Talk:Age of Discovery

Australia, New Zealand and colonies

Australia no longer has any major populated offshore possessions, but there's a list at w:States and territories of Australia. The Realm of New Zealand is more prominent. Tokelau seems a clear case of colonial status, regardless of the fact that that's what they voted for. Anyway, I think it's a bit odd to say that Australia and New Zealand have no colonies but the U.S. does. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I've taken the liberty of moving this discussion to the article talk page in order to let other weigh in.

I am just reading up on AUS and NZ territories. I probably should have done that first, but nonetheless I'm sure we can find the right words for this.

The US began collecting colonial possessions in the late 19th century as part of the European rush to amass colonies. In these cases, European/US rule was imposed on Africa, the Philippines, Hawaii, Puerto Rico by force. I don't think that the transfer of sovereignty by the UK to AUS and NZ after World War II is comparable. In most of these cases, external administration and association seems to be welcome, although i don't know what's going on with Norfolk Island. Ground Zero (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Point taken, but do keep in mind the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. I'd sure call that a colony, when it existed, but I think the fact that it was a U.N. mandate muddies that somewhat. And that's why the Northern Marianas are still a "Commonwealth" of the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Tokelau was a colony of the UK. Administration was transferred to NZ in 1926, but sovereignty remained with the UK until 1948, by which time colonialism was a spent force. NZ accepted administrative responsibility for Tokelau's tiny population, but was not setting out to assemble an empire whose resources and people it could exploit. Wikipedia describes a colony as being "a territory under the immediate complete political control and occupied by settlers of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign."

Tokelau is now a self-governing territory of NZ. It was granted self-government in 1993, but I'd be interested in seeing any source that calls Tokelau a colony during the 1948-1993 period.

I don't know much about the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, but I would assume that the UN mandate was that the US administer the islands in the islanders' interests, and not for the benefit of the USA. There was not such limit on US rule of the Philippines or Puerto Rico (until the US granted self-government and commonwealth status to the latter). Ground Zero (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2020 (UTCL

Also, it seems that the Tokelauans haven't so much voted for continuing Kiwi administration, as have failed to vote in sufficient numbers for free association (only 60% voted for it, while 2/3 majority is required). I am learning so much today. Ground Zero (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed on what the U.N. told the U.S. to do, which isn't necessarily what they did. And do you think Puerto Rico is not a U.S. colony? I don't think it fits a definition of "a territory under the immediate complete political control and occupied by settlers of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign," which focuses on colonization that's associated with settlement, such as the settlement of what are now the 50 U.S. states by Europeans and Euro-Americans or the same type of thing in Australia, Canada, Latin America, etc. Many colonies have had very little settlement from the mother country but were designed simply to exploit a territory's resources and/or strategic position. I think it's abundantly clear from how Puerto Ricans have been treated in terms of the island's debt and the lack of the kind of hurricane relief usually taken for granted by U.S. states that it is a colony of the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that PR ceased to be a colony in 1952 when its status changed from bring a protectorate to a self-governing commonwealth. (One could argue that it stopped being a colony in 1948 when it was allowed to elect a governor instead of having one appointed.) But I think the more important issue is that our travel guide shouldn't venture into using inflammatory terminology that isn't used in objective texts. People may throw around words like "colony" in political arguments, but I don't think you'll find an encyclopaedia using that word for PR today, or for Tokelau. In fact, even the UN refers to Tokelau not as a colony, but as a "non-self-governing territory". Ground Zero (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Was Algeria not a French colony because it was three overseas departments? Calling Puerto Rico not a colony on a technicality that doesn't actually relate to how it's treated by the mother country means ignoring the more important facts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like I'm wrong about PR, but the original discussion was about AUS and NZ territories. Time for dinner. Ground Zero (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Bon appetit. And yes, let's refocus on Australia and New Zealand. I think the point would be that they don't have colonies they conquered (unless Northern Territory counts?). Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes, PR is still considered a colony of the YS. Tokelau, on the other hand: Wikipedia and Britannica don't use that word. The Government of Tokelau says Tokelau "became part of New Zealand] in 1949. On the other hand, the head of its government called it a colony in 2004. Given than there are four Tokelauans living in NZ for each one living in Tokelau, we might consider if it is Tokelau that is colonizing NZ. And JSTOR has an article that I can't access called "Tokelau: A Sort of 'Self-Governing' Sort of 'Colony'" to really muddy the waters.

But the article is called "Age of Discovery", and says "The Age of Discovery... refers to the period from the late 15th century to the late 18th, when Europeans set sail to discover distant lands", so we really don't need to mention the Aussies and Kiwis taking on administrative responsibilities in the 20th century. Although American expansionism had everything in common with European colonialism, it happened in the late 19th century, not in the Age of Discovery, so it too is out of scope of the article. Ground Zero (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, easy solution then! Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for coming in this late, but my reason for adding the US was that it was colonised by Europeans during the Age of Discovery, and when it built its colonial empire after independence, it already had a white majority with a government run by white people, so it was effectively an extension of European colonialism by the descendants of colonists form the Age of Discovery. But that said, I understand that is happened later than European colonialism and don't feel particularly strongly about this, so if the consensus is to leave it out, I respect that.

As for Australia and New Zealand, they were part of the British Empire at the time they acquired colonies, so it was effectively an extension of the British Empire, unlike the American colonial empire, which was built after independence. So effectively, countries like Papua New Guinea and the Cook Islands were effectively colonies of colonies. And let's not forget that even up till World War II, most white Australians, white New Zealanders and white Anglophone Canadians regarded themselves as British subjects and were loyal to the British government in London, which is why they entered the war as part of the Allies. It was only after World War II that those people began to have distinct national identities and stopped identifying as British. The dog2 (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

So, we are agreed that all of the territories that became colonies of the US, NZ or Australia had already been colonized by Europeans during the Age of Discovery, and the assumption of colonial overlordship by the US, NZ and Australia only happened after the period covered by this article? I think it would make more sense to expand the article by doing a deeper dive into what happened during the Age of Discovery, than to try to make a convoluted case for covering stuff that happened later. Ground Zero (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

To my knowledge, not in the case of the US. Liberia and Palau were certainly not colonised by European countries, and were directly colonised by the United States. Some others were won from other colonial powers in wars, such as the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Australia and New Zealand, on the other hand, colonised other territories on behalf of the British, since they still identified as British subjects at the time, so it's a little different from American and European colonialism in that it was in service of a "higher power". The dog2 (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

We can argue that, but since it is outside of the scope of the Age of Discovery, let's not, and just move on to creating and improving relevant travel content instead. Ground Zero (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not to sound obtrusive, but the names Cocos Islands, Christmas Island and Norfolk Island strike my memory as Australian colonies stricto sensu, de facto and de jure, under Australian control as of 2020. I'm very unfamiliar with dates and details, though. Ibaman (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Australia became a self-governing dominion within the British Empire in 1901. "The Age of Discovery, also known as the Age of Exploration, refers to the period from the late 15th century to the late 18th, when Europeans set sail to discover distant lands." Whether Australia can be said to have colonies is a moot point as it is out of scope of this article. Ground Zero (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

China

Hey everyone, since the article sets out that it covers the period "when Europeans set sail to discover distant lands. It also marked the beginning of European colonialism and mercantilism, as well as the beginning of globalization", what do we think about the recently added paragraph that explains that the Chinese didn't create an empire? I think it's another example of something that's out of scope, but I'd like other views. Ground Zero (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• IMO the way you wrote it is proper, accurate, succinct and to the point. It says what must be said about it, in a Wikivoyage style. I would have nothing to add. Ibaman (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm just trying to put the voyages of the Age of Discovery in a broader historical context. One thing that was indeed significant was that the voyages of the Age of Discovery led to the founding of the first colonial empires, even though they were not the world's first great voyages. That said, I would not go into more detail than what is already in the article. The dog2 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: any comments? Ground Zero (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. Anyway, the Chinese did create an empire, it was just primarily overland rather than across the seas. I'm also not sure these were the first colonial empires—I think I've seen the Roman Empire referred to as "colonial". One could debate whether or not China established a colonial empire, but let's keep that debate off of Wikivoyage by removing the sentence in question. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ What about this guy? And what about the (largely nameless) Polynesian explorers? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this comment. I don't think they're necessary to mention in an "Understand" section that's already longer than the rest of the article put together. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A Voyages of Zheng He article would be an interesting idea, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a superb idea! Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oceania

• I have just taken care of the (largely nameless) Polynesian explorers, very aptly remembered by @Hobbitschuster: ( by the way bro, have I ever said it, I like very much to play historic ball with you, every single time). For reference I add this link to a very dear field of study to me personally, on which I intend to maybe write a topic or itinerary of its own, if I ever get to devise the right angle of copious meaningful digression. Ibaman (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I likewise like it and have just now added a few more aspects... Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Article's name

• Raising this point in an optimal time, as I have made proper and merited maintenance of all "Empire" articles to eliminate obsolete, pejorative, heavily politically-loaded language such as "this European guy discovered these already-setlled lands (...)", I propose renaming this page "Age of Exploration", already in the knowledge that this title will extend its timeframe and scope to immortal travellers James Cook, Bellinghausen, Robert Edwin Peary, Robert Falcon Scott and Roald Amundsen (and maybe even Joshua Slocum, Hillary & Tenzing or Jacques Cousteau). Request comment. Ibaman (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The Age of Discovery, also known as the Age of Exploration is not a Wikivoyage invention. They are accepted terms that are used as defined in this article, even with the eurocentric connotations of the first term. I, for one, think that we should keep the article as a travel article about this period, and not try to turn it into something else. If its timeframe and scope are to be expanded, then we should not use "Age of Explpration" as that will lead to confusion with the common meaning of the term. Ground Zero (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't really care about what the article is named, as long as it is clear what the name refers to, and the term "Age of Discovery" is actually the most common name for the time period in question. That said, I agree that we should not write that the Vikings "discovered" North America, that Ferdinand Magellan "discovered" the Philippines, or that the Dutch "discovered" Australia, because it is very disrespectful and condescending to the indigenous peoples in these areas, whose ancestors are, objectively speaking, the actual discoverers of those areas. The dog2 (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Totally agreed by now. It must be said, this article always looked to me as a logjam waiting for release, and in this way I've reckoned, and now put it down, it's fitting to extend historic prose up to Amundsen's Antarctic expedition (whatever definition of discovery can be agreed upon will necessarily apply to what he did to the South Pole, a few days ahead of Robert Scott in a most well-known event, let's be honest), with a long section on James Cook and his contemporaries, another on Franklin's wreck searching for the Northwestern Passage with all the salvaging/searching expeditions sent for him. Just for the record. Ibaman (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The exploration of Antarctica was much later, in the early 20th century, so that is beyond the scope of the article. But yes, it's true that were no indigenous people in Antarctica. The voyages of Abel Tasman, James Cook and George Vancouver would fall under the scope though, so if you want to create itineraries for them and add them to this page, go ahead. The dog2 (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would be very pleased if you checked out this amazing story. It led to the whole precise mapping of North American waters, and it would be a shame if it went unmentioned in our "Age of Discovery" article, even if it took place from 1845 onwards. Ibaman (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

We are talking about the proper noun "The Age of Discovery", also called "The Age of Exploration", not about all exploration and discovery. The age referred to here is a specific, commonly-used term. See the Wikipedia article. If you want to rename the article, propose a new name. If you want to change the common definition of the "Age of Discovery", don't start with Wikivoyage. Start with Wikipedia, as I've linked above, and with Britannica, World Atlas, and historians. Wikivoyage isn't a good place to start a campaign like that. Ground Zero (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• not disagreed either; I'm brainstorming about how properly moving it from a stub, that's it. Look what a joke, this single topic today got arguably :D longer, more solid, more comprehensive than the actual article. Ibaman (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • If the Liechtenstein article were a stub, the best way to expand it would be to add more information on Liechtenstein, rather than expanding it to include eastern Switzerland and Western Austria. This article would be more useful if it had links to monuments to and museums that explore the history behind the key figures in the Age of Discovery: Vasco de Gama, Christopher Columbus, and others. The Wikipedia article is very detailed, and should give almost unlimited ideas about how to add travel information that is relevant to the topic. Ground Zero (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's a good idea to keep the name and just give an accurate description and context for it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• oh well, it seem it would rather stay in stub status. Well then. Ibaman (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to expand the article, please add destinations and travel advice! Sometimes in these historical travel topics I think people forget that this is a travel guide, and the historical summary in the "Understand" section exists only to provide the necessary context for the juicy travel information that's supposed to follow. The article currently has basically no travel information, just an "Understand" section and links to other Wikivoyage articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Let us take the time, please, we didn't build Roman Empire in one day. Building a solid Understand section helps to inspire proper the proper bricklaying of See/Do/Eat/Drink. Hobbitschuster and I are very fond of building these off of each other. Cutting off this vibe is unhelpful. Ibaman (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I do think that some clarity of the purpose of the article is needed here. Is it going to be about "the Age of Discovery", or it is going to be about "world exploration"? I'm okay with either, as long as it's not an article about world exploration that's entitled "the Age of Discovery". The points of interest added by Granger, The dog2 and me work under either scope. Ground Zero (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ground Zero that we need to clarify the scope of the article. I tend to favor a narrower focus like the Age of Discovery, as the topic of "world exploration" is extremely broad. Separate articles can be created for other well-known exploratory voyages like those of Zheng He, Hanno, or the Vikings. But if others would prefer to rename the article and expand its scope, I am okay with that too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• If you'll excuse my emphatic and pleonastic emphasis, this is the precise point behind the opening of this topic. Historical travel articles are necessarily different in tone than destination articles, and this special topic merits grandiose, pyrotechnical scope and style as perhaps no other Wikivoyage article, for homage to them immortal travellers. As a personal note, I must say I have my throat full of thorns right now about my country's present situation, and could digress for very long about how almost every cause of it can be traced to a "miasma of rotting medieval Portuguese culture", but this didn't stop me to heap praiseful waffle in the article that actually had to be toned down afterwards. Inspiration is a fickle thing. What I actually mean is, I'd rather get really creative than to let an opportunity for wonderful colorful prose go to waste. Ibaman (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If I may weigh in, I think we can mention other great voyages such as those of Zheng He, the Vikings or the Austronesians can be mentioned briefly in this article to help readers put the Age of Discovery in a broader historical context. That said, this is an article about the Age of Discovery, so the focus should be on the voyages pertaining to that, and we should not go into detail about the other voyages.

As for expanding the Understand section, we have hardly anything about the Spanish, who also played a huge role in the Age of Discovery. And I think we should also cover the Dutch, the French and the British too since they were also significant players in European mercantilism and colonialism. The dog2 (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The historical summary in the "Understand" section exists to put the article in context, so here we're talking about putting the context in context. I think that should be brief—if you want to mention earlier explorers as part of it, that's okay with me, but yes, let's not go into detail if they're not part of what this article covers. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the Understand section could probably use more information about other European countries involved in the Age of Discovery. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• oh, well, whatever, the buzz is killed, do whatever you want. Ibaman (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It's too bad that you're taking your ball and going home, but that's your choice. I've added several more sites that travellers can visit. Now this article provides practical information for readers of our travel guide rather than being just a poor version of a Wikipedia article (without sources and references) like, for example, Voyages of Columbus, which has been around for five years and still provides no practical travel information. Ground Zero (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

yeah, I wish this article could take an angle of "Age of High Exploration" and by the way, again, this is the precise point behind the opening of this topic of discussion, but consensus seems to point to an angle of "European naval achievements 1400-1800" to which, subscribing @Hobbitschuster:'s point in the topic below, I have no desire for contributing. Ibaman (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

As I read the above, we have a consensus that Age of Exploration would be a better title. Should we go ahead & make the move? Pashley (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

this discussion was very tiresome for me personally; at this time I'm comfortable with either solution. Ibaman (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we have consensus, but I guess I agree with Ibaman. I think it would be better to leave the title alone for a while so we can focus on improving the content itself. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding travel content

I've taken the first step by adding content about a place a traveller can visit to learn about Columbus. If each person involved in this discussion added one place, we could start to have an actual travel article. Ground Zero (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger, The dog2: thanks for stepping up! Ground Zero (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Should this be limited to Europeans sailing west and east?

In light of these removals, should we limit this article to the stereotypical tale of Europeans going out a-conquering? Even our article on the Old West has mention of Alaska and space as the "final frontier" and I think there's no good reason to exclude the original discoverers of New Zealand if we are to include - for example - Leif Erikson or Carthaginian explorers Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If the article is called "Age of Discovery", then it should probably be about the "Age of Discovery" as the term is commonly understood and used. We shouldn't think that we can redefine the term that is already in common use. If it is going to have a scope broader than the Age of Discovery, then it should be renamed. As it is, it has no actual travel content, so broadening the scope seems kind of pointless. If no-one is interested in adding travel content, then I'm not sure why Wikivoyage has this article. This would seem to be more appropriate for Wikipedia. (Wikipedia already has an article about the Age of Discovery, which is much better than this one.) Ground Zero (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

An "Age of Discovery" starting "when Columbus sailed the Ocean blue" is an incredibly problematic concept. And it is weird to have it trail off into nothingness, when the fact of the matter is that the forces which led to the "discovery" of the "new world" were similar to those at play during the "Scramble for Africa" and the "Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration" very much overlaps the "Imperialist Age" or rather "Second Imperialist Age" of ca. 1870-1918. Oh and what is commonly taken as the definite endpoint of the "Heroic Age" of Antarctic Exploration? The International Geophysical Year 1957/58 when - among other things - the Amundsen Scott South Pole Base was established. Now what is the biggest Soviet contribution to that year? w:Sputnik. So unless one wishes to tell a blatantly false narrative where the only ones ever sailing to where they don't know what's beyond the horizon are Europeans (newsflash: The Polynesians did far more impressive things far earlier), which somehow trails off into nothingness once Portugal and Spain have deprived themselves through religious bigotry of their best and brightest and thus decline, then this might fulfill someone's desire for a neat little package, but it is not a story happening on the same planet as reality. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your views about this commonly accepted term, but I don't think that a travel guide is the place to start a campaign to change it. Wikivoyage should reflect the common usage of the term, rather than surprise readers by using a radically different interpretation of it.

And no one has suggested anywhere that "the only ones ever sailing to where they don't know what's beyond the horizon are Europeans". Let's stick to the current discussion, and not to arguments that you imagine. Ground Zero (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd say the article should end with Cook, Vancouver & Tasman, late 18th century. Pashley (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, and support @Hobbitschuster:. Ibaman (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Why? I say, focus it on whatever the term generally encompasses. Yes, it can be put very briefly into context, but this is indeed about European voyages in a particular period. Why flinch from that? Does the fact that we have an article about the Atlantic slave trade imply approval for the slavers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, to put it shortly, I return to my defense of a name change here. Absolute conformity to w:Age of Discovery is the most frustrating ball-and-chain of Wikivoyage history. Ibaman (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • With the information about sites added, this article is now fairly long. Maybe the solution to your frustration is another article that covers other periods of exploration, and that refers to this article, which covers this specific period. I really think you would have to include information on sites to visit that relate to the topic, because without that, I don't know what it would be doing in a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on my understanding of what consensus has been reached about this article's tone, I would reckon it complete now (you're welcome to trim Understand to optimal size), and will ponder on your suggestions, and maybe start new articles to plunge forward properly, Wikivoyage-style. Ibaman (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there are probably more museums and monuments relevant to the subject that would be of interest to readers, so I wouldn't say it's complete. I hope that other contributors will add more. Ground Zero (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

yeah, speaking precisely, only the Portuguese feats are peoperly described (this bit was copied here from Portuguese Empire, I could claim authorship if I ever cared), but has already raised complaints for being too long. If you'll excuse this bit of repetitive melodrama on opening my travel writer's heart, if consensus about this article disallows us of mentioning the Polynesians and Thor Heyerdahl in the same paragraph, Vasco da Gama and Zheng He in the next, and John Franklin with the mapping of North American waters or the Amundsen/Scott race at all (by the way if you open w:Northwestern Passage right now, in the intro you'll read "Norwegian Roald Amundsen made the first complete passage in 1903–1906" from the Atlantic to the Pacific; pre-global warming times, surely), I conclude that, here, ttcf, plunge forward and WV:fun must take a backseat for the benefit of "exact mirroring of another wiki's article"; from this conclusion, I think I should rather devise the angle for writing such a "(The Age of) High Exploration" type of article; this one merits stub status after all, IMHO. Ibaman (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Ibaman, I understand that you're angry about this, but you have to accept that Wikivoyage works by consensus. Sometimes other people don't agree with you. Not getting your way doesn't mean that other people are ruining your fun or killing the vibe, it means that they have a different opinion of what is the best way to serve travellers. The Wikipedia reference is a red herring because Wikipedia just reflects the common use of the term "Age of Discovery". Other people want to keep this article as an exploration of sites related to this specific age. You are welcome to plunge forward and create another article with a broader scope. No-one is stopping you/ruining your fun/killing the vibe. Finally, this article has ample context, and 11 relevant points of interest listed, and many links for further reading, so it's not a stub. Ground Zero (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not "angry", I'm rather feeling "digressive". Talk pages exist for discussing POVs and reaching consensus, and that's what we're exactly doing, and this is very natural and makes me fell good, venting steam for a point that is dear to me, in the most, the only, appropriate channel. I'd rather not develop the gastritis I would if I swallowed it dry. It's perfectly, rationally cool, look how we agree that a new article is the best solution. @Hobbitschuster: will get happy on this too, I hope.
  • That's good to hear. Have a good Sunday. Ground Zero (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Ibaman (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If anyone wants to create a Zheng He article, you could list several attractions in Malacca. There is a Cheng Ho Museum in there. And there is the Peranakan Museum, and while it's not devoted to the voyages as such, it is those voyages that led to the first wave of Chinese immigration to Southeast Asia, and the establishment of the Peranakan community. The dog2 (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is limited by clinging to what secondary sources say. And of course in the "bad old days" of only hwite people "mattering" to the stuff published in English, this term got legs while any attempt to contrast it with a much, much "messier" reality was only just tying its shoelaces. In a very simple sense this term has three different axes of "problematic-ness". First: Most of the "discoveries" were of inhabited places. Whose inhabitants, certainly, had discovered themselves quite a bit earlier. Second, it ignores anything not done by Europeans in the early modern era (ironically even managing to ignore the remnants of Norse influence on the Americas). And third, there is a not-well-reflected "end" to said "Age" even though the "blank spots" on the maps did not somehow disappear miraculously after the Spanish and Portuguese had successfully ended their own "golden age" through religious bigotry. And as I laid out above, the "discovery" of the Polar regions runs right into the space age. At any rate, if we have to have this limited in scope page, we might wish to rename it to European Transatlantic and Transpacific voyages of the Early Modern Era. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I share your concerns on the name, and I have always found it problematic to have been taught in school that Christopher Columbus (or the Vikings) "discovered" America, or the Ferdinand Magellan "discovered" the Philippines, and I'm really glad that the community has come to a consensus not to use such Eurocentric language here. I am also acutely aware of just how exploitative colonialism was (I even have misgivings about the Hong Kong protesters who are calling for the return of colonial rule, but that's not something to discuss here). However, the name of the article is the actual most common name for the time period in question. I guess we could re-name it Age of Exploration as a compromise. But look, nobody is trying to downplay the achievements of the Austronesians or Zheng He here. But there is legitimate concern that making this an article about all exploration in human history could make it unwieldy. Why not just create articles about those other explorers, where we can highlight their achievements in more detail? I'm sure none of us have an objection to that. The dog2 (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Even if we substitute a cumbersome name along the lines that you are suggesting, Hobbitschuster, we would have to (IMO) mention in the article that this period is traditionally called the "Age of Discovery" in European and Eurocentric countries and otherwise give the same contextual explanations for it that we should give if we keep the name as is. Moreover, your proposed name is inadmissible, since Vasco da Gama's voyage across the Indian Ocean was crucial. My feeling is, per Wikivoyage:Naming conventions, we need to use the name that's most commonly used in English, and then we can give a description that is non-ethnocentric. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe European Age of Discovery would work since the article discusses explorers that were the first Europeans to sight a particular of land. And it's neither an unwieldy nor unfamiliar term. It would have to include the Viking expeditions too. Gizza ^(roam) 22:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Has any other civilization had something that is called "the Age of Discovery"? I'm not asking if other civilizations explored and discovered things, because obviously they did. 54 versions of Wikipedia across 51 languages have articles called "the Age of Discovery" or "the Age of Exploration" about the period covered by this article when the Europeans explored. As far as I can tell, none of them make a geographic distinction in the title, not even the non-European language versions.

This is the common name, and a travel guide is not the place to invent a new name for the era. I've added some text to address how it is a misnomer, but as long as this is what people generally call this era of European exploration, it is what readers will be looking for and expect to find.

And yes it's ridiculous that the Americas are named after an Italian, and Africa is a name that comes from Latin, and Australia and New Zealand were named by Europeans, not by the people who lived there, but we're not going to fix those injustices by renaming those countries and places in Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'm good with "European Age of Discovery". It's more descriptive. I'm also OK with including Eric the Red and Leif Erikson. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping the current title or changing it to "Age of exploration". I would object to any of the other suggestions made above; they all strike me as complicating things for no good reason. Pashley (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think "Age of exploration" would be an improvement. Pashley (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any need to change the title from the widely used term, but I'm okay with "Age of Exploration" just to settle this and move on, as long as that isn't a signal to expand this to cover all exploration from the dawn of time, in which case it would be a completely useless article. Ground Zero (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if that happened, it would indeed be useless, and that gives me some pause, but I'll go along with whatever you all want to do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Most certainly it would be impractical to cover all exploration. Technically speaking, any of us who is not African is descended from explorers, since the first humans to leave Africa were by definition exploring and discovering new lands. I don't think we can possibly cover the entire history of human settlement here. The dog2 (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

And I will add that "the Age of Discovery" or "the Age of Exploration" no more suggests that discovery and exploration only happened during that age than "the Atomic Age" suggests that atoms didn't exist before 1945. Ground Zero (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• GZ. Please. Again. This is my point: from the travel writer's POV, about this precious an beautiful subject matter, a TRAVEL HISTORIC article "Age of Exploration" or "Age of Discovery" or "Age of Global Navigations" or whatever variation of nomenclature, must mention Polynesians and Phoenicians, and must end not on Cook, not on Franklin, it must end with Scott and Amundsen. Take it from someone who digs this field of study, and has gone to the distance of even making sure to try and get to know Cook, Scott, Amundsen and Shackleton (and Amyr Klink, and Joshua Slocum, and Heyerdahl) from their own writings. Ibaman (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No, from the reader/traveller's point of view, "Age of Discovery" has an established meaning. The Polynesians, etc., were explorers and discoverers who were absolutely not part of the "Age of Discovery" as it is commonly understood. We shouldn't use that term to mean something other than what the reader is expecting. I have proposed a broader article on other discovery and exploration below that would include these other explorers. Some people have objected that that article would become too big and unwieldy, but you're proposing to include them all in this article, such is already long and top-heavy with background. Ground Zero (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Oceania 2

I think we should perhaps also cover the exploration of Oceania. Any ideas on what is important enough to be covered? Perhaps Abel Tasman, James Cook or Matthew Flinders? The dog2 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Then what about the original discovery of New Zealand and what about Antarctica? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The discovery of NZ by the Maori is out of scope for the article, but would be worth including in another article if someone feels strongly enough to create one. As the first known sighting of Antarctica was in 1820, it would also be appropriate for an article other than one that that covers the period commonly understood to have ended in the mid-17th century. Ground Zero (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

As Flinders made three voyages to the southern ocean between 1791 and 1810, he doesn't belong here. Tasman, known for his voyages of 1642 and 1644, would be in. Cook, whose first voyage was from 1768 to 1771, would not seem to fit. Only Tasman is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, which relies on scholarly sources and reflects how the term is used around the world, rather than on what a handful of anonymous contributors think.

There is more than enough to write about for the Age of Discovery without expanding the article to include exploration that is outside of the common definition of the term. You can start by reading the Wikipedia article to understand the period. Why not focus, in this article, on finding more sites that tell the history of that period? And cover the there exploration in other articles? Ground Zero (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• speaking as someone who has read a lot about the subject, and would like very much to see Wikivoyage free of the ball-and-chain that is this reference, I support @Hobbitschuster: and verbal mention to James Cook, John Franklin and Roald Amundsen, per ttcf ( the travel writer's POV rather than historic NPOV), be fair, plunge forward and WV:fun. I have already written a lot on previous topics, and ask to be excused to not repeat all of it. Ibaman (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I still don't understand the refusal to start a new article, rather than putting this stuff in where it doesn't fit with the common understanding of the topic. This isn't about Wikipedia, it's about what people, our readers, travellers, understand about the topic. Wikipedia and the other standard references reflect what readers will expect. Or should the writers come first? Wv:fun doesn't mean putting writers ahead of travellers. (Only Mx. Granger, The dog2 and Pashley responded to my call to put travellers first by finding sites actually connected to the topic that travellers could visit. It seems that there were a lot of people only interested in writing "context" or "background". Travellers can get better context and background elsewhere.) And "plunge forward" doesn't mean that by plunging forward a writer gets to have their own way. This is still a collaborative project, not a personal blog. Ground Zero (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

For Antarctica, I think a brief mention of the fact that it wasn't discovered until after the period is fine, but this is not the article to go into detail about that. If Flinders started in 1791, that would put him in the tail end of the edge in question, so I guess it's a little ambiguous, but he is important for being the first to map the southern coast of Australia. And to make it clear, nobody here is saying that Tasman discovered New Zealand. Everyone here agrees that it was the Maori who discovered New Zealand. But Tasman was indeed the first European to set foot on New Zealand, and it's not factually wrong to say that.

And a little tangential to this, I remember someone mentioned Vancouver charting the west coast of North America. That probably also deserves some mention. The dog2 (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

New article

How about creating a new article as a complement to this one? Something like In the footsteps of explorers, which could cover topics including:

• James Cook, Bellinghausen, Robert Edwin Peary, Robert Falcon Scott, Roald Amundsen, George Vancouver, John Franklin, Matthew Flinders
• Joshua Slocum, Hillary & Tenzing, Jacques Cousteau
• The Polynesians, the Vikings, the Phoenicians
• Marco Polo, Zheng He, St. Brendan

The article could link to this one, which covers a subset (albeit a large one) of explorers, while providing information about sites to visit that tell the stories of these explorers. Ground Zero (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think one article covering all those explorers would quickly get to be too long. I'm in favor of multiple articles retracing the steps of individual explorers, though, and we've already got Magellan-Elcano circumnavigation to use as a model. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

These are topics the some want to add to this article. Creating a separate article would relieve that pressure. If it becomes too long, then it could be split. I don't think we will end up with useful articles on many of these topics as there aren't sites associated with many of them. Ground Zero (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I added a paragraph at the end of the lead section trying to state the scope of this article & provide links to related topics. What do others think? Pashley (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Because it's quite broad, it may need to be structured like historical travel or fiction tourism. A high-level summary with links to all of the explorers where you can take a deeper dive into the respective topics. But I support creating it. It would help if the travel topics were just as well breadcrumbed as our destination articles. Gizza ^(roam) 01:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We have articles on Marco Polo and Vikings and the Old Norse. I think one article on polar exploration would be a fine idea; split it up by explorer or into topics like "Northwest passage" or "Antarctic exploration" only if it grows too large. Several of the others mentioned could make good itineraries or travel topics as well.

I do not see the point of a single overview article trying to link to all exploration, but will not object if someone wants to write one. Pashley (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. We can have a cursory coverage of all exploration in human history, and have links to individual articles where each explorer is covered under more detail. The dog2 (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I like Ground Zero's idea but also agree with AndreCarrotflower that this could turn an already substantial travel topic into a problematically long article. I support the suggestion for a page move to European Age of Discovery, with possible additional articles including Zheng He, etc. Tenzing and Hillary arguably would overlap with Mount Everest. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I oppose Wikivoyage coming up with a term that is new and will be unfamiliar to readers to replace the term that is widely used in English (and other languages). A travel guide is not the place to campaign to change language. Ground Zero (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

As the one who created this article, I will say that I decided to do so because there was initially no landing page to list the voyages of Columbus, Vasco da Gama and Magellan, and I figured that some people may be visiting this guide looking for the "Age of Discovery". For better or worse, that is the most common name for the era in English, and that is what most visitors to this site will be searching for.

I am a non-white person who feels no shame in my Chinese heritage, and I certainly do not subscribe to the Eurocentric world view. If people want to start political campaigns to change the common name of the era in question, I have no objection to that, but WV is not a place for that campaign. And in practical terms, changing the name of an article here on WV is probably not going to change the most common English name. If the most common English name changed at some point in the future, then let's change the article name but until that happens, we should just stick to the most common English name for the article. What we name it here realistically isn't going to change anything. The dog2 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely with User:Ground Zero but would support a move to "Age of exploration". Pashley (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not call it Age of European expansion and discovery? That way those who wish to exclude Zheng He and the Polynesians get their wish... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, maybe this is more to their liking, yeah. Ibaman (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Because a travel guide shouldn't invent a new term and try to impose it on the English language. We're here to serve travellers, not to fix the English language. The problems with the commonly used name for the era are clearly discussed in the opening paragraphs. Ground Zero (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is going around in circles with each side repeating its arguments (me included, because the arguments for changing the name keep being repeated). I don't see any sign of consensus to change the article's name, other than to "Age of Exploration", but I don't think that would satisfy Hobbitschuster and Ibaman. Is there any point in continuing this debate, or can we go back to working on our travel guide. I have some region articles in British Columbia that I'd like to expand to usable articles. I expect that others have travel-related projects they want to work on too. Ground Zero (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no deadline and nobody is forcing you to participate in this discussion. Still, I think it is problematic to have an article with such a vague name and then limit it to something so specific. If it truly is an "Age", then all contemporaries of Henry the Navigator are fair game - including nonwhite ones. And if "discovery" is what this is about, then why include some "discoveries" and not others? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you've made that argument before, and I've replied before so I needn't repeat it. As you haven't changed anyone's mind on this, there is no consensus to rename the article. Ground Zero (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Well, there's a new article coming up to disambiguate tone, I reckon it's a sensible solution, we plunge forward on it and leave this well-marked historic period, hum, well-marked. My only unmade tweaks on this article would be the inclusion of verbal mention to Vitus Jonassen Bering (baptised 5 August 1681, died 19 December 1741), also known as Ivan Ivanovich Bering, the Danish cartographer and explorer in Russian service, as an officer in the Russian Navy, the "discoverer" of Alaska, after whom the body of water was named. Ibaman (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Beginning of mercantilism

The article says that voyages beginning in the 15th century marked the beginning of mercantilism. I disagree. Mercantilism already existed in the ancient world, didn't it? Anyway, the Arabs were certainly great mercantilists (and great explorers and navigators) during the Golden Age, and the main effect in Europe of da Gama's voyages was to end the Italian monopoly on trade with the East through the Middle East, which to my understanding was held by several city states in turn (I have a vague sense that Venice may have been the last). In any event, I think it's safe to say that mercantilism was well underway hundreds of years before the period covered by this article, and in fact, it was precisely the growth of the classes of wealthy mercantilists and tradesmen that helped bring about the flowering of secular culture in Florence in the 14th century. Francesco Landini, born c. 1325, was court composer there and wrote nothing but secular poetry and music. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources typically say that mercantilism was "dominant" in the 16th-18th centuries. I haven't seen any that way when it originated, although the term "mercantile system" originated with Adam Smith. We could change it to "marked the beginning of the era of mercantilism" to address your concern. Ground Zero (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• If I insist that this discussion keeps its focus. We're talking about TRAVELLERS and if consensus says significant travellers are not to be mentioned, this article very well should be trimmed to stub status. Ibaman (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, Ground Zero. Ibaman, my friend, you're off topic in this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• I respect your opinion and mean total civility on challenging consensus. We can build such a super Explorers article, maybe worth Star status in the end. Let us try. Ibaman (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

China 2

We should probably have a discussion about whether or not it belongs here. Macau and Taiwan clearly do, since they were colonised during the time period in question, but things like the Opium Wars, Sino-Japanese Wars and British colonisation of Hong Kong all took place in the 19th century, which is outside the period in question. Sure, the French concession in Shanghai is beautiful as is the Bund, and I would highly recommend tourists to visit them, but they were built in the 19th century, not the 15th to 18th. The dog2 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'd say the "century of humiliation" shouldn't be in this article at all. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Imperialism was not "discovery," which by definition of the word had to precede imperialism. Therefore, while this article could mention early European explorations of China, the Opium Wars would be off-topic IMHO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Imperialism was a big part of the Age of Discovery, so that in and of itself is not off topic. In fact, Macau and Taiwan should stay because those were colonised by Europeans during the period in question. The " Century of Humiliation" occurred during the 19th and 20th centuries, which is beyond the scope of this article. The dog2 (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what The dog2 said. These weren't people just exploring for kicks or equitable trade relationships. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Testing out a concept

Although there was scepticism about my proposal for an article that covers exploration more broadly as a way to address the desire to add more explorers and types of exploration to this article, I have plunged ahead and created an article in my userspace to demonstrate how it could work.

Please see the draft article here: User:Ground Zero/In the footsteps of explorers.

It's a draft. It's not perfect. I'd like to get comments on the layout, the format and the concept. If there are other explorers who should be added, let's hold that until the article is moved to the main space — there is no point in fussing about that if the idea is voted down.

There were concerns about the article being too long. I don't think it is at this point, but I can see how it could be if people focus on expanding the bios instead of on finding relevant museums for travellers to visit. It could get very long if people start writing bios about every explorer, including those who have no relevant travel sites associated with them. If it does belong too long, we can discuss later how to split it up. (And maybe the Zheng He section should be spun out into its own article by someone who knows more about the subject.)

For each explorer group, I've provided a link to an existing Wikivoyage historical travel article, or to a significant historical site. For each individual explorer, I have provided a museum travellers can visit. The one exception is George Vancouver: I could not find a museum that has a permanent exhibit about him, so I've listed 3 cities with statues. If I make it to Vancouver BC this autumn, I will try to get to the city museum to see if there is something there.

I don't think it is useful to provide a bio of Dora T. Explorer and then provide a list of all of the countries she visited. That's not a travel guide. That's just an unreferenced version of a Wikipedia article.

This proposed article will not address the concern that a couple of people have about this article's title. That issue has been discussed at length above.

User:SelfieCity has kindly provided a banner for the article.

So, should this article go ahead? Ground Zero (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks good to me. We could probably also cover the Aboriginal settlement of Australia, and perhaps Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay and their ascent of Everest. The dog2 (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This is great! I made a couple of small edits. We should add Lewis & Clark, and are there any visitable reminders of Hernan Cabeza de Vaca's very interesting exhibitions? I'd do more work on this, but my computer isn't booting to Windows and it's hard to do too much on the phone.

P.S. Here's an out-of-the-box idea: Humanity has had at least two first migrations from Africa: The Homo erectuses did it (Iirc, both Peking Man and Java Man are Homo erectus) and then of course the Homo sapiens did it. I don't know where Neanderthals originated. But the point is that we could cover the migrations of early humans at the beginning. 06:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC) (comment added by user:Ikan Kekek)

For exploration of North America, a link to Voyageurs could be included. Probably similar things might be linked for Africa, South America & Australia, but we do not want a forest of red links. Pashley (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If a decision is made that we want to keep this (let's give the discussion a few days), I'll move it to the main space, and everyone can make additions as they see fit. Ground Zero (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• on a personal level, I admit to having taken a day or two off, to properly process some frustration issues related to this topic. I'm surprised and glad about how it turned up. It will become a beautiful article, I have already made a small tweak, and will tweak more. You're a most sensible and collaborative chap, GZ, kudos to ya. Ibaman (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Moving to main space

This is faster than I had anticipated, but all but two of the participants in the discussion have commented and seem to support this as an article. There have been no objections. There is, however, a lot of interest in building on the content. As a userspace article, I end up as the arbiter of what goes in. I think it is better to move it now to the main space so that it is the community that decides. I will move the article by the end of the day unless there is an objection. Ground Zero (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Support --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Support. Pashley (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Support. Ibaman (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It has been moved to In the footsteps of explorers. Ground Zero (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Missionaries

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the long paragraph on Christian missionaries comes across like whitewashing? The missionary era is called a "success", and the only criticism is ascribed to one particularly fervent individual. No mention of child abuse, eradication of traditional beliefs and practices, and in some cases of languages. No mention of diseases being spread. I think there should be some balance here, or better yet, leave that to Wikipedia where edits have to be supported by references to reliable sources. Let's say less, not take sides, and focus on travel stuff. Ground Zero (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

We could remove the paragraph altogether. I don't see anything there that is particularly travel related. But personally I don't see a concern here. It would be impossible for Wikivoyage to maintain a complete balance on such a complex issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

So it's okay to present a one-sided view? I agree with removing it as background that is (a) contentious, and (b) not leading to any travel information. Ground Zero (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is. It criticizes the destruction of the codices, for example. But as I'm not opposed to removing it, I'm willing to agree with you that it is best not included at all. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think Christian missionaries were an important part of the Age of Discovery, so some mention of it should stay. In particular, the Age of Discovery is probably the single largest reason why Christianity is now the world's most prolific religion. And I'm very much in favour of being fair and presenting both sides. Not everything was negative and not everything was positive. Sure, some missionaries committed genocides and we should not hide that, but it's also true that in some areas, cannibalism and human sacrifice were widely practised, and it was their conversion to Christianity that caused them to abandon those practices. While I am most certainly against whitewashing the cruelty and barbarism of the Europeans, I also think we need to be fair about some of the more cruel practices of the indigenous people. Human sacrifice was a major part of the religions of the Mayas, Incas and Aztecs, and we should no whitewash those either.

As for the term "success", I meant that purely in terms of the objective of those missionaries, not as an endorsement of Christianity. I am not even a Christian myself, but those missionaries largely achieved their objective to spread Chrisitanity, so from that perspective, it was a success. The dog2 (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, "they were complicit in genocide, but..." You see how that sounds. Of course there were individual missionaries who opposed the genocidal policies of the mother country or mainly devoted themselves to providing medical care, but in a large sense, they in general served the cause of imperialism, which wasn't so bad (and maybe on balance, good) in some places like Malaya but was bloody awful almost everywhere else.

But getting back to the main point, since this article is mainly about exploration, I think that missionaries who are well-known as explorers should be covered. I'm thinking St. Francis Xavier would qualify. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

How do you suggest re-writing the section then? I have no interest in whitewashing, but we also have to be fair and not turn this into an article bashing the West or Christianity just for the sake of it. I am certainly not pro-colonialism, but we also have to be fair and present both sides. The dog2 (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to make a lot of detailed suggestions, but the sentence juxtaposing resistance and success cannot stand because it's the triumphalist imperialist position, with a parenthetical nod to the depredations that were the heart of colonialism later. And I want no apologias for nations that perpetrated a huge transatlantic slave trade for having ended ritual human sacrifice at the cost of millions of natives. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm not trying to defend the Europeans and their atrocities. I'm just trying to be as fair as possible. (If you really want to go into it, I have a long list of criticisms of colonialism and even modern US imperialism, and I've heard first-hand accounts of what it was like to live as colonial subjects from my parents and grandparents so I have some idea of how bad it was, but WV isn't a place to get into those.) But anyway, we need to say something about Christianity, because it is an undeniable fact that it was the Age of Discovery that turned it into a global religion. Sure, the Roman Empire converting to Christianity led to it becoming the main religion of Europe, but it would not have become the world's most prolific religion if not for the Age of Discovery. The dog2 (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the solution isn't to plus and minus missionaries but to simply describe them. Something like this: "Along with military force and commerce, the other leg of the imperialist stool was 'Christianizing the natives', which was the role of missionaries. And except in Muslim, Hindu and most Buddhist areas and nations with their own longstanding churches, they were very successful in attaining converts. Whether this was on balance good or bad or to what extent there were missionaries who opposed imperialism and instead fought on behalf of the locals is beyond the scope of a travel article, but some of the early missionaries to nations far from Europe took fascinating journeys which can be retraced, and there are many historical missions around the world with functioning churches and museums that can be visited." Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, that sounds reasonable to me.

@Ground Zero, SelfieCity, Ibaman: What do you think of Ikan Kekek's suggestion? The dog2 (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a good approach. I'd go a bit further and not get into telling the reader what were not going to tell them:

"Along with military force and commerce, the other leg of the imperialist stool was 'Christianizing the natives', which was the role of missionaries. And except in Muslim, Hindu and most Buddhist areas and nations with their own longstanding churches, they were very successful in attaining converts. Whether this was on balance good or bad or to what extent There were some missionaries who opposed imperialism and instead fought on behalf of the locals. is beyond the scope of a travel article, but some Many of the early missionaries to nations far from Europe took fascinating journeys which can be retraced, and there are many historical missions around the world with functioning churches and museums that can be visited."

Ground Zero (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I prefer GZ’s suggestion, but instead of “Christianizing the natives” in quotes, I would write “Christianizing the indigenous people” without single quotes. It’s a factual statement so there’s no need to use quotes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I like that change. Ground Zero (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Another thought: instead of "leg of the imperialist stool," perhaps "goal of imperialism." --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That's ok, with the rest of that statement tweaked as appropriate, because for the most part, force was in the service of the aims of trade monopolies and conquest, rather than an end in itself (or at least that's arguable; I've read some respectable arguments for the cruelty being the point, but we definitely shouldn't take that up). Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

So we're now at:

"Along with military force and commerce, the other goal of imperialism was Christianizing the indigenous people, which was the role of missionaries. And except in Muslim, Hindu and most Buddhist areas and nations with their own longstanding faiths, they were very successful in attaining converts. There were some missionaries who opposed imperialism and instead fought on behalf of the locals. Many of the early missionaries to nations far from Europe took fascinating journeys which can be retraced, and there are many historical missions around the world with functioning churches and museums that can be visited."

@The dog2: are you okay with this? Ground Zero (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

One other thing: we shouldn't use Christian language to describe other religions, such as calling Muslim organizations "churches." I'd argue that we say "longstanding religious organizations" instead of "churches" unless we are actually referring to Christian churches in Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist-majority regions. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"Churches" changed to "faiths". Ground Zero (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it looks mostly good, but I think we should also mention that it led to Christianity becoming the world's most prolific religion. That's an important result of the Age of Discovery, which still holds true today.

And I don't know if "faiths" is the right word. After all, the people who were Christianised were certainly not atheists or agnostics. They believed in other religions. The dog2 (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

My wording obviously wasn't clear enough, because all of you totally missed my point, which was indeed about churches, not Islam or any other faith. "And except in Muslim, Hindu and most Buddhist areas and nations with their own longstanding churches, they were very successful". Reading "and nations with their own longstanding churches" as applying to the Muslim, Hindu and most Buddhist areas earlier in the list means you're disregarding grammar. But in order to clarify it, I'd add the word "Christian" before "churches". I'm specifically referring to a place like Ethiopia, whose church has existed far longer than most European countries have been Christian. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, in the current form of words, I think we should excise this disclaimer, as it diverts from the main point and gives grossly disproportionate emphasis to a very small number of exceptions: "There were some missionaries who opposed imperialism and instead fought on behalf of the locals." Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the confusion is because the sentence you quoted is syntactically ambiguous: it can be parsed as "(Muslim, Hindu and most Buddhist areas) and (nations with their own longstanding churches)" or as "(Muslim, Hindu and most Buddhist (areas and nations)) with their own longstanding churches" (among other possible parsings). A comma after "areas" would make the intent clearer, as would adding "Christian" before "churches". —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

And maybe we should mention Judaism and Sikhism as well. After all, most of the Jews and Sikhs were not Christianised either. The dog2 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think "Christian churches" is good wording, and I agree that the sentence about opposition to imperialism should be removed. It's not travel relevant anyway. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd also agree with removing the opposition to imperialism part. After all, they were a tiny minority, and the vast majority of missionaries were there to advance the imperialist cause. The dog2 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"Along with military conquest and commerce, the other goal of imperialism was Christianizing the indigenous people, which was the role of missionaries. And except in Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and most Buddhist areas, and nations with their own longstanding Christian churches, they were very successful in attaining converts, eventually leading to Christianity becoming the world's most prolific religion, a position it maintains today. Many of the early missionaries to nations far from Europe took fascinating journeys which can be retraced, and there are many historical missions around the world with functioning churches and museums that can be visited."

@Ikan Kekek, Ground Zero, SelfieCity, Mx. Granger: How does this look now? The dog2 (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

[undent]The punctuation before "a position" has to be a comma, not a semicolon, as it's not an independent clause. I'd also leave out "Jewish". I mean, OK, maybe someone tried to gain converts among the Jews of Baghdad or Casablanca, but if I've never heard about it, unlike the extension of the Spanish Inquisition into the Americas through the 19th century, it's IMO not worth mentioning. Otherwise, I support the edit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've made the edit. The dog2 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Other problems that were identified on my earlier version that I fixed have been reintroduced. This is moving backward. Ground Zero (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

How about this now? Or is there anything else specific you want to address? The dog2 (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It's okay by me. Ground Zero (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of the sentences are a little long, but that can always be tweaked later. I'm satisfied. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

But "military force" was not a goal. The sentence needs tweaking after changing to "goal", as IK noted way up the discussion. --LPfi (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

That's right. I didn't read carefully enough this time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, "Along with military conquest and commerce, the other goal of imperialism..." --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think that's a good way to put it. I've edited it and if there are no objections, I'll implement the change on the article itself. The dog2 (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good indeed. Thank you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

William Bligh

Just wondering if we should mention him and the Mutiny on the Bounty. And maybe something about Fletcher Christian and his connection to the Pitcairn Islands and Norfolk Island. The dog2 (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Was the Bounty on a voyage of exploration or just a victim of mutiny? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it was on a mission to obtain breadfruit from Tahiti to be grown to feed the slaves in the Caribbean. The mutineers did rediscover the Pitcairn Islands though. They were previously discovered by the Polynesians, but had been abandoned and were uninhabited by the time Fletcher Christian and his fellow mutineers got there. The dog2 (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

yeah, AFAIK it was indeed a "biopiracy" mission involving the transportation of breadfruit seedlings, until the mutiny. This tale fits the scope of British Empire more than here. Ibaman (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, Bligh's historical reputation is far more negative than it needs to be. Even the trial that was to determine who was and who wasn't guilty of anything in the mutiny determined that it was extraordinary seamanship that even saved his life after the mutiny... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Francis Drake

I pointed this out to @Ground Zero: yesterday, more as a friendly joke, but I guess it could get more serious. Drake needs no introduction in this context; to see him mentioned only in the context of "In London, in the United Kingdom, you can board a replica of Sir Francis Drake's The Golden Hinde built using traditional methods" feels very, very, unfair. He surely deserves proper description here, on par with Vitus Bering at the very least, IMHO. I'd be pleased to see you Anglophones taking care of this (and George Vancouver, too :) as meticulously as I'm doing to Captain Cook on his itinerary (which is, by the way, very incomplete still, I will be working on it shortly). Ibaman (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. He's definitely notable and should at least receive a paragraph along with other explorers who are less-known, and perhaps even deserves his own travel topic. (The same could perhaps be said for Sir Walter Raleigh.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

When some people were unhappy about the scope of the Age of Discovery being restricted to its commonly understood meaning, I suggested creating a broader article to include other explorers. No-one followed up on that suggestion, so it reminded me that in Wikivoyage, as in life, if you want something done, it's best to do it yourself. I have other projects on the go right now, and feel that I've spent more time on explorers than I really wanted to. Ground Zero (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

no problem, dude, we're a team. Be cool, I hope you're having a nice Sunday. Maybe we're all quarantined and locked up inside, with too much time and energy to invest here. I'll keep on doing my thing, our thing, and thank you again for your collaborativeness, attention to detail, tireless copyediting, and patience with this nitpicker here. Ibaman (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Its amazing how that dispute led to a surge in new content and new articles. Thanks to you too for all of your contributions. Wikivoyage is much better for it. Have a great Sunday. Ground Zero (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences of Sir Francis Drake but Ibaman could you add some more information? Or are you not as familiar with that time period as you are with the later explorers? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes I'm not. I'm a bigger fan of Cook and Amundsen and Magellan (it should be obvious by now). About Drake, I remember mostly his raid on Cartagena de Indias and the singeing of King Philip's beard, which I mentioned. Ibaman (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not an expert either, but I just thought a paragraph or so needs to be included. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ibaman: What I meant by most important is among the most important 2-3 explorers of the Age of Discovery. Perhaps that should be clarified, but by sailing around the world I would say he is more important than for example John Cabot, who didn't explore as far. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I remember being taught that he was a privateer. Should we use and define the word or just stick with "pirate"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• oh well, per 7+2, we must select the mostest greatest who deserve verbal mention, and these are the names. About Francis Drake, I'm Latino American and have the according bias, and no problem at all about comparing him to Long John Silver and James Hook. Ibaman (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have trouble calling him a pirate, but the section could do so more unequivocally. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I'm somewhat the sole author of Understand's "Portuguese section" and my prose may have been more eulogious about them than it should be, maybe; I ask you, my Anglophone friends, to review it and tone down if appropriate. Ibaman (talk)

@Ibaman: While I appreciate your recent edit regarding Sir Francis Drake, I'm not sure all the Anglosphere does revere him as an explorer; I'd say it's a mixture here. I'm not sure how to state that in the article, though. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking of better words; anybody who figures them out is welcome to copyedit this passage. Ibaman (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Slavery and genocide

Should we mention that Columbus and his son began the enslavement and genocide against the Natives in the Americas and the transatlantic slave trade, or should that be left for the dedicated article on Columbus? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind mentioning it in this article itself. It is an important aspect of his legacy that is unfortunately often whitewashed these days. But let's see what others say. The dog2 (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I would include it in Voyages of Columbus which after all needs more content. I think this article's focus is on where the explorers went. However, if there's a feeling that it's whitewashing we can remove the final sentence in the paragraph about him, "While he never set foot in what are now the states of the United States of America, his voyages are celebrated in the form of the public holiday Columbus Day" which isn't particularly travel-relevant anyway. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That could be moved to the article about him too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that too. The dog2 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Discovered"

I suggest that, for those explorers that didn't actually discover the places they explored, instead of writing "discovered" in quotes, we use a terminology such as "explored" without quotes. There's no point in even mentioning the word if it's not true — there are other words in the English language that are more suitable. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. The dog2 (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I've used "sailed" instead in the two instances, which isn't my favorite terminology. However, I was surprised to find there are no alternatives. A search for synonyms didn't show many good options, though for sailing to Tasmania I think "identified" might be a good alternative terminology. There doesn't seem to be a word in English for finding a place, but not for the first time. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I like this wording. In this case it works, in my opinion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Convert to listings?

We currently have a section Age_of_Discovery#Explorers which lists many explorers without using the listing format. Instead it gives each explorer his own subheading. There are a lot of subsections, mostly rather short.

I think it would be better to convert each subsection to a listing. This would make the whole thing more compact, hence I think more readable, and would allow links to the relevant WP articles. On the other hand, it would make explorers harder to find via the TOC in the banner.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Or you could put the explorer's names in bold at the start of their paragraphs, and remove the subheadings. I think that would work better that listing templates. Ground Zero (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't think we want to use listing templates for people's names. They're envisioned to be for physical locations, and that's how I'd rather keep it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should keep the current format. The whole purpose of the sub-headings is to make it easier for people to pick out the explorer whose route they want to follow. The dog2 (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Bartolomeu Dias and Willem Schouten

As written in the introduction, one was the first European to sail around the Cape of Good Hope, while the other is the first European to sail around Cape Horn. I wonder if they are significant enough to have a section dedicated to them under "Explorers". Unfortunately, I don't know much about either of them, so I'm trying to solicit some opinions here. The dog2 (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I reckon the current list violates 7+2 already. It's sad to draw the line, but it must be done at some point. I'd like to talk about Pedro Álvares Cabral and Verrazzano and Henry Hudson, but won't, for the same reason. Dias and Schouten merit and receive due mention on Portuguese Empire and Dutch Empire, respectively. Ibaman (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much 7+2 applies to this kind of article. My feeling is that any interesting travel-relevant text you're thinking of should be added to the article. It could always be moved later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Listings of destinations

I think we should endeavour to add listings under the sub-headings of each explorer. That would be more in line with what we'd expect of a travel guide. The dog2 (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• yeah, I've done this to James Cook and the whole shabang got split out of here into Voyages of James Cook. I've done this to George Vancouver: the same, Voyages of George Vancouver. I've edited and discussed this article's contents very, very, very much, too much, just remembering it makes my head spin. Maybe it doesn't need to get LONGER or MORE ENCYCLOPAEDIC than it is now, but, oh well, whatever, nevermind. Ibaman (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not referring to those ones that have their own articles. I'm referring to those that do not have specific articles. I just added some listings here, and what I'm saying is that to make this more in line with a travel guide, destinations connected to each explorer that doesn't have his own article should be listed here.

• have you read this whole discussion above? This article was not started last night, you know. Ibaman (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)