Talk:Columbia (name)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shouldn't the country 'columbia' have the right to this direct link? Instead of a poetic term?

Sandertje 21:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because the country of Colombia is spelled with an "O".

Newman 16:32 2 February 2006 (CST)

Contents

[edit] Requested move

Historical Columbia → Columbia – see Talk:Columbia for discussion and survey. --Yath 04:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


i think that columbia shouldn't spell with an O, because columbia have many informatin , so i think that it names it, because of the population or the national resources.

[edit] Article move

I propose to move this article to 'Columbia (name)'. In a number of contexts, Columbia or its derivatives are historical and, thus, the title rather obvious. Thoughts? Corticopia 17:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender

There is scant discussion of the fact that "Columbia" is a feminine form of the name "Columbus" (as implied by the illustrations personifying Columbia as a woman). So why female? (BTW "Columbian" is derived directly from "Columbus", not necessarily from "Columbia".) MrDarwin 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Columb" - latin origins

Why is there nothing on the latin origins of the words Columbus, Columbia etc.?

It's important to note that the latin "columb" means "dove". Queen Semirimis was represented by a dove, or "columb" on earth by the Romans. You can now see her statue (which some people call the "statue of liberty") in the US and a replica on the River Seine in France. I feel this has just been casually swept under the rug...for reasons unknown to me. How prominant is the "columb" in America? Very. People really need to do their homework on the origins of this word and how it related to the democratic societies in Europe and their plans for America (District of Columbia anyone?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.40.3 (talk • contribs) September 24, 2007

[edit] Columbus

This text seems pretty euro-centric:
A feminine form derived from Christopher Columbus, who is generally considered to have discovered the New World upon first visiting the Americas in 1492, the moniker dates from before the American Revolution in 1776 but fell out of use in the early 20th Century.
Is there any precedent for just changing this so that it says something like "Christopher Columbus, who is generally considered to have discovered the New World for Europeans upon..."? My opinion is that statements like these are ignorant to everyone who had already lived in America, therefore already having discovered it. I asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America if they would help come to a consensus on this too. Its just a small change that I think should be made because the English language Wikipedia is not Eurocentripedia. I would greatly appreciate any debate and/or support on the issue.--DerRichter (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)