Talk:Columbian exchange

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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, , 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)
replies: text:  "B" rating.  Humbug!  It's not even a C rating. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm deleting it. Smallchief (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed removal of photo

message: 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)
thread_title:  Population reduction in Caribbean 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Onion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Songbirds