Jump to content

Talk:Columbus Day/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

More Opposition: Columbus in a Cartoon by the Oatmeal, and Bartolomé Day

The author of the Oatmeal has published an engaging cartoon criticizing Columbus, and suggests changing the day to recognise Bartolomé de las Casas, a slave owner who later repented and worked to free the slaves. "He is considered to be one of the first advocates for universal human rights." Anyway, most of the article is about Columbus. Maybe not notable enough for the article, but notable enough for the talk page I think: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/columbus_day 103.1.70.251 (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"Columbus Day" a stable title?

The Columbus Day is the name of the October 12 holiday in the United States. However, internationally, the holiday is named differently, and the name Columbus is not used overseas because of his crimes against humanity. Somehow, I see that other names should be considered, like "October 12, 1492, holiday" or "Holiday of October 12, 1492". It cannot stay "Columbus Day" forever if non-U.S. countries won't use "Columbus Day" ever. --George Ho (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What? It can stay Columbus Day forever, no problem. If other countries have other names for the date they can certainly create a new article on the subject they celebrate. But there is a holiday celebrating the life and discoveries of the great explorer. That's what this article is about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
No Latin American country can celebrate Columbus ever. But if the article should stay this way, why not translating es:Día de la Raza into English then? This is entirely different from the Columbus Day. --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
And if you read the article you will find that some DO celebrate Columbus, so I have no idea where you get that stuff. In some countries it is much the same thing, and in others it is very different. That is talked about in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia's rule is the article title should correspond to the most commonly used name. While Columbus Day is the most widely used name in the United States, Columbus Day is not the most widely used name worldwide. Hence the title should be changed to the most widely used name worldwide. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia only for the United States. 67.169.147.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Columbus day is the right name, i guess. User:Barjimoa — Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-observance/Opposition = Structural problem

Ok, there's been a minor edit instability of late, and a big factor in that has been my confusion in what another editor was trying to tell me. The basic problem I'm seeing in the structure of this article is that there's huge overlap in the places where Non-observation is discussed and Opposition.
RECOMMENDATION: Combine these sections. [edit- see next post below for specifics]

Also, the precise terminology needs to be addressed. 'Non-observation' is accurate if a region has the day come and go without doing anything special. But if a city, say, instead chooses to push for a celebration of Indigenous People's Day on that very same day, then this goes far beyond "non-observation". They are being very observant, but in the exact polar opposite direction. A proper description of this is 'Protest'. It is a community taking positive steps to communicate that they are standing for the exact opposite of what the norm is standing for.--Concord hioz (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

After having a look at more content in this article, it is clear to me that a better strategy for incorporating the Opposition issue is to do this region by region. So what this could look like is each region having:
- An Observance subsection
- A Non-observance subsection
- An Opposition subsection
As it stands now, it seems a bit silly to have a section titled 'observance', only to then have it contain a subsection titled 'non-observance' --Concord hioz (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree. We have also got to take into consideration undue weight. This article is first and foremost about the holiday Columbus Day. Not about other celebrations on October 12. We should certainly touch on the fact there are some protests and places where groups have changed the celebration to something else, but most of the content should be about the celebration of Columbus Day. Also just because a different holiday is celebrated doesn't mean it's a protest... they may just think it's better for their region. I'm not saying this couldn't be laid out better... I think it can too, so we agree there. But in my opinion when I look at the total non-observance and opposition segments they are already bordering on too much weight compared to the celebrations. And that extra section added in the lead was overboard. I kept the highlights of the addition as the rest is covered in the main article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I see this article to be first and foremost about the day that pays tribute to the event of Christopher Columbus reaching the "New World". NPOV will show that this day (Oct 12, today) is remembered quite differently by different people. Certain indigenous peoples see it to be the day that marked the initiation of the worst genocide in human history. (Info that you chose to remove from my last edit.)
In this light, I do not see the proper fix to this article to be to downplay the weight of opposition. I see a better fix to be this:
Combine this article with the Indigenous People's Day article.
You say, "just because a different holiday is celebrated doesn't mean it's a protest". I would be inclined to agree, except for one important fact: They are picking the very same day to hold their celebration. And their choice in doing so is what makes it a protest. Now if you were to find some country, or even some town, that celebrates both, then I would be compelled to reconsider. But I am not aware of anyone that does. Nor am I aware of any place that is in non-observance of Columbus Day while celebrating Indigenous People's Day on some different day than the weekend of October 12th. [Edit: I just now read the "Other celebrations" section, but I still see the point to stand. That entire article is about protest.]
The issue of celebrating Columbus and the issue of celebrating natives in protest of Columbus is one and the same topic.--Concord hioz (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow, we 100% disagree on this point. That's probably why we're having problems with other parts of the Holiday. There is overlap to be sure, but they are two entirely different things. Columbus Day is a Federal Holiday and is not Indigenous Peoples Day. It may fall on the same date but then so does Armed Forces Day in Spain. Tennessee celebrates Columbus Day AND Native American Day... so does California. It's like the fact we have an article here on Global Warming. We also have articles on Global warming controversy and Global warming conspiracy theory. If there is something about "Columbus Day" that is already covered better in "Indigenous Peoples Day" or "Native American Day" it should be mentioned with a simple link as opposed to rewriting it all again. Heck, if it's better explained at Christopher Columbus we should link there with the same criteria. This article is about what Columbus Day is, where it's celebrated, how it's celebrated, why it's celebrated, when it's celebrated. But of course there is also controversy so a section on that is worthwhile, especially with added links to articles that can better explain the situation without piling on undue weight to the Columbus Day holiday. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
It's perfectly clear that "they are two entirely different things". My point is that they are polar opposite ways of commemorating the same event.
You raise the topic of Global Warming. Did you actually read those articles? I see the entire set of them to be an example of how atrociously Wikipedia can FAIL. And anyone can figure that out simply by the titles that these articles have. The proper NPOV title would be "Anthropogenic Climate Change". And try to find any article on Climategate. You get redirected to some bizarrely titled article. Then read into that article and see how sanitized it is. All of these climate articles have been sanitized. Anyone who has been around Wikipedia long enough knows how such things happen. A mob can easily come in and turn the meaning of an article by 180 degrees. Now look at the Talk Page for the Climategate article. 45 archived pages! How do you have 45 archived pages of Talk discussion and end up with a resulting article that is so one-sided? Bullying is the standard tactic used.
How sad that readers can't use Wikipedia to get a balanced understanding of the issue.
Here is Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case. That video is the most concise explanation of the issue that I've ever seen. Are any of the valid points in that video covered in these Wikipedia articles? I haven't found it. I expect those facts are buried deep in the change histories.
"Global Warming" is a Wikipedia travesty.
You can do your part to prevent this Columbus Day article from being a travesty as well. A reader should not have to go halfway down the article to find the word "genocide". This is a central issue regarding the holiday. That word (with a link) belongs in the lede.
If you remain unconvinced by me, then just go to some place like GoogleNews and search Columbus Day. It should be clear to anyone that issues like slavery and genocide are inseparable from the topic. This article needs a major fix.--Concord hioz (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I tried to help write Global Warming, so yes I've read them all. The Global Warming scientists that control the articles pretty much shut anything out and drive any editors away. But that's a different topic. We have completely different views on Columbus Day and what it means. Slavery and atrocities may have a good reason for being in the Christopher Columbus article, not a celebration on the western discovery of the new world. At least not in the lead. I don't have guilt about about my roots nor do I judge the 1400s by 2014 standards. We've had presidents who have had slaves killed, but those were different times. I look at western culture being brought to the America's as a great thing... I wouldn't be here without it. Bad things happened for sure, but the holiday isn't going around and celebrating the death of Indians. I don't see parades with people walking with sticks, with hands and feet and heads attached. They are celebrating the western discovery of a New World that led to the United States of America. Shall we also add all the atrocities American Indians did to each other and settlers in our Indigenous Peoples Day article and Native American Day articles? I wouldn't. It's 2014, and over 500 years have passed. So Columbus Day or Discovery Day is a time to celebrate and the article is about those celebrations and parades. Sure we mention that there are groups opposed to the Federal Holiday... there are groups opposed to Halloween too. And we mention that Columbus was not a nice guy, even in Genoa and Spain, but that is really for the Christopher Columbus article not the holiday. We can link to that article if need be. But to heap 500 years of atrocities on one holiday is ridiculous. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It is not proper for Wikipedia editors to inject their moral judgements into an article. What is proper is for we editors to reflect the moral judgements that reliable sources have published.
You repeatedly use the term "New World", but that is a label that fails NPOV. (Let alone the term "Global Warming".) The work that this article needs is to scrub it to remove Eurocentric bias, along with other forms of bias (or clearly identify them as such). And it is such biases that lead to an attitude that 'we can't mention genocide in the lede', even when it is recognized that this is a central issue. No one is presenting Christopher Columbus as having personally killed millions of natives. The point stands that he is seen, by reliable sources, to represent the subsequent slavery and genocide that happened.
And if the main objection is an anachronistic application of 2014 standards to 1492, then the proper way to write that into the article is to include a note along the lines of "slavery and genocide were common practices in the 15th and 16th centuries", or whatever. Call it what it is, using factual terms. And then add explanations to help communicate perspective. As the lede stands right now, there is no indication that any objection to the holiday exists outside of the USA. That is our failure.--Concord hioz (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem giving this article "what is proper." We also have to make sure we don't use bias by basing morals on beliefs from 500 years ago, or adding undue weight to an article that already mentions all kinds of places that object to the holiday. As for the lead that can be easily fixed without any anti-Euro crusade. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I noticed something else in my readings. The Mayor of Seattle was very careful in saying Indigenous Peoples' Day is not an official city holiday nor does it replace Columbus Day... it coincides alongside the federal holiday of Columbus Day to give native Americans something they can celebrate also. The wording probably should be changed to reflect that fact, but it's a minor issue that just adds length to the section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Serious error on article

In the "Spain" section there is a photo taken in Lima (Perú) of a fascist group. Please, remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.80.187.2 (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

1934 or 1937

When was Columbus day made a us federal holiday? The article states 1934, I have seen other places that state 1937 this for example [1] "The successful lobbying effort that resulted in Columbus Day becoming a federal holiday in 1937 was an important victory for Italian-Americans, one that other ethnic and interest groups would seek to emulate in the years to come." Skippypeanuts (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

[2] 1937 [3] 1937 Skippypeanuts (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

From what I could gather, in 1934 The president and congress made proclamations that October 12 would be set aside for Christopher Day as a Federal Holiday. It did not go into effect "officially" until 1937. So a proclamation was issued each year that it was a federal holiday, until 1937 when it was an official holiday. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Columbus Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Opposition to Columbus Day - Criticism

The first two paragraphs of the "Opposition to Colombus Day" section include vague and unattributed criticisms of the said opposition. In addition to the weasel words, lack of citations, and blanket criticism (overly general for a section discussing specific types of opposition), these statements feel like they have been jammed in to a section where they don't belong. If someone wants to recount criticisms of the forms of opposition to CD and their reasoning it would be more appropriate to put into a different section. As it stands, it reads like someone inserting "nuh uh, I think that's wrong and I'm sure others do too" into the middle of an opposing argument which is distracting and doesn't do much to explicate/advance actual critiques ("some [strands of critique] are criticized"... which ones?? "some groups... are criticized... which ones?? "opponents of Columbus Day celebrations are considered to fail to distinguish"... who says this and where can I read their arguments??). $ekraan (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Made some changes. Still a bit clunky but addressed aforementioned concerns. I do think it's a good idea to address opposition to the anti-Columbus-Day movement from the Italian American community. Not sure how best to fit this in; out of time for now. $ekraan (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the change from indigenous to Native Americans but reinserted the left-wing political parties with an added source. To remove this would be unfair to our readers imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I looked at numerous articles to try and find justification for the "left-wing political parties" comment. Every single one focused on Native American / indigenous activism, both from a macro level and in explaining specific events (primarily individual cities introducing some variant of 'indigenous peoples day' as replacement or alternative to CD). It's easy to see the association with left-wing politics. Extrapolating from the HP/YouGov poll, democrats are substantially more likely to identify with the Native American perspective than republicans. Berkeley was the first city to make the change. I have no doubt that the overwhelmingly left learning politicians there were among the most receptive in the country to the idea. But the sources I found were pretty consistent: indigenous groups lobbied hard with their local governments and the city populace, and the outcomes tended to align with the the political demography. Success was more likely in liberal areas than more conservative ones. The only example of a political party actively campaigning for such changes I saw was a single congressman in the SW (I think; no longer have page handy) who was himself of Native American descent, advocating for both himself and his constituency. As for the Latin and South American countries that changed, excepting Venezuela the move was towards more inclusive holidays and doesn't seem to have followed the same path as the US (e.g. Costa Rica got "Dia de las Culturas... to recognize the mix of European, American, African and Asian culture" As such the political parties reference is not only misleading to the readers, it's also unfair to the Native American communities and groups who have campaigned for decades to diminish their efforts. Can you find a source that clearly shows how political parties played leading roles in this campaign? $ekraan (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, I don't think it's viable to replace the parties reference with "leftwing Native American" groups. Left leaning polities may be more likely to support Native American groups that oppose CD, but that doesn't mean the groups themselves are necessarily "left-wing"; they are best described as ethnic/racial advocacy groups. $ekraan (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It looked supported to me... and you removed the source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Where? The one relevant reference I see is "Just last week, caving to political pressure from various left-wing groups, Albuquerque, New Mexico joined a growing number of cities...". Even if it is accurate to say that "left-wing groups" refers to political parties, this sentences refers solely to the event in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The roots of the opposition movement are referenced in the same section of the wiki article: the 1990 gathering in Ecuador, activities of the American Indian Movement. All the articles I looked at covering similar actions in other cities suggest that this is a grass roots effort, and not led by political parties. This article<ref>https://www.rt.com/usa/318178-cities-abolish-columbus-day/</ref> helpfully discusses multiple cities; for each it mentions the civic organizations and interest groups who pushed for the change. (source chosen because it has multiple examples. Can look up other articles on any of them for corroboration). There is tons of evidence that these efforts were led primarily - and solely in most cases - by Native American communities and civic organizations. These were grass roots efforts and insofar as politicians were involved, it was in the guise of city councils and state representatives responding to lobbying and petitions from their constituents. Extrapolating from one vaguely worded phrase ("left-wing groups") referring to a single event in one city is not sufficient to make broad sweeping claims that political parties of any orientation "led" efforts to remove or replace Columbus Day. $ekraan (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: source was removed because it doesn't contribute any new information and is thus redundant. $ekraan (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Addendum to the above... in an article specifically talking about the Albequerque NM resolution: "Albuquerque’s struggle rose directly from the Native community’s demands and support from non-Native groups, not from boardrooms. Through active coalition-building and community engagement,"<ref>https://therednation.org/2015/10/07/victory-albuquerque-declares-indigenous-peoples-day/</ref> Also, in another article: "The idea of Indigenous Peoples Day first was proposed in 1977 by a Native American delegation to a United Nations conference. Representatives from 120 Native American nations passed a resolution to recognize the contributions of Indigenous people." <ref>http://wayback.archive.org/web/20160304043001/http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3928872.shtml#.V-nnNsncqVp</ref><nowiki>$ekraan (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
It can certainly be reworded to "liberal groups or some such thing" if left-wing is too distastful, but the removal of source and sentence is not correct. Whether we use sources such as Liberal America or Death and Taxes or Huffington Post or the one one you keep removing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
"Liberal groups" writing in support of the opposition to Columbus Day doesn't mean that they had any role in leading the movement. You could have a conservative leaning group write similar articles and it wouldn't mean that conservative groups had leading roles either. It's clearly established that the contemporary opposition movement, and in particular the push to replace or supplement Columbus Day with alternatives celebrating indigenous peoples or diversity, was initiated and primarily led by Native American / indigenous groups. You can see this in the discussion in the rest of the Opposition to Columbus Day section, you can see this in every article discussing cities changing policies on celebrating Columbus Day (including the various examples I provided, and many others I did not). Like I mentioned in my earlier post, opposition to Columbus Day by Native American groups is apparently* more likely to find support in liberal leaning areas. *since this is based entirely on personal observation, just like your claims. It is still clearly an ethnic issue, with Italian-Americans the main group pushing for the creation of the holiday and also pushing back against criticism of it, and Native Americans / indigenous groups pushing for the removal or replacement of the holiday. I haven't seen a single source say that it is only conservative Italian-Americans in support or only liberal Native Americans opposed. You are interjecting political ideology where it doesn't belong; it is clearly a background issue. $ekraan (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I see your point about attaching the left-wing to the initial opposition movement. I reworded it to match the sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
This is still original research (WP:SYN"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"). The sources don't show that the "opposition was... expanded upon by left-wing political parties." All the of the talking points in the articles you provided from "liberal" sources can be found in Native American advocacy materials dating back to the early 2000s and 90s, as well as contemporary publications/platforms. And comments to the effect of "liberals are against Columbus Day" don't mean that "left-wing political parties" played a leading role in the opposition movement. Please either: a) find a credible source that directly states that political parties have played leading roles, or b) address this subject elsewhere in the article, e.g. after the survey #s sentence or later in the opposition section, that discusses data showing liberals or left-wing people/groups/whatever tend to support opposition to Columbus Day more than conservative ones. $ekraan (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
You're brand new here and in fact this is the only article you've ever edited. The way it works is if you remove longstanding material and you get reverted, you Do Not Add It Back. You bring it to talk to try and get others to see your point of view. You do not keep removing sourced material and removing sources. I'm certainly open to rewording to simply "liberals" or perhaps "left-wing protest movements." I could certainly have added a wealth more sources such as those made by the Puget Sound Socialists (ISO) and their annual Abolish Columbus Day march. Or leftist council members Kshama Sawant and Bruce Harrell and their success in abolishing the holiday. Senator Bernie Sanders has called for repealing Columbus Day. There are sources for these and many many more but the article didn't really need more sources. When Berkeley rose up in 1990–1992 to ban Columbus day the first meetings were "At this time SAIIC, IITC, AIM, ACD and over twenty other progressive political and cultural groups formed a coalition"... it was certainly left-wing and political. Conferences were paid for by sponsorship with the "National Chicano Human Rights Council" and the "African People’s Revolutionary Party." More left-wing politics. So while the very first protests in this time period were by Native-Americans, the cause was soon bolstered and enhanced by left-wing groups and politicians. So I'm not sure why you would want this removed. There have been a few right-wing politicians that jumped on the bandwagon, such as the Gov of South Dakota, but by and large it's NA and left-wing groups who have pushed this along for the last 25 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I had a previous account(s) but it wasn't linked to my email, so when I forgot the password I didn't have any way of accessing it. I wasn't super active over the years but I'm not brand new to Wikipedia. All I'm asking for here is sources to directly support the claim in question, OR rephrasing to remove the potentially misleading ambiguity. There is a longstanding history - in both the US and S American countries - of NA groups struggling to have their voices heard. My main concern is that the current wording minimizes their efforts, by subsuming it into a broader liberal agenda. Certain groups may have taken up the cause, but it is still a NA cause (separate from political ideology) and it appears from what I've read that they are primarily *leading* the campaigns. Looking at less liberal cities than Berkeley would be more instructive here. It is so overwhelmingly left-leaning that you couldn't get anything done there without liberal groups being involved. I've provided examples of other cities where NA groups got sole credit for raising and pushing the issue. Perhaps a more neutral phrasing is more appropriate, that lists prominent non-NA groups that have also campaigned on this issue over the years without pigeonholing them by political orientation or overstating their involvement. At the very least, the current sources need to be replaced by ones that don't rely on your preexisting knowledge of this subject to see the connection; as it stands it's quite a leap to get from the cited sources to the actual text in the article, raising question of WP:SYN. $ekraan (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Major edit/removal without explanation

I wonder about this one. Swliv (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It was not a "major" edit... it was bringing it back to how it was before a major edit without good reason. Things likes trying to use "recorded landing" as opposed to the original "the landing" is ridiculous. Adding paragraphs in the lead section that have nothing to do with Columbus Day was also ridiculous. Those two added paragraphs were not about the holiday of Columbus Day... they were about other holidays celebrated on the same day. We have a section that deals with the opposition to Columbus Day... that's where they belong and where they are already talked about. This is an article about the holiday Columbus Day, not days that have replaced the holiday. They would need their own articles. Sure we touch on the subjects, which is why we have a non observance section, but this is not supposed to be some negative-based political article. I'm certainly not averse to tightening the wording in certain sections, but some anon IP added and removed things that were not warranted and actually harmed the article. Heck we had editors removing the infobox. It happens a lot this time of year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I now have a pretty good feel for your edit. I'd remind you of doing a bit of Edit summary when removing so much; or any time; I think of it as long term investment in high-quality editing and dialogue. On substance, I think at least a line about the coincident Canadian holiday in the lead makes sense; it's an 'operating reality' for anyone working in or near or with both countries whether or not there's any 'program' relationship between the two holidays. Since initiating my inquiry above I've seen your own Talk page and seen you have some serious gripes about the encyclopedia and its process and some editors. I empathize. I still don't think the 'ridiculous' above helps. And you seem to stray from 'encyclopedia': If a credible source wants to question the date of the landing and uses 'recorded' to draw attention to that, I would hope your judgment wouldn't lead to any action in the article here. I've spent a bit of my Wiki time trying to recruit new pseudonymed or named editors from the ranks of the [IP address]] editors. I can't say I've felt a lot of explicit success on the effort but I don't despair. And on the other hand, having now also scanned the level of editing in recent days on this (appropriately of interest, timing-wise) article, I did wonder about 'semi-protection'; a concept I've witnessed on Wiki but not attempted. (NOW I 'get' your 'this time of year'; I'd puzzled at it the first time I read it. Well, on we go. Thanks again.) Swliv (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I used ridiculous on "recorded landing" because your interpretation is not the way it actually reads to viewers. It said nothing about the date being off a day or two... it reads as if the landing might not have happened and simply added unnecessary length to the sentence. The landing is celebrated as Columbus Day in the US. We do not need the recorded landing is celebrated as Columbus Day in the US. Yes i should have used an edit summary, sorry. One thing though... the addition of the material had no accurate summaries either. If they did I might have been able to revert only the parts that were bad. The fact it coincides with Canadian Thanksgiving could very easily be placed near the bottom of the lead... No problem with that. The "time of year" is just one of those things we have to deal with. In tennis articles, crazy edits and mass changes during Wimbledon have to be dealt with. The same for holidays. For the most part we are trying to tell what Columbus Day "is", not what it "isn't". We are supposed to lay out why and how it's celebrated, and who celebrates it, how long it's been celebrated, etc... that should be the bulk. If other countries celebrate it but with a different name or date, that should be mentioned too. If a completely different holiday is celebrated on the same day, that's really for it's own article. If there are controversies that should mostly be in it's own section. It should be thorough but article weight should be maintained. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

President declares Oct. 9th Colombus day.

Why is this article locked and not reflecting that this is now a national holiday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.76.247 (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

What? What do you mean by "now?" It's been one of our 10 Federal holidays for decades. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Columbus Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and how the non-observance and opposition sections keep growing

Over half of the article is now talking about the opposition to Columbus Day rather than actually being ABOUT Columbus Day. This article is not for people to write their pet reasons on why Columbus Day is a bad idea/wrong/incorrect/etc. This would assuredly classify as WP:UNDUE. Ergzay (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

That is spot on. Most of this article should talk about Columbus Day... how it is celebrated, it's history, etc... But there should also be info on some of the backlash it has received as of late. You would think about 3/4 on the holiday and "maybe" 1/4 on the backlash. It has gotten a bit much. I trimmed it earlier today but it could use more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I trimmed it a bit more, leaving quotes for the reader to find in the sources, not the article. A lot of the trivia should be left for the Christopher Columbus article proper, not a holiday article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Ergzay - Absolute agreement on that. The whole page needs a lot of attention in that regard and, perhaps, even a separate protest page. I was thinking of tackling it, but it's far too much trouble to edit while another editor edits over top of you as you work on one small section. No one has time for that, including me. AHampton (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
When blatant errors are created that will confuse readers, then I fix them as I find them. I have no way of knowing whether you are going to fix your created errors. Work on and perfect it in your sandbox before replacing so we don't run into these errors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Interfering with editing in progress is why the singular and obvious (or, "blatant" for the high-handed) error of combining states and cities even occurred. A few moments of patience would have seen that fixed. Collaboration may require patience in general.AHampton (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

non-observance section

I believe that this section is now more succinct and greatly improved than it was two days ago. Please continue to improve it. I replaced the quoted "in decline" with a more appropriate inclusion. It's discouraging to have someone edit over you while you are still working on a section, and takes, thus, twice the time.AHampton (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

You also made grave errors in mixing up states and cities and putting sources in the wrong location. That has been reverted. I left the change to the "decline" section. What you should do is take the section to your own sandbox and fix it there completely before editing it piecemeal where errors creep in. I have no way to know whether you are going to fix those bad errors or not, and readers would be very confused. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I did not mix up states and cities, and kept references attached to items as they already were. You restored pre-existing links that did not work, which I was checking and updating. It obviously was not vandalism, so try waiting a wee bit before going vigilante on work-in-progress. The page needs so much work... perhaps I'm seeing why it does not get it.AHampton (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Well let's take a look at what you keep inserting. "As of 2018, cities that have replaced Columbus Day with official recognition of Indigenous Peoples' Day include Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Austin, Boise, Cincinnati, Denver, Los Angeles...". That is absolutely incorrect. If you keep inserting it I will keep removing it. Updating the links is fine, but breaking the sentence is not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
see above ^^ AHampton (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Columbus_Day/Archive_2&oldid=899305735"