Talk:Discovery of the Americas

Columbus

Sir, I disagree with the treatment given here to the Columbus "discovery": It is biased negatively to the "consequences" of his discovery, instead of dealing specifically with the Columbus exploration as the first recorded exploration (not based on archeological evidence as the Vikings' one) which started an age of intense exchange between the Old and the New World, without normative assessments of that interaction. It is not the goal of a disambiguation page to judge the goodness or evilness of the different alternatives for a word... Poldavo 14:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.4.12.5 (talk)

Sorry sir, but Columbus voyage was not the first recorded voyage to Americas(documented).

I don´t talk only about archeologic, but documents.

As exemple:

-Leif Erikson(Oral tradition)

-João Afonso Estreito and Fernão Dulmo from Azores in 1452(to Newfoundland) Royal "Cartas de Doação" and Fernando Colón testemony.

-Norvege-Danish-Portuguese joined expedition with João Vaz Corte Real on 1472 and Again in 1474 - Newfoundland(maybe Labrador) Sources in Denmark and Portugal.

Disambiguation page or not

This is tagged a disambiguation page but it is not a normal disambiguation page. Should it be turned into a normal disambiguation page or should the disambiguation page tag be removed and it turned into a normal article? Nurg 04:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Have tagged it as a history stub instead. Nurg 10:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad Edits

I have contributed to this article. However, gabagool continuedly undoes it. He is undoing contributions that are very helpful to the article and makes it less of a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthro64 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't supposed to be more information on this exact page. You are supposed to follow the links there such as Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact to read more about that if you want to. Do you think it does any purpose of writing the same things on two different articles?. -GabaG (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does make sense to put information on both pages if it is useful in both places. This way someone does not have to look at multiple pages and put the information together when we could just have the information on this page and the others. This way the page will actually tell you the information that it should have instead of just telling you places where you can find the information. You can find some information that way on Discovery of America as well as Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact and Christopher Columbus, plus others. Arthro64 (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks to you this article just looks like a joke now. Even though you are a completely new user you don't even try to understand that what you are doing is not in accordance with either this article or Wikipedia in general. I am trying to make you understand this but sadly you are continuing to ignore my advice to you. Specifically about the Discovery of the Americas-article it is supposed to be more an disambiguation-page rather than an article. About your edit in general you are simply adding some randomly selected Discovery of the Americas-theories that you have in your head. The style of writing is also too simple/poor. And also Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not just some person rambling about random stuff. -GabaG (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion First, a caution: both of you are currently in danger of breaching WP:3RR, so please be careful. I would also say that I don't think something being badly written is, of itself, a good reason to delete it - it's a reason to improve the quality of the writing to make it better. Having said which:

It seems to me that the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact page already serves the purpose of an article, here. Arguments for or against the various theories can be presented there, without any loss of information to the encyclopedia (since this disambiguation page, of course, already links there). In that way, the other article can cover properly all sides of that debate, Columbus included. I would encourage Arthro64 to contribute any well-referenced information from reliable sources that he has on the subject to that page, to avoid accidentally creating a content fork. Anaxial (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Arthro64: The article does not tell of the information that is in the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact page, so a person searching for information doesn't know what to go to and therefore, it takes longer to find the information that they want. If people added to what I put on there, it might not be exactly like some information on the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact page. Another solution is that someone writes on the article that the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact page has theories on who discovered America. Also, it would be useful if it actually said it was a disambiguation page. It said it is a stub, so I tried to add to the information on the page. Arthro64 ([[User talk:Arthro64|talk]]) 23:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In my most recent edit, in which I cited sources, I readded my information. Arthro64 (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on man, what the hell are you doing here, can you please stop adding that same stuff which does not belong here!? If you really think it is too hard for someone to make one simple click on their mouse on a link on the internet then I don't know how that someone can even have a computer in the first place. Or what they are doing on Wikipedia.., clicking on links is like excactly what Wikipedia is about generally!.. I hope you can remove your edit yourself before more people have to do it for you. (That said, I see no problem with this page explaining and containing small section about each of the widely accepted Discoveries of the Americas, i.e. Vikings and Columbus, but not all the other which are today merely theories.) -GabaG (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Arthro64: I deleted the stuff about Chinese and Egyptians discovering America. Are you happy now????????? Arthro64 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be useful to include a disambig template to this page, as that is its current purpose. But is there any reason why the information you want to add here could not be added to the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact page instead? As I see it, the main problem with the section you are trying to add is that it gives undue weight to fringe theories. Now, if the page were instead a properly structured article covering the viking settlements in Newfoundland, Columbus, and, for that matter, the Clovis people, I could see a case for it - but neither of you seem to be arguing for that. But to have a single paragraph that gives Cabot (for example) more or less the same prominence as Columbus just isn't appropriate, IMO. Anaxial (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I agree with what Anaxial says here. Also I did actually kind of argue for adding more appropriate content to this article in my last comment. Not the more farfetched theories (not saying that I don't find most of them interesting/plausible though). -GabaG (talk) 18:44, 22 April 20

Arthro64: If you want a more properly structured article, why don't you edit it? Arthro64 (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I said; I really don't mind if anyone should add some short sections about the Vikings and Columbus' discoveries. But, what I think would be the best for now is that it should be without any more content, and at least not the rediciulous "Theories" section that is there now. Btw I am going to remove it now as there has been complaints about it from other people too. And to Anaxial, you ask why the content that Arthro64 has written couldn't be "added to the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact page instead?" Well as a matter of fact you can find all of the things that Arthro64 wrote there already! And with much better reliability and such of course. -GabaG (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

THANKS for adding a disambig template. Arthro64 (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Theories"

This section is total crap. The only reason I don't edit it out is that based on what I am reading here, it will probably be reinstated. Clearly, there is little to no historical evidence that anyone besides Columbus discovered the New World. Yes, the Vikings were definitely there first, but they didn't create a sustainable colony. John Cabot didn't sail till after 1492. Most reasonable people would consider the New World and the Americas to be more or less synonymous. So saying that Cabot discovered the Americas first is very misleading, if not outright wrong. As a matter of fact, I am going to check this page again in about a week, and if the theory section hasn't been improved to a suitable level, I *will* erase it. As it stands now, it is misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.245.107 (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting this page

I believe the Discovery of the Americas should have its own page. If not, it should be redirected to Voyages of Christopher Columbus which deals specifically with the first recorded discovery of the American continent. It should not, in my opinion, be redirected to the History of the Americas. This is too broad a subject. Fortis est Veritas (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)