Jump to content

Talk:Columbian exchange/Archive 1

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

Beans?

Beans are listed as bring from the "new world" this is only partly true. Some varieties of beans were in the "old world" some have come from the "new world". ie. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Soybean http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Adzuki_bean You get the point. I don't have time to figure how to make that entry work anyone? -GreenFeather —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenFeather (talk • contribs) 02:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Red Deer - domestication

I've been reading an archaeological summary that talks about the domestication of a species of red deer by peoples in southern Guatamala and Panama. It was a strong element of the cultural traditions of the people of this region at the time of European contact, but the practice was not current at that time. This oblique Wiki reference from a Spanish source: Pipil. Could anyone else find a confirming source before I add red deer to the list? WBardwin 01:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Domesticated rats and mice????

I find very odd that rats and mice are included as domesticated animals in pre-Columbain times. Either they are both removed from the list, or the word "domesticated" is eliminated. 80.32.35.36

Look at it this way,
we have domesticated Rats and Mice today, and if anything we don't interact with animals as much as they did back then. today we use tractors to plow fields back then they had to use oxen, cows you know. So if anything this very beliveable, their whole society is based on interaction between themselves (humans) and animals.
Besides what else did boys have as pets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.211.149 (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Syphilis

Yes, the disease in this context is controversial and the exact original location of these "bugs" is probably ultimately unprovable. But -- because of dated teaching in schools, statements by historical figures, some new material, and probably purient interest -- the topic resurfaces in this article and related ones as well. You might look over an older (archived?) discussion on the Syphilis discussion page. We could list it parenthetically as (controversial) or (under investigation). Best Wishes. WBardwin 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Something else to think about:
I think as far as I'm aware, that the current thought is that both sides of the exchange had syphilis. That the native population had a benign form, and that the sea ports in europe actually had the virulent deadly form. They exhumed some bodies of 13th century monks a while back and said that they had died of syphilis. I think the reasoning as to why syphilis didn't show up in the general population was because most of the population would die of other things before showing even stage two of syphilis. The symptoms were probably seen as unrelated especially since large outbreaks were probably unknown except in sea ports where there was constant population turn over anyway. This is just what i had heard from the discovery channel or history channel or some such. --- jinxintheworld, keep it shiny

k — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.176.195 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Disease exchanges

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to ask but I have a question regarding disease exchanges in this period. It always struck me that the west seemed to have donated more, and more noxious, diseases than we received in return.
It is possible that a much more cramped and unhealthy Europe rapidly bred much more virulent diseases, but that's my only theory, and it's a poor one.
So can anyone here suggest why this is so, or whether it is perhaps a misapprehension.
Thanks Water pepper (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I know of one significant reason. The vast majority of human diseases (at least the current ones) had their initial disease vector in animals. So, as humans associated with their domesticated flocks and herds, they came in contact with bacteria and viruses that crossed the species line and became adapted to a human host. The new world, North, South and Central America, had very few domesticated animals compared to the Eurasian continent. This is usually considered a primary reason for the low disease transfer from the Americas to the Old World. But it does not mean that the people of the Americas were disease free, as they had many fungal diseases and parasites as well as a few infectious diseases. I'm sure an epidemiologist could give a few more reasons for the disparity as well. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! That does make a lot of sense. Appreciated.
Water pepper (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

hjgyuvguyg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.126.36 (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the European diseases were actually Eurasian diseases, originating in Asia and having become endemic or chronic there and in Europe due to long exposure. As a result, populations in Europe built up some acquired immunity. The diseases were fatal to populations in the Americas because they had no such immunity. When Europeans went to sub-Saharan Africa and the tropics, they often succumbed to new diseases there in similar fashion; for instance, having no immunity to malaria and certain tropical fevers.Parkwells (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Two good sources on why Eurasian diseases where so much nastier than those of the Americas are Plagues and Peoples, William H. McNeill, 1976, NYC, USA; and Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond, 1997, NYC. USA. Both sources deal extensively with this question. Helvetius (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Benefits to people of the Americas

It's true that the Columbian Exchange had important ramifications on the ecology, agriculture, and culture of the world, but who benefited and who lost out? Europeans at the time undoubtedly benefited from improved diets associated with the introduction of the potato and maize. Also, their economies grew with the importation of colonial grown tobacco and sugar. The positive effects did not go both ways though, and the existing populations of the American Continents of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were devastated by the introduction of new diseases and the exploitation of the natve peoples by the European explorers and settlers.

The Europeans colonized areas of the Caribbean islands, South and Central America, and North America at the expense of the people that already ingabited these lands. One major example of the negative "gifts" to the New World is small pox, which had a destructive effect on Native Americans who had no built up immune defenses like the Europeans. Also, malaria, which had previously been unknown in the Americas, was devastating to both Native Americans and Europeans alike. This was a convenient justification for the importation of slaves from Africa to work the sugar plantations, as they had a natural immune defense against that disease. Wintermann 19:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You might take a look at Population history of American indigenous peoples, an interesting and sometimes contentious article dealing with these issues. GwenW (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
What is also often ignored is the environmental impact of the Columbian exchange on the Americas. Native plants and animals that boasted more biodiversity were replaced by crop species of high commercial value, such as sugar, and unintentionally introduced invasive ones, such as rats. Ehuc (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Introduction by Softballangel566

The following material by Softballangel566 was moved from the Introduction for discussion. Items of concern: POV? Source? Copyright? Wiki links. WBardwin 19:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Columbian Exchange was one of the most influential exchanges in history, along with being one of the most detrimental. The Columbian Exchange has also been labeled the American Holocaust because ninety percent of the people and the culture were destroyed by this exchange. The main mission of the sailors and explorers that did the Columbian Exchange was to spread Catholicism and basically Christianity in general to the Native American population. Because of this great need to convert the native people most of their religion and culture was lost. The Exchange also brought about some good points such as the introduction to new foods, cultures, and religions. Even though not all of these things were apprecitated they were introduced to the Europeans. Not everything that was introduced was a good thing. The Europeans brought over diseases, such as smallpox. The Natives were exposed to these new diseases and in the long run died from them because their bodies were not immune to the disease. Smallpox wiped out alot of the Native population, but it was not the only thing that caused the decline of the Native culture. The need to spread Christianity became of issue of violence. The Europeans were forcing these people to become Christian by either enslaving them or killing them. There are some good points and some bad points about the Columbian Exchange, but nevertheless it is one of the most influential exchanges in history.
Bad prose and mostly wrong, as far as I can see... Random Nonsense 10:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually have correct information, but it's not a good idea to add this as the intro User:WikiBrainHead 8:30, 27 October 2014 (EST)/00:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Chagas desease exchange

I don't think this desease should be listed as a desease which has been exchanged. This desease is too specific to "Southern American" continent. Anyway exchange can't be compared with the same scale with desease such as cholera. Pixeltoo 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Proper spelling?

Which is the proper spelling: Columbian or Colombian? There are Wikipedia articles for both. I would think that Colombian would be the proper spelling, but the article at Columbian is better. I propose moving this article to Colombian exchange. — D. Wo. 19:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the term is a derivative of Christopher Columbus, not the country Colombia, "Columbian" is the proper spelling. Also compare google searches: "Columbian exchange" vs. "Colombian exchange". -- bcasterline • talk 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Raccoons and coca.

I'm going to perhaps overstep the bounds of my expertise and say that raccoons have never been domesticated anywhere by anyone. And that coca needs to be on the list of plants domesticated in the Americas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.24.121 (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate category?

I came across the following category: Crops originating from the Americas. It has no lead article, as of yet. Would this be appropriate for this article? GwenW (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Tuberculosis Found to Be Old Disease In New World

nytimes.com, March 15, 1994, Tuberculosis Found to Be Old Disease In New World By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

ONE THOUSAND years ago, a woman in southern Peru died at the age of 40 to 45 and was buried in a stone tomb in a river valley near what is now the coastal community of Ilo. As sometimes happened in the desiccated climate of the Atacama Desert, her body dried out and was spontaneously mummified. Now, modern scientists have come along and conducted a revealing post-mortem examination of the well-preserved body.

Their research offers new evidence that pre-Columbian Americans may already have been infected with some of the devastating diseases that were thought to have been brought to the New World by Columbus and other early explorers.

In the mummy's right lung and a lymph node, the scientists found scars of disease. These were small, calcified lesions typical of tuberculosis. Extracting fragments from the tissue, molecular biologists isolated genetic material betraying the presence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The woman probably died of something else, but she had harbored the infectious agents of the dreaded communicable disease.

"This provides the most specific evidence possible for the pre-Columbian presence of human tuberculosis in the New World," the scientists are reporting today in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. . . . --Apl1 (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dogs & Cotton too

Dogs were on both sides of the animal swapping list. I deleted both, but I assume the idea was that different breeds were traded, and it would be good if someone could supply specific breeds. --68.227.223.133 (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing, about specific breeds, but to be honest I dont see how some dogs originated in the old world, and some dogs (of the same biological family) originated half a world away. The only explination I can think of, and I may be wrong - Is that while most dogs came from the old world to the new world, Huskies came from the old world to the new world because they crossed the ice bridge with the Clovis Indians thousands of years earlier. 71.17.167.178 (talk)
Current thinking is that wolves were probably first domesticated, thereby becoming dogs, in the Old World and brought to the New World by the Paleo-Indians. The other possibility is that wolves were domesticated a second time in the New World. To me, their inclusion in both lists makes sense, since it lets readers know that dogs were not overlooked by wikipedia editors, and since, as mentioned above, different breeds had developed in various parts of the world. ClovisPt (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is the usual use of Columbian exchange: normally people are talking about things which did not exist (rather than existing in different forms) in either the Old or New World as of 1492. Specific dog breeds might qualify for inclusion, but if you're going to include 'dogs' as a general category you should also include humans. Conjuringrock (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A similar problem exists with cotton - several varieties domesticated in several places around the world. However, the new world variety provides the largest portion of modern cotton crops, and is grown around the world. WBardwin (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Encephalitis

Encephalitis is a group of diseases and almost certainly not part of the Columbian exchange. I've removed it. Conjuringrock (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hepatitis

Hepatitis is a group of diseases and almost certainly not part of the Columbian exchange. I've removed it. Conjuringrock (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Polio

Polio first emerged as an epidemic disease in the late 19th century, too late to be a part of the Columbian exchange. There's a cite on the Poliomyelitis article that confirms this. I removed it. Conjuringrock (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, in the course of some work I've been doing on Shmoop, a new educational website, I've written a pretty extensive article on the Columbian Exchange. (I'm a PhD student in US history, and I've done a fair amount of work in environmental history.) In my own (no doubt biased) view, I think it would certainly add something of value to the External Links section here; the Crosby article on Encyclopedia of Earth is great but so short, and the other links here now treat only certain aspects of the Columbian Exchange. My Shmoop Columbian Exchange article covers a lot more territory and is, I think, the most in-depth examination of the subject currently on the web, with much content and original analysis unavailable elsewhere. (But as I said, I'm surely biased.) Therefore I'd propose that we add this to the External Links section:

That said, I'm a bit hesitant to even propose this because I don't want to run afoul of either the letter or spirit of Wiki's COI standards. Would another editor be willing to take a look at my link and, if he/she deems it worthy, add it to this page's External Links?

Many thanks, Nate Portlandnate (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding this - maybe the various middle schoolers doing history projects can wander there instead of messing with this page. ClovisPt (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Done 98.96.125.102 (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Limiting this article's scope

My understanding of the term "Columbian Exchange" is that it is almost always used to refer exclusively to the cultural-ecological transformations in crops, livestock, and diseases. As such, I propose editing this article correspondingly. Thoughts? ClovisPt (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Grand Exchange

I've heard this referred to as the "Grand Exchange" by some, and some pages on Wikipedia even reference it as that, but it doesn't show up on a Google search. For the sake of convenience at the very least, I think the article should include the "Grand Exchange" name in some way. --the_hoodie 04:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The hoodie (talk • contribs)

Add it from a redirect page if you think it's that important. Mike Hayes (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Examples: African items

The list of examples included African items (malaria especially) as New World to Old World exchanges. This is incorrect - Africa is part of the Old World and there was established if sporadic trade from Africa to Asia and Europe - and the rest of the article reflects that. I fixed the ones I spotted but I may have missed some. Conjuringrock (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but it seems to be "significant" that 1/3 of crop value within the US originated in the Americas. Since the US is actually IN the Americas isn't it MORE significant that fully 2/3 of the crop value DIDN'T originate in the Americas (at least in the context of this article)? I assume much of that 2/3 would be wheat. NevarMaor (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Examples

I have a question about "Hepatitis" listed as a disease transmitted from the New World to the Old World. I understand why "Syphilis" is listed here, but I searched all over the place for information on ANY of the many forms of hepatitis having originated in the New World and being carried back by explorers (or anybody) to the Old World and could NOT find ANYTHING at ALL on this topic. This includes on Wikipedia! Does anybody know WHY hepatitis is listed as a New World-to-Old World disease??? I will really appreciate any help anyone can give as this reference caused me problems! Thanks. - gailcats Gailcats (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC).

Good catch. This 2001 Royal Society paper states there is no conclusive evidence for the origins of human hepatitis viruses. [1], pages 11, 12. On page 7 they mention an out-of-South-America hypothesis for Hepatitis B, but dismiss it. I'll take it out. Novickas (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Eastern and Western Hemispheres

I have come across this usage elsewhere, but can we eliminate it from this article? Apart from being misleading, it's also inaccurate, since the Old World is far larger than the New World.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If all you've done is "come across it", you can't have done much reading. They are ubiquitous in literature and the media. Mike Hayes (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Coca and Kush

Just to explain my recent reverts, as there wasn't enough room in the edit summary: Coca came from west to east. Kush originated in Afghanistan and probably doesn't fit in here at all.

Yaws??

Yaws is listed as being exchanged both to and from the new world. This doesn't seem possible.Soraxtm (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved Grapes

I moved grapes from New World->Old World to Old World->New World. Removing it completely might be an option, as there were other species of grapes in the Americas prior to the European arrival. However the common grape is native to the middle east and the reference to using fox grapes as rootstock (which is not my addition) indicates that it was this species which was meant. --Kaanatakan (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The way the article is written makes it seem like all grapes came from an American creation. Furthermore, his link to that information is vague, it only cites food production, not any specific information about the grape. I´m just going to go ahead and remove this phrase: "...while a sixth, grapes, is most commonly a European plant grafted onto an American rootstock". If someone else wants to clarify it later, then they can re-add it.Editfromwithout (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Article should explain the origin of the concept Columbian Exchange

I believe the phrase originated with Crosby. (One of the links states this - http://www.shmoop.com/columbian-exchange/ , and the Wikipedia article on Crosby mentions this.) This seems important to mention. The article contains a couple of references to Crosby, but leaves out this important fact.

I'd put it in the introduction, something like The Columbian Exchange -- a term introduced by Alfred Crosby [hyperlink Alfred W. Crosby artlicle] -- also known as the Grand Exchange, was a dramatically widespread exchange.... This fact is important enough to be prominently mentioned, I think. I'd make the change if I was better with Wikipedia syntax. Omc (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sweet potato

The article on sweet potatoes says that they are native to the New World, which I'm fairly sure is common knowledge, so why does the article state the opposite? Mike Hayes (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The article also (twice) states that sweet potatoes originally are from the Americas. Only yams, which are sometimes (incorrectly) called sweet potatoes, are from the old world. - Takeaway (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the body of the article, I'm talking about the table which is inconsistent with the article as it has sweet potato in the right column. Mike Hayes (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
So am I. At the top of the right column it says: New World to Old World so that's correct. - Takeaway (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Examples

The examples section is getting pretty ridiculous. I intend to trim it drastically. Ideally, items in the list should be cited to a source as having been part of the Columbian Exchange. The examples should not include every species that has ever been introduced from the Old World to the New or vice versa. Humans have moved tens of thousands of species around the globe over the last 500 years, but that's not all part of the Columbian Exchange. The lead currently defines the Columbian Exchange as occurring in the 15th and 16th centuries. That seems like a reasonable starting point for including examples; 20th century introductions aren't part of the exchange stemming from Columbus's voyages. Additionally, I think examples should generally be intentionally introduced and have a significant sociocultural/economic impact outside of the continents where they originated. Some diseases pass the bar on social impact, even though they weren't intentionally introduced. There can be some flexibility for inclusion. But here's a few currently listed examples that don't seem especially relevant to the Columbian Exchange.

  • Silkworms; Old World fiber animal, no significant production of silk in the New World
  • Alpaca; New World fiber animal, no significant production in the Old World
  • Kola nut; Old World plant stimulant, no significant production in New World
  • Coca; New World plant stimulant, no significant production in Old World

Trade in these depends on a modern transportation network moving plant/animal products around the world from the places they are produced, not a rickety fleet of caravels establishing new centers of production on other continents. On the other hand, chile peppers have been grown around the Old World for centuries and are a staple ingredient in tons of cuisines. And horses were an indispensable transportation technology for a good four centuries after they were introduced to the New World. Horses and chiles are examples of the Columbian Exchanges. Alpacas and kola nuts are not. Plantdrew (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps limiting it to historical listings (such as the examples listed on this page) may help with IDing the primary types from those less significant.Jabberjawjapan (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

domestic Asian water buffalo

Resolved

Aren't domestic Asian water buffalo from Asia? If you want to count Asian transfer then put in an Asian column. 17:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk)

Asia is in the old World. Graham87 08:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Does this really need a citation?

Before the Columbian Exchange, there were no oranges in Florida, no bananas in Ecuador, no paprika in Hungary, no potatoes in Ireland, no coffee in Colombia, no pineapples in Hawaii, no rubber trees in Africa, no chili peppers in Thailand, no tomatoes in Italy, and no chocolate in Switzerland. [citation needed]

This citation needed seems unnecessary. It seems self-evident just from reading the text.

104.32.108.132 (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The Scope and lasting Impact of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade

This section starts with a ridiculously precise figure (9,374,975) for the number of slaves brought to the New World, which doesn't give me much confidence in the accuracy of the content. The subject matter is veering off-topic in any case. I propose to delete the whole section. Shayno (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 18:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Columbian Exchange → Columbian exchange – WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS (especially MOS:DOCTCAPS). We do not capitalize hypotheses, theories, etc., nor events or time periods, unless reliable sources do so with near uniformity (see, e.g. many articles on wars and other conflicts, Civil rights movement, Victorian era, and hundreds of other examples). This phrase is very frequently encountered in RS as "the Columbian exchange" (and rarely as "the Columbian interchange"), while innumerable capitalized references are either found in titles and headings, or are references to the book The Columbian Exchange. While the capitalized form seems to lead a bit in books, that is not our standard; WP does not apply a capital letter to anything unless current, independent, reliable sources overwhelmingly use that style for the case in question. This doesn't qualify.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Peaceofmind18.19. Peer reviewers: Socbluff.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Diddle05.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

baobab

Table suggests baobab is New World origin, baobab article claims it is Old World (Madagascar, in fact). The contradiction suggests one or the other is wrong (it's a Rule of Logic), so something should change. Anyone? 69.125.193.249 (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

? baobab is in the column Old World to New World transfer. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

My note that the turkey (bird) is a New World animal was reverted for sourcing issues. The information is already in the "Organism examples" section, so I didn't feel any need for an inline source. Unfortunately that entire section is currently unsourced.

Is it considered acceptable to rely on the "implicit" references in the linked articles? Can/should we source the list as a whole to a Encyclopædia Britannica like source? Or do we need "topical" references (i.e. to cite that the horse is an old world animal, you need a reference primarily about horses) for every single type of animal on this page. insert rant that if Wikidata references worked correctly, this would be trivial User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Your addition of the sentence regarding a single animal (turkey) out of hundreds seemed out of place and unhelpful to me, especially as it was also unsourced. I removed it. Kind of skipping the BRD step, you added it back, again unsourced. An edit summary by you containing a helpful pointer to here would have avoided a second revert after you added it back. You, 力, should know that unsourced sentences at the end of a paragraph will eventually have to have either a source added or just be removed to bring an article to a "B" rating. GenQuest "scribble" 21:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
"B" rating. Humbug! It's not even a C rating. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Anyhow, you didn't reply to my actual question. What sourcing should there be in the "Organism examples" section? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Ideally every statement in the body of any Wikipedia article should be sourced, but that is not always the case, of course. I felt uncomfortable about the addition too because it disrupted the flow of the section, but I didn't feel so strongly about it to outright revert it. However, given the comments above, I made my own revert without realising a source had been added, self-reverted, then moved the tidbit down and expanded upon it. Graham87 04:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed removal of photo

Portuguese trading animals in Japan; detail of Nanban panel (1570–1616)

It's a nice photo but nothing in it or the caption suggests to me that it belongs in the Columbian exchange article. Can someone enlighten me -- and state its relevancy in the caption? If not, I will delete the photo. Smallchief (talk)

I'd get rid of it. A truly non-sequitur addition to the article. Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 19:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm deleting it. Smallchief (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Population reduction in Caribbean

The first reference is to an Encyclopedia Britannica article, that itself did not have any sources that I could see. The source is used to say that Caribbean populations were the most demolished by the Columbian Exchange. The EB article says that indigenous populations on most islands declined by more than 99%.

What has my eyebrow raised on this is the narrative surrounding the Taino people. It's an open secret, only more recently recognized, that large portions of many Caribbean populations are ethnically Taino, even though the conventional historiography has been that the Taino were wiped out. I don't know what position the EB article is coming from or if it matters; I want to highlight this in case someone more knowledgeable can confirm an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatOneLooksSoSad (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Onion

I suggest the removal of onion as an american import, since it already had a genus of Allium widely cultivated. They mention it in the Onion wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falsht (talk • contribs) 01:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Onions, as described in their article, seem to exclusively be members of the species Allium cepa, not the entire Allium genus. Allium tricoccum, which is what I think you are referencing, is a different species. While it is in the Allium genus, so are garlic and leeks, which I don't think are often called "onions" despite their membership of the genus. I think we should leave "onions" as is on here since onions as typically thought of (Alliam cepa) were transferred from the Old World during the Columbian exchange. Alecnotalex (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Songbirds

English sparrows and starlings were introduced to the New World. They have negatively affected the populations of native birds. 2600:6C44:1400:309:5E8:304F:6738:D08A (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Columbian_exchange/Archive_1&oldid=1247664819"