone to it and is an extremely disagreeable sounding thing to say. (Not at all gentrified.) Anyway, I've edited articles in the past, how are users to know as to when they're able to start editing semi-protected articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are an editor/staffer then. And it definitely was not an attack. You can edit semi-protected articles, IPs can't. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

he was going after india not east indies

i know its kind of the same thing but to be fair he wanted to go to india east indies? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]