Christopher Columbus was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 15, 2004, August 3, 2004, January 4, 2005, March 15, 2005, January 4, 2006, October 12, 2006, October 12, 2007, October 12, 2011, October 12, 2013, October 12, 2022, and September 6, 2024.
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 within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean
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
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal 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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal
Find correct name
The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.
The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles 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.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
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.
I have corrected the introduction because there is an anachronism in confusing the geographical location with the historical figure. Columbus never wrote or spoke in Italian. It is correct to say that ancient Genoa is part of present-day Italy, but it is not the same to say that Columbus was Italian. It is similar to saying that Cleopatra spoke Arabic or was part of the current Egyptian state simply because she was from Ancient Egypt. She was born in Alexandria (today Egypt). I am correcting this anachronism in the introduction Pipo1955 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Search the talk archives for "Italian", and you will find the reams of discussion establishing consensus for the present wording. Please engage with that before making future edits or proposals. Remsense ‥ 论21:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. In this discussion, the issue is not whether the majority of historians believe that Columbus was born in Genoa, on the Italian peninsula, but rather how this information is presented in the Wikipedia introduction, which is anachronistic and erroneous because Columbus was not Italian by nationality. Simplifying in the article that he was Italian because he was born on the Italian peninsula, or because users might better understand it that way, has not been justified. There is abundant literature stating that Columbus never spoke or wrote in Italian. Genoese, which did not have a written form, was very similar to spoken Latin. While Italian originates from the Florentine language. I believe that this historical figure should not be treated differently from other historical figures. No one says that Cleopatra spoke Arabic or had the nationality of the Egyptian state, as is done with Columbus, claiming he was Italian Pipo1955 (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense In a bold display of audacity, a user presented original research that served as the argument to claim that 90% of encyclopedias stated he was Italian. How could original research be accepted as evidence? Wikipedia:No original research
One of the main encyclopedias does not state this either:
Not going to engage with this until you engage with the talk page history, not just tendentiously cherrypicking from it because you would like to get your way. Remsense ‥ 论01:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link you point to lists him as "Italian Explorer", so this statement appears to be incorrect. Beyond that, how do you determine that the reason they list him as "Italian" is simply because of the fact that Genoa is now contained within the present day state of Italy? That would seem to be concluding something which is not there. If you think it is an obvious conclusion, however, add the Britannica reference as a citation (as I think it once was) and readers can decide for themselves. A15730 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The designation “Italian” was not agreed on due to the language Columbus spoke; that is a red herring. It’s doubly a red herring because Ligurian is generally considered to be a dialect, not a distinct language, of the Gallo–Italian umbrella language. Quibbling over language vs dialect, when there is no clear distinction, isn’t going to help readers understand anything. Strebe (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Strebe Then, please explain the reasoning behind claiming that Columbus is "Italian" if he is not, just because he is from the "Italian Peninsula"? Pipo1955 (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that Columbus is not Italian in the sense we understand today, as Italians, but because he is from the Italian Peninsula. I am simply suggesting that this needs to be clarified in the introduction, as the term "Italian" is being used in a geographical sense (link). Or is there another reason for his identity? If so, it should be clearly stated. Christopher Columbus neither spoke nor ever wrote in Italian. Pipo1955 (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem lies with the footnote, as the reference does not support it. Britannica uses "Genoa [Italy]", so who exactly claims that "Italian" is the "Latin equivalent"?
"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 Genoa."
There is an inconsistency between the reference and the claim made in the footnote, as the reference does not support the statement. Pipo1955 (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent with this consensus, it should be noted that the term "Italic" in English is less ambiguous than "Italian" and more accurately reflects that Columbus had origins in the Italian Peninsula, which is the geographical meaning of the term in Latin. This contrasts with the modern national sense of "Italian", which is the primary contemporary usage. My point is straightforward: the consensus pertains to the geographical meaning, and this should be clearly reflected in the text, either through the use of the term "Italic" or a hyperlink to Italian peninsulaPipo1955 (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other alternative, which follows this same consensus, is even clearer, as it places the geographical entity of Genoa within the geographical context of the Italian Peninsula: "the Republic of Genoa a former Italian State". This issue of attributing the geographical identity of the Italic Peninsula, not to another geographical entity like Genoa, but to a human person such as Christopher Columbus, is what causes this deviation from the logical use of language and creates confusion in the text. Pipo1955 (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Columbus may have been a dick, but he was not a peninsula
Does this edit linking “Italian” to “Italian peninsula” make sense? Wouldn’t the proper link be Italians? There it explains that people from the Italian geographical regions, 'including Ligurians', are Italians. Strebe (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which goes for the existing link. Do you have a better argument? And if a reliable source states that Ligurians are Italians, would you accept that without further debate? And how does it make sense to link to a geography as a description of a person, particularly when there is already a link to people who are from that geography? Strebe (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of links, I think "Italians" makes the most sense, then "Italy (geographical region)", and then "Italian peninsula". The explanation that Ligurians are Italians is of less importance in my mind than showing that Italian explorers such as Columbus, Cabot, Vespucci, etc. were linked by common traits despite being from different republics. A15730 (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Columbus Was Not Ethnically "Italian":
1) DNA Evidence Suggests Sephardic Jewish Ancestry
-Recent genetic studies on individuals from Columbus lineage indicate a high probability of Sephardic Jewish descent.
2) Linguistic and Cultural Indicators
-Columbus wrote his public and private correspondence in Spanish, never in Italian. No one says that Columbus used the Italian language (which originates from Florence). It is only stated that he spoke Spanish with a foreign accent.
3) Anachronism of Calling Him "Italian"
-Italy did not exist as a unified nation during Columbus time; Genoa remained an independent republic until the 19th century.
-In the 15th century, ethnic identity was based on local or religious affiliations rather than modern national concepts.
Although the most widely accepted theory is that he was born in Genoa, his genetic and cultural background aligns with Sephardic Jews. Calling him "Italian" in an ethnic sense is misleading. --Pipo1955 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I made my edit 3 days ago, I had never thought to look at this talk page, but looked only at the article's history. I simply saw what I perceived to be an error and fixed it. It had never occurred to me that there was a discussion in progress. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is not what you claim, but rather that Columbus was from Genoa and that Genoa is on the Italian Peninsula. The consensus is to keep the word "Italian" and make this clarification with a link to "Italian Peninsula". This is the consensus. About what you say:
What is considered "insufficient", and by what criteria?
It is you who must clarify in a positive sense why you claim that Columbus was ethnically Italian.
Difference between ethnic group and geographical origin
The most common assumption is that Christopher Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa. The correct statement would be that he was Genoese, referring to his geographical origin on the Italic Peninsula, but his political, genetic, and cultural identity was not Italian in the modern sense of an ethnic group.
Italy did not exist in Columbus time. Italy as a unified nation did not form until 1861. Therefore, calling him “Italian” in the modern sense is anachronistic.
The claim that “Columbus was Italian” is historically inaccurate, and the argument that “consensus has decided it” is not a valid refutation without further explanation. --Pipo1955 (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already reviewed the Talk page archives and I am aware that this topic has been addressed before. However, as reflected in this very page, there is already a consensus clarifying this point. If you believe there is information in the archives that contradicts this consensus, I would appreciate it if you could point to the specific section Pipo1955 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLUDGEON. YOu have not achieved consensus, you have simply declared yourself right and proceeded to ram your change in. If you disagree with the reversion, please see WP:DR for methods to resolve disputes. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should apply to yourself what you preach. See Talk:Christopher_Columbus#Columbus_never_spoke_or_wrote_in_Italian. The link [Italians|Italian] is a new addition; it did not exist previously. So if you are defending a position, explain it. It is you who must clarify in a positive sense why you claim that Columbus was ethnically Italian.--Pipo1955 (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The edition before the changes did not include a link. Restoring it [1]. The claim that Columbus was Italian must be supported with reliable references. Given the historical debate surrounding his origins, it is essential to cite primary sources or academic research that explicitly support this assertion. Without proper citations, this statement remains speculative and does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability Pipo1955 (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has been debated before at intensely humorous length. Per MOS:LEADCITE there's no need to re-cite things in the lead that can be found in the body. Your debate would need to find success there before altering the consensus-based lead. Good luck, UpdateNerd (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this topic has been debated before. However, my concern is not about restating citations in the lead, but about the accuracy of the claim itself. The lead states that Columbus was Italian, yet the body of the article does not provide a direct citation supporting this specific nationality.
Per WP:V and WP:NPOV, significant claims—especially those subject to historical debate—should be explicitly backed by sources. The article does not contain a direct source stating that Columbus was Italian.
Could you point to a specific reference in the body that explicitly supports the use of Italian in the lead? If no such reference exists, then per WP:V, this claim should be adjusted to reflect what the sources actually state Pipo1955 (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taviani, Morison and Fernandez Armesto are used as sources here and they are clear in stating that he was an Italian from Genoa and that all these theories on Columbus' origins outside of the consensus are not to be followed. Barjimoa (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BURDEN, a verifiable claim must be explicitly supported by a reliable source. The lead states that Columbus was Italians, yet no citation in the body explicitly states this.
Could you provide the exact quoted text from the cited source that explicitly supports this claim? If no such quote exists, the statement should be reconsidered. Pipo1955 (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is surprising that for such an iconic historical figure, there is no single reliable source explicitly making this claim and explaining it in detail. Instead, the sources refer to Genoa, with no mention of Italy, the Italian nation, or the modern state.
Per WP:V (Verifiability) and WP:NPOV (Neutral point of view), significant historical claims should be explicitly backed by reliable sources. If no source states that Columbus was Italians, this claim should be reconsidered or revised to reflect what is actually stated in the sources.
Could anyone provide a specific reference from a scholarly source that directly supports the use of Italians in the lead? If such a source cannot be found, the wording should align with what is verifiable Pipo1955 (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources define him both as Genoese and Italian. "Genoese" and "Italian of Genoa" are interchangeable solutions since Genoa is in Italy, the wording "Italian from the Genoese Republic" was agreed upon to cover both and we agreed it was fine in many discussions. The other hypotheses are generally rejected, to quote Fernandez Armesto: the Catalan, French, Galician, Greek, Ibizan, Jewish, Majorcan, Scottish, and other Columbuses concocted by historical fantasists are agenda-driven creations, usually inspired by a desire to arrogate a supposed or confected hero to the cause of a particular nation or historic community.Barjimoa (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "Genoese" and "Italian of Genoa" are interchangeable is historically inaccurate. During Columbus time, Italy did not exist as a unified nation-state; Genoa was an independent republic with no political or national connection to an "Italy" or "Italians" identity as understood today
Per WP:V (Verifiability) and WP:OR (No Original Research), Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources explicitly state, not on interpretations made in discussion pages. Could you provide a direct quote from an academic source that explicitly defines Columbus as "Italian from the Genoese Republic"? If no such explicit source exists, then this phrasing constitutes unsourced synthesis WP:SYNTH and should be reconsidered.
Consensus does not override verifiability. If this was "agreed upon" in past discussions but is not explicitly stated in reliable sources, then it should be reviewed under WP:V and WP:NPOV to reflect what the sources actually say Pipo1955 (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I and the others already answered you. The description is fine and is built on verified and accurate sources; we discussed this here, on other pages and on noticeboards. The fact that Italy was not a nation-state does not mean it did not exist as a concept. This is well-established in historiography. Our discussions simply aknowledged it. Btw in these discussions I was personally neutral between "Genoese", "Italian" or "Italian from Genoa" etc. Academics don't clash about which one to use, it's basically a non-issue for scholars, because already in 15th and 16th century sources these descriptions for Columbus co-exist. Barjimoa (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not override verifiability (WP:V). The lead states that Columbus was Italians, but I still do not see a direct quote from a reliable source explicitly defining him as Italians.
While the concept of "Italy" as a cultural or geographic region may have existed, that does not justify using the term Italians in a historical context where it had no political meaning. Per WP:NOR (No Original Research), Wikipedia cannot engage in historical reinterpretation by applying modern national identities retrospectively.
If the consensus is truly built on verified sources, then please provide the exact quoted text from an academic reference stating Columbus was "Italian from the Genoese Republic". If no such quote exists, then the phrasing should be reconsidered to align with what sources explicitly state Pipo1955 (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our sources decribe him as "Italian", they describe him as an "explorer", they describe his as a "navigator" and they describe him as being "from Genoa". Our intro correctly says "Columbus was an Italian explorer and navigator from Genoa". This is definetely not what an OR is, this is a correct description based on our sources. Barjimoa (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether sources describe Columbus as an explorer, navigator, or from Genoa those are undisputed facts. The problem is the specific claim that Columbus was Italians.
Per WP:V (Verifiability) and WP:NOR (No Original Research), Wikipedia must reflect what sources explicitly state, not what editors combine based on interpretations. If reliable sources describe Columbus as "Genovese" and also refer to him in a broader Italian cultural context, that does not automatically justify rewriting it as "Italian explorer and navigator from Genoa". That is synthesis (WP:SYNTH), which is not allowed under Wikipedia’s policies.
If this is a "fine description" as you claim, then please provide a direct quote from a reliable academic source explicitly defining Columbus as "Italian from the Republic of Genoa." If no such citation exists, then per WP:V and WP:NPOV, this wording should be reconsidered to align with what sources actually state. --Pipo1955 (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the citations describe him as an explorer, as a navigator, and as from Genoa, they also describe him as an Italian. So "Italian explorer and navigator from Genoa" is an excellent description based on our sources and backed by a consensus. You seem to think it's OR and POV just because you can't find a verbatim quote for the sentence, but that's not what an OR or POV is. Barjimoa (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not about requiring a verbatim quote for every phrase, but about ensuring that Wikipedia follows WP:V (Verifiability) and WP:NOR (No Original Research) by reflecting what sources explicitly state rather than synthesizing claims.
Describing Columbus as an explorer or navigator is not disputed because sources explicitly refer to him as such. However, the term Italians is different because it implies a national identity that did not exist in his time. You claim that sources "describe him as Italian", but where is the exact reference that directly states this, rather than implying it through modern interpretation?
If such a source exists, please provide the exact citation where Columbus is explicitly called "Italian from the Republic of Genoa". Otherwise, per WP:SYNTH, combining separate claims (Genovese + modern Italians identity) constitutes an unauthorized synthesis rather than a neutral, verifiable statement.
Consensus does not override verifiability. If the consensus was built on an implicit interpretation rather than a direct statement from sources, then it should be reassessed to ensure Wikipedia remains factual and accurate Pipo1955 (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no violation of WP SYNTH, this description is perfectly in line with correct proceedings in wikipedia. For your other points you have already been answered ovr and over. I don't have much more to say other than reiterate that the consensus is in line with verifiability and reiterate that "Italian" is not a disputed term to describe him per our sources. I remain aligned with the others who replied in this talk. Barjimoa (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating a claim does not make it verifiable. You state that Italians is not a disputed term per your sources, yet no one has provided a direct quote explicitly stating Columbus was "Italian from the Republic of Genoa". Instead of reiterating the consensus, why not simply provide the exact passage from a reliable academic source that confirms this claim?
Per WP:V and WP:BURDEN, the responsibility to prove a statement lies with those who defend it, not with those questioning it. If this claim is truly in line with verifiability, then the specific textual reference should be easy to provide. Otherwise, per WP:NPOV, the wording should be revised to reflect what sources actually state.
I remain aligned with Wikipedia’s core principles: verifiability over consensus and accurate representation of sources over assumption Pipo1955 (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the sources and bibliography. Britannica, to mention one, has in its short description "Italian explorer". It then says in the intro that he was a navigator. And at the beginning of the article body it says that most scholars say he was born in Genoa. The agreed text here is "Italian explorer and navigator from the Genoese republic". There is nothing wrong with it. Your request to verify the specific arrangement of words used here is a case of #Pedantry and other didactic arguments. The description is perfectly fine.Barjimoa (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PEDANTRY does not apply here. The issue is not about unnecessary nitpicking but about adherence to WP:V (Verifiability) and WP:NOR (No Original Research).
The phrase "Italian from the Genoese Republic" must be explicitly supported by sources, not inferred through synthesis. The fact that Britannica uses "Italian explorer" in a brief description does not justify extrapolating it into a more specific statement that no source explicitly states.
Per WP:SYNTH, Wikipedia cannot combine separate statements ("Italian explorer" + "born in Genoa") to create a new claim that is not directly supported by sources. If a reliable academic reference explicitly states "Italian from the Genoese Republic", please provide the exact quote. Otherwise, per WP:V and WP:NPOV, this wording should be reconsidered Pipo1955 (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pipo1955 writes: However, the term Italians is different because it implies a national identity that did not exist in his time. Except that it doesn’t, as has been pointed out repeatedly. The formerly linked Italians article leads out with, Italians are an ethnic group native to the Italian geographical region. Italians share a common culture, history, ancestry and language. Their predecessors differ regionally, but generally include native populations such as the Etruscans, Rhaetians, Ligurians, Adriatic Veneti, and Italic peoples, including Latins. No evidence of “nationality” anywhere, and this red herring of “Italy wasn’t a nation back then” that this sock puppet keeps raising doesn’t seem to be fooling anyone, so I don’t know why it keeps coming up. The enormous masses of scholarly literature about late medieval Italy refers to the entire ethnic spectrum as “Italians”, but for someone of Pipo1955’s agenda, it seems that pointing out that the foundation of all that literature presumes that “Genoa was part of the Italian ethnicity” would be WP:SYNTH. Meanwhile, the literature itself doesn’t often bother with the sky is blue statements. Strebe (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is self-contradictory. First, it admits that the Italians article does not provide evidence of nationality, yet still argues that Columbus should be labeled Italian. Second, it dismisses the factual statement that “Italy was not a nation” as a red herring, when in reality, this is a fundamental historical fact.
Furthermore, it references “enormous masses of scholarly literature” without citing a single direct source explicitly calling Columbus “Italian from the Republic of Genoa”. Per WP:V, any claim must be backed by reliable, explicit sources.
Most critically, the argument itself acknowledges that assuming “Genoa was part of the Italian ethnicity” is WP:SYNTH. By Wikipedia policy, WP:SYNTH cannot be used to justify article content. If this classification is based on synthesis rather than direct sources, then the lead should be revised to align with verifiable history. Pipo1955 (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do our sources label him as an Italian explorer? Yes. Do our sources specify that he was from the Geonoese republic? Yes. So "Italian explorer from Genoese republic" is absolutely fine, no question about this. You are obviously misusing/ misenterpreting WP:Synth, Wp:OR etc. Barjimoa (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This argument commits a historical anachronism and a synthesis fallacy. Wikipedia does not apply modern national labels to figures from a time when such identities did not exist.
Unless there is a primary source explicitly calling Columbus "Italian from the Genoese Republic", this is an interpretative construction rather than a factual statement. Per WP:V and WP:SYNTH, Wikipedia must present what sources explicitly state, not what can be inferred by combining separate facts Pipo1955 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what you are arguing. As Barjimoa has pointed out, Britannica lists him as an Italian explorer and states that he was born in Genoa. You object to combining this into a single sentence as being WP:synth. So, would you be happy if the lead instead read, "Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer. He was born in Genoa." Is that still WP:synth in your opinion? A15730 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Italian explorer" is commonly used in Britannica and other traditional encyclopedias, but what is its explicit historical basis? Britannica states that it applies the label “Italian explorer”, but does it provide a historical justification? It does not. If a reliable source explicitly explains why Columbus is labeled "Italian" rather than simply "Genoese", it should be cited (WP:BURDEN).
However, if no source provides a clear rationale, this classification is based on modern interpretation rather than historical fact. While sources like Britannica may apply editorial labels without justification, Wikipedia follows stricter policies on verifiability (WP:V) and prohibits original synthesis (WP:SYNTH). Since Britannica merely applies this label without explaining it, the Wikipedia article should either reconsider the term, nuance it to avoid anachronism, or directly quote Britannica’s wording to reflect the source’s actual phrasing without introducing unwarranted assumptions
Pipo1955 writes: This argument is self-contradictory. First, it admits that the Italians article does not provide evidence of nationality, yet still argues that Columbus should be labeled Italian. Second, it dismisses the factual statement that “Italy was not a nation” as a red herring, when in reality, this is a fundamental historical fact. It is an irrelevant historical fact because no claim of nationality has been made. Use of the term Italian identifies culture and ethnicity as per the link as well as per common usage. New York Italians (for example) are not claiming nationality. They are claiming culture and ethnicity. This has been pointed out ad nauseam. Strebe (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This response does not address the central issue: verifiability. I refer to my previous argument. Furthermore, comparing Columbus to "New York Italians" is a false analogy. Today, people can identify with a broader cultural identity, and even with a self-defined gender identity. But in Columbus’s time, there was no unified Italian identity, and more importantly, there is no evidence that he himself identified as "Italian". He explicitly identified as being from Genoa.
Columbus explicitly identified as Genoese, and there is no evidence that he considered himself "Italian" (he never said so). If you claim that Columbus should be categorized as "Italian" for ethnic or cultural identity reasons, please provide a reliable source explicitly stating that Columbus saw himself as "Italian". Otherwise, this remains a modern projection.--Pipo1955 (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have failed to address your spurious nationality claim, I will take it as conceded. As for the rest of your point, it doesn’t matter what Columbus identified himself as. It’s not about what a person identifies as; it’s about what the person was. Your statement elsewhere that Wikipedia does not assign identities to historical figures that they themselves did not subscribe to is false. Quote your Wikipedia guideline here if you intend to stick with that argument. Wikipedia is replete with “German” historical figures who undoubtedly identified as Bavarians, Prussians, and so forth. Søren Kierkegaard is recognized as an existentialist even though he didn’t know the term. Niccolò Machiavelli is recognized as a political realist even though in his own time that identity did not exist. Mary Wollstonecraft was a feminist, despite having no such “identity”. The examples are endless, and every one of them refutes this invented criterion of self-identification. Strebe (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And lest you pounce on the notion that I agree that Columbus did not identify as Italian, I certainly do not. I agree he identified first as Genoan, but I presume he also identified as Italian, as anyone in the Italian city states would, for many reasons common to them all, not the least of which was that Genoa was part of the Kingdom of Italy for much of the preceding millennium and was so in Columbus’s time. Strebe (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument has been that Italy is a modern concept, and so Columbus could not have felt any such identity, and then you complain that the Holy Roman Empire’s Kingdom of Italy has no continuity with the modern concept. Do you understand that you have just argued against yourself? (Disregarding that you are utterly wrong about the lack of continuity in culture. What, modern Italian culture shrugged off millennia of evolution and started over? Is there any nonsense you won’t argue to get your way?) Yes, the HRE’s Kingdom of Italy was largely titular much of the time, but it is false to imply or imagine that it had no currency in symbolism or that the powers over Genoa (whether it was Genoa when nominally independent, or the Duke of Milan, or the Spanish Crown, or the French Crown) would ignore or defy the HRE’s basic formalisms. Strebe (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, there is the obvious fact that we have no statements from most historical figures about how they “identify” as far as ethnicity, culture, or nationality go. That does not prevent us from assigning identities that are meaningful to those learning about those figures. It’s hard for me to see any of your arguments as useful here. Strebe (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. Above you keep asking for explicit wording and rail against original research and interpretation. Barjimoa provided you with explicit wording and you called wp:synth. Now, after breaking it up into explicit statements so that there is no possibility of it being synth, you now insist that the source has to further explain why it gives the labels it does. That's "moving the goal posts" and I do not agree that wikipedia rules demand that. Furthermore, your questions regarding the "explicit historical basis" and statement that "... this classification is based on modern interpretation rather than historical fact." seem to be closer to calling for interpretation and original research than anything else I've read. I understand that you don't believe "Italian" is a correct term for Columbus. Nonetheless, I believe it is supported by historical fact, and, more importantly, it is supported by numerous reliable sources. A15730 (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument conflates two distinct issues: intellectual classification (such as existentialist, realist, or feminist) and national/ethnic identity. The former is based on academic analysis of ideas, while the latter requires historical verification. WP:V (Verifiability) and WP:BURDEN (Burden of Proof) require that any claim about Columbus’s identity be supported by explicit, reliable sources. No contemporary source states that Columbus was "Italian" because such an identity did not exist in his time.
You argue that Wikipedia assigns identities to historical figures, but WP:SYNTH (No Synthesis) prohibits combining information from different sources to imply a conclusion that no source explicitly states. If you claim that Columbus should be categorized as “Italian” in a historically accurate way, provide a reliable source explicitly stating that he was identified as such in his time. Otherwise, per Wikipedia guidelines, the term should either be reconsidered, nuanced, or directly quoted to reflect the actual wording of sources without introducing assumptions.
I am not moving the goalposts; I am consistently applying WP:V and WP:SYNTH. Providing explicit wording from a source does not automatically justify its inclusion if the term itself is a retrospective label rather than a historically accurate classification.
The key issue is this: Are sources merely using "Italian" as a convenient label, or do they provide historical justification for categorizing Columbus as such? Wikipedia’s standards require more than just repeating a label; they require context and justification. If we cannot determine the historical reasoning behind Britannica or other sources using "Italian explorer" then we risk committing synthesis by presenting it as an unquestionable historical fact.
Furthermore, if you claim that "Italian" is a historically correct term for Columbus, then you must provide reliable sources that explicitly explain why that classification is historically accurate in the context of his own time. Otherwise, it remains a modern projection rather than a factual representation of how Columbus or his contemporaries saw him.
The classification of Christopher Columbus as an “Italian explorer” raises concerns regarding historical accuracy and verifiability, as outlined in Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:SYNTH, WP:BURDEN). Other sources indicate that Columbus identified as Genovese, not Italian, and that Italy, as a unified entity, did not exist in his time:
1. Verifiability (WP:V) and No Synthesis (WP:SYNTH)
According to Columbus: Meeting of Cultures (1993):
*“But what is his Fatherland? It is Genoa, not what we today might interpret as Italy.” (p. 103)
*“Columbus genovese calls most of the world his home. He vindicates the navigator’s glory for the city of Genoa, not Italy.” (p. 110)
These statements demonstrate that Columbus was recognized as Genovese in his time, and the term “Italian” is a retrospective application rather than a contemporary identity.
If “Italian explorer” is to be used as a historical descriptor rather than a modern label, reliable sources must explicitly state that Columbus identified as Italian or was considered Italian by his contemporaries. Otherwise, this classification is a modern projection rather than a fact based on historical sources.
Proposed Resolution
Given that sources confirm Columbus was recognized as Genovese, not Italian, Wikipedia should follow WP:V and either:
“Italian explorer” should be directly quoted to reflect that it is a modern classification, not a historical fact.
I welcome discussion on this issue and request that be supported by explicit reliable sources stating that Columbus was identified as “Italian” in his own time. --Pipo1955 (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me after your first paragraph where you assert, "No contemporary source states that Columbus was "Italian" because such an identity did not exist in his time." This statement appears to me to be factually false. I believe that Columbus, himself, referred to another Italian, I think a Florentine, as an Italian. So, the identity did, in fact, exist at his time. I further believe that biographies published in the 1500's also referred to him as Italian. I'm sure you might counter with something along the lines of questioning whether he ever referred to himself that way and how that meshes with wikipedia standards. I haven't seen anything new, however, and must agree with Tarl N. A15730 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pipo1955 wrote: I… request that be supported by explicit reliable sources stating that Columbus was identified as “Italian” in his own time.
No. That is a straw man. You invented this requirement. It is not a Wikipedia requirement, and of course we cannot document such a thing for most historical personages. I have already addressed this, but you ignored it. It’s time to ignore your invented rules. Strebe (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is believed that Columbus was Genovese, but there is no consensus on anything else:
If you believe that Columbus referred to someone as "Italian" or that biographies from the 1500s identified him as such, please provide explicit, reliable sources that confirm this. WP:V (Verifiability) and WP:BURDEN (Burden of Proof) require that any claim be supported by sources. If such evidence exists, I welcome it.
Additionally, even if the term "Italian" was used in some contexts in the 15th century, that does not automatically mean Columbus identified as such or was widely recognized that way. As discussed, Genoa was an independent republic, and contemporary sources describe him as Genovese. If there is documented evidence stating otherwise, it should be brought forward for review.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that Columbus ever referred to himself as "Italian." He explicitly identified as Genovese, and no contemporary sources indicate that he considered himself part of a broader "Italian" identity—because such an identity, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.
This is not a straw man. My argument is based on WP:V and WP:BURDEN, both of which require that claims in Wikipedia be supported by reliable sources. The issue is not whether Columbus himself had to self-identify as "Italian" but whether reliable contemporary sources described him as such. If no such sources exist, then the label "Italian explorer" is an anachronism.
Furthermore, WP:SYNTH (No Original Synthesis) prohibits combining modern labels with historical facts in a way that creates a misleading impression. If Britannica or other sources use "Italian explorer" as a modern convention rather than a historically accurate classification, then the term should either be reconsidered or directly quoted to indicate that it is a retrospective interpretation rather than a factual identity from Columbus"s time.
I acknowledge that "Italian" is a modern label commonly used in reference to Columbus. However, per WP:V and WP:SYNTH, if the term is a retrospective classification rather than a historically accurate identity, it should be placed in quotation marks to indicate that it is a modern interpretation rather than a factual description from Columbus"s time.
If we agree that "Italian explorer" is not how Columbus or his contemporaries would have identified him, then Wikipedia should reflect this distinction by either removing the term or using it in a way that explicitly acknowledges its retrospective nature. This ensures accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia"s core policies on verifiability and neutrality.
Given the disagreement on this matter and the claim that the discussion is not progressing, I am willing to escalate this through formal dispute resolution (WP:DR), such as an RFC, to obtain broader community input. This will allow for a structured examination of sources and policies regarding the use of "Italian" in this article.
If we are ignoring Wikipedia"s core policies on verifiability and neutrality, that is a far more serious issue than questioning the appropriateness of a single term Pipo1955 (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of this has been addressed repeatedly. I will point out, again, that these are Pipo1955's own invented criteria:
Additionally, even if the term "Italian" was used in some contexts in the 15th century, that does not automatically mean Columbus identified as such or was widely recognized that way. …There is no evidence that Columbus ever referred to himself as "Italian." He explicitly identified as Genovese, and no contemporary sources indicate that he considered himself part of a broader "Italian" identity—because such an identity, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.
—No policy requires Columbus to have identified as “Italian”.
The issue is not whether Columbus himself had to self-identify as "Italian" but whether reliable contemporary sources described him as such. If no such sources exist, then the label "Italian explorer" is an anachronism.
—No policy prohibits modern interpretation of historical circumstances.
I have asked repeatedly that Pipo1955 quote the policy that they are using that permits them to force their preferred text. They haven’t. Continuing to evoke WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:BURDEN as if they have anything to say about these invented requirements, as well as ignoring the many ways their interpretations have been refuted, is blatant WP:BLUDGEONING. Strebe (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brutality section's citation 318 is erroroneous
In the Brutality section of the article, citation 318 is a published work by Bill Bigalow called "Columbus Day must be abolished". It says that historian Bill Davidson assigns responsibility to Columbus for African slave trade to the American continent in 1501. Yet, it's well-known (even here on Wikipedia) that the Portuguese were the first to transport Africans across the Atlantic. In 1525, they completed the first transatlantic African slave voyage to Brazil. Columbus died in 1506. He wasn't responsible for what the Portuguese did 19 years after his death. The Spaniards, English, French, Danish, and Dutch, followed what the Portuguese did regarding the transatlantic African slave trade to the American continent. Citation 318 is an erroneous one. D.Gormade (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. An individual can bear responsibility for precipitating events that they did not directly participate in. Remsense ‥ 论18:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with D.Gormade. Certainly people can retroactively bear responsibility, but on the continuum of “this reminds me of that” and “this caused that”, I find Basil Davidson’s proclamation to be more guilty-of-everything-bad-because-guilty-of-lots-bad than guilty-by-cause. On the other hand, the citation is notable, and the wording permits the user to decide for themselves whether the blame makes sense. I guess I’ve talked myself out of wanting it removed. Strebe (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, as the concrete throughline is fairly clear. Columbus immediately began the enslavement of indigenous Americans in earnest, and the inadequacies of that very same arrangement, passed hand to hand directly from Columbus himself, expressly precipitated the introduction of enslaved Africans to compensate. If this were any other series of economic events, it would not be controversial to assign some blame to the originator of the flawed system for the later developments as such. Remsense ‥ 论20:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the line as currently written describes Basil Davidson as a "British historian" while the citation 218 describes him as an "African historian". The rest of the sentence claiming that he does this because of the actions of de Ovando doesn't even appear, and, so, must either be in the other references or is a synthesis. I don't like the use of 218 because 1. It is an opinion piece from a newspaper which seems a poor source for a subject so many books have been written on. 2. The opinion piece relies too much on weak references itself, even though it doesn't appear to name them. e.g. The claim, "Columbus ordered that Tainos be “punished,” by having their hands chopped off" likely comes from Zinn, who copied it from Koning, who appears to have fabricated it by synthesis. That said, I think it's indisputable that many people blame Columbus for the slave trade. So, I'd say keep it but check to make sure it's in the other references. A15730 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Davidson is a British historian of Africa; this article is not about the Portuguese enslavement of Africans; there's no reason I see to assign the provenance of the hand-chopping's claim to Zinn. Remsense ‥ 论21:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply going by the cited reference's wording "African historian Basil Davidson". It doesn't describe him as British though I am not denying that he is. For the hand-chopping, Davidson is not making that claim, the author of the opinion piece Bill Bigelow, is. Bigelow is described as co-director of the Zinn Education Project. That's why I think he likely got it from Zinn. In any event, it still appears to originally come from Koning and there is no reliable source for it as far as I know. Hence, why I think it is a poor citation, especially when I'm sure that a higher quality reference expressing the same thing can be cited. A15730 (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. As I said, the article claim being made (i.e. That many people regard Columbus as the father of the slave trade) can certainly be substantiated. Best Regards. A15730 (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ Remsense. No. A person cannot bear responsibility for precipitating events that they did not directly participate in. By the 15th century, the Al-Andalus Iberians (Spanish and Portuguese) were active in African slave trade in Europe. The Portuguese slave traders conducted African slave trade during 1441-1444. That's 51-54 years before Columbus' first voyage to the American continent in 1492. Columbus died 14 years later in 1506. The first African slaves were brought to the American continent by the Iberians in 1525. The Iberians had been well-seasoned in the slave trade of Africans 84 years before they transported the African slaves to the American continent. Columbus did not initiate the Al-Andalus Iberians African slave trade in Europe and America. D.Gormade (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, your general position as initially stated is not considered tenable by any relevant authority in the history of ethics as a discipline. Remsense ‥ 论01:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ Remsense. Hahaha. You are comically in the dark and inadvertently funny. But you are those things with such perfection. Your giftedness for waxing poetic is definitely there. It's just not verbose enough. Try harder! D.Gormade (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A15730. You should read up on slavery. The ancient Egyptians were doing it. Calling Columbus the father of slave trade is a gross misnomer. African slaves were being brought to Europe in the 15th century by the Al-Andalus Iberians and, thereafter, to the American continent by the same people. In 1441-1444, the Portuguese were already conducting African slave trade in Europe. That's 51-54 years before Columbus' first voyage to the American continent in 1492. Columbus died in 1506. In 1525, 19 years after Columbus' death, the Portuguese brought the first African slaves to the American continent. The Spaniards, British, French, Danish, and Dutch followed the trend. Columbus did not have African slaves. He had Indian slaves. So did the Spaniards he sailed for. The Iberians and the British were the worst offenders of Indian and African slaves. D.Gormade (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should read what I actually wrote: That many people consider him the father of the slave trade is definitely true. The citation being discussed names a couple of them. Whether or not he is the father of the slave trade is a different question. I'm fine with it if you want to add some quality, on-point sources to counter that narrative. A15730 (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccurate/fringe maps
User:Snowstormfigorion recently reverted my replacement of the article's maps with a set which is higher-quality and more accurate, albeit in French. The currently-used image File:Columbus first voyage.jpg was evidently uploaded to Commons in 2011 by Keith Pickering, who was notorious for pushing the WP:FRINGE theory that Columbus's first landfall was on the Plana Cays, not San Salvador Island (Watling's Island), which is the position of virtually all modern scholarship. This reason alone should be enough to use the other set (or at the very least, the map of the first voyage). I may work on translating the French maps on Commons soon, but regardless of that I still think they are better for this reason. — Goszei (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your calling the Plana Cays case a ‘fringe theory’ pushes me away from agreeing with your argument. The physical evidences seem better for Samana Cay or Playa Cays, and both have scholarly support beyond just their most ardent promoters. San Salvador is a “We don’t know, so we’ll go with tradition” fallback. Which is fine, but that doesn’t make it any more likely to be the truth; nor do I see it being a case for “We should only show the traditional route.” Strebe (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The newer maps are much better. If there's a case for an island besides San Salvador it can be put in a footnote in the caption (as was previously done when the 'fringe' maps were the only ones available). UpdateNerd (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
You must be logged in to post a comment.