Talk:Discovery doctrine

Summary of why the Vatican is in the lead

The current mention of the Vatican in the lead has no explanation for why it his there, and seems unrelated to practically anything else in the lead. I added the explanation from the source and as summary of the article (which goes into it extensively) but the matter was reverted and the reason for the revert makes little sense, especially a complete revert instead of editing in. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I see your point. The problem is that the Vatican rejected the doctrine totally, not "to the extent that it may be traced back to Chuch doctrine". Perhaps we should add the following: "Marshall and several contemporary scholars trace the doctrine of discovery back to papal bulls which authorized various European powers to conquer the lands of non-Christians. In recent decades, advocates for Indigenous rights have campaigned against the doctrine and many called for the Catholic Church to renounce it." What do you think? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a bit much for the lead but would improve the appropriate section of the article. A summary could then be edited into the lead. I agree the current single sentence seems bare without context. Regards, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 00:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think The best way in summary is to link age of discovery from the first sentence, to papal bulls, to disavowal. This leaves out the link of Terra Nulis in International Law to papal bulls but that can be covered in the body. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I prefer my proposal. It only adds 1.5 sentences, summarises the relevant part of the article, and gives the context of the Vatican statement. A shorter alternative would be to simply say: "following requests from activists, the Vatican formally repudiated the doctrine stating that it was a distortion of Catholic teaching." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Should doctrine of discovery be Capitalised?

Hello all

Another user wants the term doctrine of discovery to be consistently capitalised as Doctrine of Discovery. The article previously mostly used "doctrine of discovery" but did occasionally use "Doctrine of Discovery". Policy states. "Doctrines, ideologies, philosophies, theologies, theories, movements, methods, processes, systems or schools of thought and practice, and fields of academic study or professional practice are not capitalized, unless the name derives from a proper name." (MOS:DOCTCAPS). The user rebuts this by stating that the overwhelmingly majority of sources do capitalise the term as "Doctrine of Discovery". However, a google search shows that this is most often done in newspapers headlines and in the titles of books and articles which are conventionally capitalised in the US. I suggest that we consistently use lower case in accordance with policy unless there is clear evidence that the overwhelming majority of sources consistently capitalise "doctrine of discovery" other than in headlines or article/book titles.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

And revert, apparently. Firstly, Google search can't, by any stretch, tell you what percentage of usage is book titles and articles. That said, many search results and news headlines show that the phrase is capitalized independently. Secondly, what I cited was not search results but an ngram, which tracks far more than titles. In short, "Doctrine of Discovery is a capitalized proper name, as virtually all sources and uses show. natemup (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I reverted because policy clearly states that the names of doctrines are NOT capitalised and I believe that a clear policy should be followed unless there is a clear consensus that it is overridden by another policy. That said, policy is inconsistent on this matter because it also states "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." I think if we read policy as a whole Wikipedia generally prefers not to capitalise. I also think you need far more examples of capitalisation of doctrine of discovery (beyond headlines and titles) to show that this is done consistently by a substantial majority of reliable sources. However, I am happy to go with whatever consensus emerges and would definitely prefer internal consistency in the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

How many thousands of in-text citations does the ngram need to show you? I specifically said I wasn't citing search results. You brought that up. And the article is already inconsistent, since virtually all the sources have it capitalized but in the body you've ensured it isn't. natemup (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)