Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

No evidence

Same foolishness as always. Let's stop wasting time on this. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There is not hard evidence that Christopher Columbus was born in Genoa nor that he was an Italian explorer. There are no birth records that support he's birth place. I always wonder why is so "important" to make people believe that Columbus was Italian. "was an Italian explorer, and born in the Republic of Genoa" This is not entirely true. Thank you for your answer, and this is not joke, :-) I'm just curious - Not even his son Ferdinand knew the answer. However, the evidences is based on what some people (scholars of the time) wrote after 1492 and there is not official documentation before this time about Columbus - isn't it curious that Columbus NEVER wrote in Italian< it was always in Spanish and he was always in contact with his brothers in Spain. (??) Interesting! There is also said that Christopher kept his origins a secret, for whatever reason, yet to be discovered I hope. I don't think this is foolish, I find it interesting to research deeper instead of accepting what other people wants us to think or believe when there are many questions unanswered. Curiosity is what moves humanity forward,Otherwise We would be still thinking that earth is the center of the universe or that is flat :-). Thank you for your time. Loewen Although an abundance of artwork involving Christopher Columbus exists, no authentic contemporary portrait has been found.[114] James W. Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me, said that the various posthumous portraits have no historical value.[115]* What is the purpose of the second sentence? //erik.bramsen.copenhagen 1492. The scribe named Galindez, writes: Cristóbal Colón, Genovés. 1493. The historian Peter Martyr d'Anghiera, writes: Ligurian. 1494. Giambattista Strozzi, a Florentine merchant in Cadiz, writes: Cristoforo Colombo Savonese. 1494. The historian Peter Martyr d'Anghiera, writes: Ligurian. 1497. The historian Peter Martyr d'Anghiera, writes: Ligurian. 1498. The Spanish ambassador Don Pedro de Ayala, writes: Genoese. 1498/1504. The historian Rui de Pina, writes: Italian. 1500/1501. The historian Peter Martyr d'Anghiera, writes: Ligurian. 1501. Angelo Trevisan, chancellor and personal secretary to the Venetian ambassador to Spain, writes: Christoforo Colombo, Genoese. 1501. The cardinal and historian Pietro Bembo, writes: Erat Columbus homo Ligur. 1501. Niccolo Oderico, ambassador of the Republic of Genoa, writes: Columbus, our fellow-citizen. 1506. The historian Antonio Gallo, writes: Christopher and Bartholomew Columbus, brothers, of the Ligurian nation. 1506. Paolo Interiano clearly identified Cogoleto as Columbus's birthplace. 1507. The explorer Amerigo Vespucci writes: Colombo Zenovese... 1507. The cartographer Martin Waldseemüller, writes: The Genoese admiral Columbus ... 1508. The monk Arcangelo Madrignano, writes: Chistophorus, natione Italicus, patria Genuensi... Witnesses in the 1511 and 1532 hearings in the Pleitos agreed that Columbus was from the Ligur. 1513. The historian Andres Bernaldez, writes: A man of the land of Milan... 1513. The Piri Reis Map, Cinevizden [from Genoa] bir kâfir [an infidel] adına Qolōnbō [named Columbus] ... 1516. Bartolommeo Senarega a Genoese, wrote Annals of the Republic during his own time, from 1448 to 1514, and describes the Admiral and his brother Bartholomew, and their parents, as of Genoa. He writes as follows: Christophori Columbi Genuensis. 1516 The historian Hernando Alonso de Herrera, writes: Colòn ginoves... 1516. The historian Agostino Giustiniani, writes: Christopher Columbus, born in Genoa... 1519. The cartographer Jorge Reinel, writes: Xpoforum cõlombum genuensem. 1525. Gasparo Contarini, Venice's ambassador to the courts of Spain and Portugal, writes: This Admiral is son of the Genoese Columbus and has very great powers, granted to his father. 1528. The geographer Pietro Coppo, writes: Christophorus Columbus genouensis... 1535/1557. The historian Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés, writes: Christopher Columbus ... originally from the province of Liguria, which is in Italy ... 1539. The testament in Seville of Ferdinand Columbus, Hijo de don Cristóbal Colón, genovés, primero almirante que descubrió las Indias ... There were sixty-two Italian testimonies between 1502 and 1600: The poet Giano Vitale (c. 1480\1485 - 1560), a contemporary of Columbus, writes that he was "Ligurium ... magnae Columbe." Torquato Tasso, one of the greatest poets of the late Renaissance, writes (Jerusalem Delivered, 1581. P. 133.): "Un uom de la Liguria..." or "A man of Liguria..." The historian Paolo Giovio writes (Gli Elogii ... d'huomini illustri di guerra ... P. 218. Florence, 1554.): "Questo Colombo appresso di Savona Nacque in un loco ch' è detto Arbizolo." The historian Benedetto Giovio [1471-1545 (the older brother of Paolo)] writes (V. Il Giornale di Milano. Il Raccoglitore Ann. I. fase. V.): "Colombo nacque in Arbisolo." / "Columbus was born in Arbisolo" The Spaniard Gonzalo Argote de Molina clearly identified Albissola Marina as Columbus's birthplace. Gabriello Chiabrera writes that Columbus was originally from Savona. ([1] pp. 30-31.) Agostino Giustiniani, a contemporary of Columbus, says that Columbus was of Genoa. Alessandro Geraldini who was an intimate friend of Admiral, writes: "Christopher Columbus, an Italian, was from Genoa, a city of Liguria." Antonio Gallo, a historian and family friend, who became a diligent chronicler of Genoese events after 1477, wrote that Columbus: "Was born in Genoa of plebeian parents." The historian Bartolomeo Senarega attests to Columbus's: "Genoese birth." The historian, Uberto Foglieta says that Columbus was of Genoa. Battista Fregoso, a former doge of Genoa, writes: "Christophorus Columbus natione Genuensis." Pedro de Arana, a cousin of Columbus's Spanish mistress, testified that he knew Columbus was from Genoa. Arcangelo Madrignano writes, in his Itinerarium portugalense (Milan, 1508): "Christophorus natione Italicus, patria Genuensis, gente Columba ..." The geographer and cartographer Pietro Coppo, writes in his De summa totius orbis (Venice, 1528): "Christophorus Columbus genouensis ..." The historian Enrico Glareano writes (Paris, 1551): "Christopher Columbus Geniiensis." The historian Paolo Internano writes (Istorie Genovesi Lib. VIlI; Lucca, 1551): "Cristoforo Colombo Genovese, il cui nome fila per essere ai posteri d'eterna venerazione ..." The historian Francesco Gonzaga writes (De Oriff. Seraph. lieti f; Fran, par. iv.): "Christophori Columbi, patria Genuensis." The physician and mathematician Giuseppe Meleto writes (V. Geogr. C. laiid. Plotoni. Alex. olim. a Ditibaldo etc. collata etc. a Joseptio Moletio Matieinatico.): "Christophori Columbi Januensis." The historian Bernardo Segni writes (Storie Fiorentine. Volume II. P. 100): "Cristoforo Colombo, Genovese." The cardinal Pietro Bembo, writer, historian, and theoretician, writes (Istoria Viniziana. Volume I. P. 261.): "Era Colombo Genovese..." The historian Francesco Guicciardini writes (Istoria d'Italia. Volume III. P. 219.): "Cristofano Colombo Genovese." The explorer Amerigo Vespucci, after whom the Americas are named, writes (Paesi nouamente retrouati ... Vesputio florentino. Vicenza, 1507.): "Christophoro Colombo Zenovese." Francesco Sansovino, a versatile scholar and man of letters, writes (Della Cronica Univ. del Mondo. Volume III. Venice, 1581.): "Colombo Genovese." The geographer Giovanni Lorenzo d'Anania writes (L'universale fabrica del mondo. P. 298. Venice, 1576): "Christoforo Colombo Genovese." The Spaniard Hieronymo Girava writes (Dos Libros de Cosmographia, Milan 1556. P. 186.): "Christoval Colón, Genovés." Michele Neander, writes (Orbis Terrae Partium succinta explicalio tee, Leipzig 1586. P. 211.): "Christophoro Colombo Genuensi." Simon Grynaeus writes (Novus orbis regionum ac insularum veteribus incognitarum. apud Io. Hervagium, 1532. P. 90.): "Christophorus natione Italicus, patria Genuensis, gente Columba..." An author writes anonymously (Chronica delle Vite de Pontefici et ... Venice, 1507.): "Chistophorus Colombo, Genuensi." The historian Tommaso Bozio writes (De Signis Ecclesiae Dei. Volume I. P. 131. Tornerius, 1591.): "Christophorus Columbus natione Genuensis." The historian Antonio Chiusole writes (Il mondo antico, modermo e novisimo, 3. P. 1086.): "Cristoforo Colombo Genovese." The author Guido Panciroli writes (Raccolta breve d'alcune cose più segnalate ch'ebbero gli antichi, e d'alcune altre trovate da moderni. Venice, 1612. Chapter I / Book II.): "Il Genovese Colombo." An author writes anonymously (Libretto de tutta la navigatione de Re de Spagna de le Isole et Terreni Novamente Trovati. Venice, 1504.): "Chistophorus Columbo, Genuensi." The explorer Sebastian Cabot, the son of John Cabot, writes (Raccolta of Giovanni Battista Ramusio. Volume I. P. 415.): "Cristoforo Colombo genovese avea scoperto la costa dell'Indie..." The geographer Giovanni Battista Ramusio, writes (Primo (-terzo) volume, et Terza editione delle Navigationi et viaggi ... P. 16. Antonio Giunti, 1565.): "La nobilissima ... città di Genova si vanti ... di così eccellente huomo Cittadin suo." / "The noble city of Genoa is proud of his fellow-citizen" Battista Fregoso, a former doge of Genoa, noted in his Chronicle of Memorable Words and Deeds for 1493 that (Morison, Samuel Eliot. "Christopher Columbus, Admiral of the Ocean Sea". United States. 1942.) Christophorus Columbus natione Genuensis had safely returned from India, having reached it in 31 days from Cadiz, as he proposed to do. The historian Tommaso Fazello writes (Della storia di Sicilia deche due ... P. 509. Assenzio, 1817.): "Cristoforo Colombo Genovese ..." Giovanni Pietro Maffei [2] (1588) "Cristofano Colombo Genovese" Antonio Doria (c. 1485 - 1577), admiral from Genoa, writes: [3] "Christoforo Colombo Genovese." Gabriele Falloppio, perhaps the most outstanding and versatile of 16th century Italian anatomists, writes: (Operum genuinorum ut ab auctore ipso constripta sunt. 1606) "Cristoforo Colombo, ovvero Colon ... genovese." \ Cristoforo Colombo, or Colon ... Genoese. The historian Tommaso Porcacchi (1530 – 1585), writes: ("Le isole più famose del mondo", 1576. p. 81.) "Cristoforo Colombo Genovese." Alessandro Tassoni writes: "Christofaro Colombo Genovese." [4] p. 409. The theologian Francesco Giuntini writes that Columbus was "Genuensis" ("Commentario in terzum et quartum capitum Sphera Io. de Sacro Bosco." Lyon, 1577. P. 221.) Nicolò Doglioni di Udine, Lodovico Dolce, Lodovico Domenichi, Francesco Carletti, Gaspare Bugati, Giacomo Filippo Foresti, Antonio Danti, Giovanni Tarcagnota, Giovanni Antonio Magini, Tommaso Fazella, Jacopo Bonfadio, Girolamo Benzoni [...] [...] [...] [...] --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC) This doesn't mean anything. On April 27, 1922, the New York Times (the most popular American newspaper) reported that Christopher Columbus, explorer for Spain, was an Armenian. In Armenia, all historians agree that Christopher Columbus was an Armenian explorer. Christopher Columbus was one hundred percent Armenian. --SuperArmenian (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible earliest birth date: revisited

I raised this issue back in February 2012 at Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 11#Possible earliest birth date, but I'm still not happy with where we're at with it.

We know he was born before 31 October 1451, but no earlier than 31 October 1450. That's fine.

What we don't know is exactly when in that 12-month span he was born. We're saying in the lede that the earliest possible date is 26 August 1451. The explanation for this is:

• a document in the archives of Genoa dated August 25, 1479 in which Columbus (then visiting Genoa while living in Lisbon) stated in a deposition that he was born in Genoa and was "about" 27 years old. If his birth date were any earlier in August, he would have been 28 on that date (User:Keithpickering)

I said back then that the mathematics of this conclusion doesn't hang together, and it still doesn't. If he was born soon after the earliest possible date, say 1 November 1450, then on 25 August 1479 he would have been 28 years and almost 10 months old. If he was born soon before the latest possible date, say 25 Oct 1451, then on 25 August 1479 he would have been 27 years 10 months old. That is, his age on 25 August 1479 was somewhere between 27 years 10 months (almost 28 years) and 28 years 10 months (almost 29 years!). Yet his own testimony on that date was "about 27 years old". This is inherently unreliable, because he obviously did not know even the exact year he was born in, let alone a precise date.

Yet, we are taking that inherently unreliable testimony and using it to justify an earliest possible birthdate of 26 August 1451. The only relevance of the date 26 August is the date he signed a certain document. It tells us nothing about when he was actually born and cannot even be used as a lower bound. It is a classic case of OR and false logic to use this date in our lede. I have removed it, and left it as a birth somewhere between 31 October 1450 and 30 October 1451, because that is the most accurate statement we can make from the sources we have. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2013

There is also a theory that Christopher Columbus was the son of Polish king Władysław III of Varna, who would survive the Battle of Varna in 1444 years and settle on the Portuguese island of Madeira. Information about Columbus' Polish roots in his book Columbus. Unknown History published Manuel da Silva Rosa, Portuguese amateur historian. Author has requested to the Cathedral of the opportunity to explore the remains of the father of King Varna, Wladyslaw Jagiello to compare the DNA of the Jagiellonian with the genetic code of Columbus. 88.220.109.39 (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done

This information already appears in Wikipedia in its appropriate place. Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and undue weight make it inappropriate for inclusion in this article.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

italy is a relatively recent concept

"even to this very day , there is still debate in italy on what constitute the italian ethnic group . the northern italians are historically galo-romance speaking, while the central and south italians are italo-romance . there was no mention of any pan-italian sentiments until the late modern period . so why are we retrospectively referring to people born before the resurgimiento as " italians " ? by that logic , roman emperors were also italians then ? " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paypayvay (talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, really? Then why do you people talk of "ITALIANIZATION" for the process in which Venice was involved in Istria, in the Middle Ages, WHEN THERE WAS NOT AN UNITARY ITALIAN STATE, as you've written yourself? What kind of logical fallacy is this? --95.251.8.69 (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a minor sidenote

Please take this debate to a blog or an academic research journal. Wikipedia has and will continue to recognize the widely agreed upon academic consensus. All other fringe theories are covered in the other article. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Columbus could not be "Italian", because Italy did not exist when he was born; yet, in the talk page on Italianization, someone explicitly said that "no matter Italy didn't exist in the Middle Ages", the process brought on by Venice in the Adriatic is, guess what..? ITALIANIZATION. Really, you guys should get your things right, be consistent, coherent. Jeez. --95.251.8.69 (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC) There is not evidence that Christopher Columbus was born in Genoa. In my country, in Armenia, all historians argue that Christopher Columbus was an Armenian. The moderators of Wikipedia want to hide the historical truth. Christopher Columbus was a hero of the glorious nation of Armenia. --SuperArmenian (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Is this complex sarcasm? In any event, there is very strong evidence and a nearly complete consensus among internationally respected historians. This evidence, along with all of the alternative theories that have been proposed, can be found at Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC) "Complex" sarcasm? --95.251.8.69 (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC) PLEASE!!!! Seriously: The genovese wool Christopher_Columbus IT'S NOT CRISTOBAL COLON, a galician nobleman called Cristobal Pedro de Sotomayor, aka 'Pedro Madruga' (Peter of the morning), a bastard son of a high nobleman called Fernan Eanes of Sotomayor and a bourgeois woman surnamed Colon, recognized and heir of Sotomayor House when his half-brother died without succession, and an Isabel of Castille great enemy in the War of Castilla Succession, allied of portuguese Kings , whit lands and titles in Portugal and Spain, lated betrayed by wife and children in Spain after Isael victory in the war, deprived of their castles, lands and goods and in exile in Portugal several years. Rejected his purpose of navigate to the West in search of the Indies by the Portuguese court, trying in English and French court's your project, it is rejected too. Finally reached the hands of relatives and friends and goes to visit to Isabel of Castile, offering the project to travel to the West, following the secrets of portuguese navigation. The day that Christopher Pedro de Sotomayor has audience with the Catholics Kings, from the hand of his relatives Cardinal Mendoza and Duke of Alba, Cristobal Pedro of Sotomayor DISAPPEAR and Cristobal Colon reappears, whit his name when he was a bastard. Spain was African sea routes closed by the Portuguese Kingdom after the Battle of Guinea in 1478, and Isabel, after conquering the Muslim Granada Kingdom, accepts Colon proposal. The son's of Cristobal Pedro de Sotomayor, are the son's of Cristobal Colon. The Cristobal friends of Cristobal Pedro de Sotomayor, are the friends of Cristobal Colon. The enemies of Cristobal Pedro de Sotomayor, are the enemies of Cristobal Colon. Chronicles at the time confused children of Cristobal Pedro de Sotomayor with Cristobal Colon childrens. The toponymy of American coast discovered by Colon, corresponds with toponymy of the Galician coast. Colon wrote in Castilian, Italian never using, and many terms and words in Colon scriptures are Galician terms and word, etc, etc, etc .... Colon leaves for America from Palos's port, a lordship of Sotomayor House. It bring the boat 'La Gallega' (The galicien) dedicated to Santa Maria from Pontevedra with its crew, and hires two other ships in Palos, whose captains are the brothers Yañez (castilian form of galician Eanes) that are Sotomayor household members. The ship Pinta returns from America, where are? Just to the beach to the edge of the great castle of Sotomayor House in Baiona. It's not serious say that a Genoese treating wool that shipwreck in Portugal, 7 years later is an expert navigator throughout the known world, with access to the portuguese navegación secrets, treated as a friend by the Portuguese Kings, with direct access to several europeans Kings, and father of several children whose mother are noblewomen in the highest rank, relatives of royalty. Recently there have been studies of calligraphy with writings of Cristobal Colon and Cristobal Pedro de Sotomayor, and experts agree that they are the same person. Cristobal Colon was CRISTOBAL PEDRO DE SOTOMAYOR, a galician nobleman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.156.36.165 (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC) The truth is that Christopher Columbus was a Norwegian nobleman. I agree with 79.156.36.165 and SuperArmenian. The moderators of wikipedia do not want to accept the truth. The origins of Christopher Columbus are a mystery. Wikipedia can not snub our ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.33.180.153 (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Update

I am updating information about the voyage to america Taoism74 (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)taoism74Taoism74 (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No "Columbus Day" in Spain.

"The anniversary of Columbus' 1492 landing in the Americas is usually observed as Columbus Day on 12 October in Spain(...)"

I would say "is extremely rarely observed as Columbus Day on 12 October in Spain"

12 October, in Spain, has the official name of "Day of the National Festivity", but the most common designation is "Day of Hispanity" (Día de la Hispanidad). It's also very commonly known as "Día del Pilar", in honour to the festivity of the Virgin of Pilar in Zaragoza. In some rare ocassions, somebody could reffer to 12 October as the "Discovery Day", but, in fact, I have never heard (including the Spanish media) anyone (any compatriot) refering to 12 October as "Columbus Day", and I am Spanish. I am not saying that no one here name 12Oct. that way (I haven't met all the Spanish people), but I can state that "Columbus Day" for October the 12th is not a common name here, at all, even when the festivity is obviously related with the Discovery.

Actually, the firts time I heard about 12 October as "Columbus Day" (Día de Colón in Spanish), was in the Sopranos!

83.36.178.30 (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

the truth of Christopher Columbus

I am very glad that the article was truthful about all he did against the Indians I have read other articles that make him seem like a heartless B@st@rd and I am glad that this article makes him look like one to because he was terrible to the native American as he called them because he was so stupid he thought he found Asia (I think he might not have thought that I don't know on that point) instead of a new continent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewarrior72 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Opium addict, reason for going was opium

Should it not be pointed out that columbus was an opium addict and that his opium addiction was the main reason that he wanted to go to india? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.145.4 (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggested deletion of section "Accusations of tyranny and genocide during governorship"

I suggest that this whole section be carefully researched for credible sources and if none are found then it is to be deleted. As it is, the cited sources are basically anonymous Spanish historians having no evident credibility. The accusations are too damaging to let stand if not validated. Roesser (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Toscanelli's map

The caption on the Toscanelli's map image appears to be rather inaccurate. The image actually appears to be a modern map overlaid by (presumably) Toscanelli's map. That's fine, but the caption says something else, to the point of being just wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.5.192 (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Measurements

This page says an Arabic mile is about 1,830 meters. Wikipedia's page on the Mile says an Arabic mile is 1,925 meters.

This page says 3,000 Italian miles is 3,700 km, or 2,300 statute miles. That assumes 1 Italian mile = 1,233 meters. I don't think an Italian mile is even a thing. I assume it means Roman mile. But I think that's wrong too, since Wikipedia's page on the Mile says a Roman mile is 1,479 meters. So one of those numbers is wrong, but I'm not sure which one. If the 3,700 km is wrong, then the amount of statute miles will need to be fixed too.

Also, look at this passage from this page: "this was expressed in the Arabic mile (about 1,830 m) rather than the shorter Roman mile with which he was familiar (1,480 m).[32] He therefore estimated the circumference of the Earth to be about 30,200 km, whereas the correct value is 40,000 km (25,000 mi)... Columbus therefore estimated the distance from the Canary Islands to Japan to be about 3,000 Italian miles (3,700 km, or 2,300 statute miles), while the correct figure is 19,600 km (12,200 mi),[citation needed] or about 12,000 km along a great circle."

First it defines an Arabic mile in terms of meters, then it defines a Roman mile in terms of meters. Ok, fine. But then for its next two numbers it switches to kilometers. And then it throws in a miles equivalent, but only for one of them, and it doesn't specify which type of miles it means. Then the next figure leads with miles instead of kilometers, but it's a different type of mile this time, and now it has two alternate units. Then two more numbers in kilometers, and again only one of them has a miles equivalent, and it doesn't specify which type of miles it means. A little consistency would be nice. Though the inconsistency is ironic in a passage describing how Columbus mixed up different units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.136.78 (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Columbus history has been all smoke and mirrors, that is why none of it makes any sense, including the math. So just accept the measurements they are giving you. Nothing has to jive. However, Manuel Rosa has been able to show that "...kad admirals Kolonas plaukiojo naudodamasis Portugalijos jūrine lyga (PJL), matuojama šiandien 3,2 jūrmylėmis (5926,4 m). Taigi jis plaukė naudodamas tą pačią portugalų techniką kaip Vaskas da Gama bei visi jo laikų Portugalijos jūrininkai." Which translates to "...Admiral Colón used the Portuguese Maritime League (PML) measured today as 3.2 nautical miles (5,926.4 meters) per league. Thus he sailed with the same Portuguese technology utilized by Vasco da Gama and all Portuguese navigators of their time, as it would be expected." since Columbus learned to navigate in Portugal. (Source Kolumbas. Atskleistoji istorija, Manuel Rosa, Charibdė, Vilnius, 2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.52.236.142 (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Please fix the link in the third sentence of the Early Life section from "Republic of Genoa" to "Republic of Genoa" (per the lead, where the state is correctly linked). The city of Genoa can then be appropriately linked in the following sentence: "His father was Domenico Colombo, a middle-class wool weaver who worked both in Genoa and Savona..."

The third sentence would also benefit from some copyediting: "Columbus was born before 31 October 1451 in the territory of the Republic of Genoa (now part of modern Italy), though the exact location remains disputed."

Thank you, 86.169.210.196 (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 12:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Another edit request: "He anchored next to the King's harbor patrol ship on 4 March 1493 in Portugal and was ironically interviewed by Bartolomeu Dias ..." There is no reason to believe that he was ironically interviewed. Incorrect usage of "ironic", and/or unsupported claim of irony, should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Add that he was an opium addict

Can someone add the he was an opium addict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.150.154 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem with non sequitur

The section Geographical considerations begins as follows:

"Washington Irving's 1828 biography of Columbus popularized the idea that Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because many Catholic theologians insisted that the Earth was flat. In fact, most educated Westerners had understood that the Earth was spherical at least since the time of Aristotle, who lived in the 4th century BC and whose works were widely studied and revered in Medieval Europe."

The problem is that the second sentence, while most likely correct, does not address the issue of whether Washington Irving's idea that "Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because many Catholic theologians insisted that the Earth was flat" is true or not.

It's entirely possible, without further information, that "Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because many Catholic theologians insisted that the Earth was flat" even despite the fact that "most educated Westerners had understood that the Earth was spherical."

I am in no position to comment on what the reality was, but I hope that someone expert in the history of that era can do so.

So is that question that needs to be addressed, instead of objecting to Washington Irving's idea with a non sequitur.Daqu (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggested deletion of section "Accusations of tyranny and genocide during governorship"

I suggest that this whole section be carefully researched for credible sources and if none are found then it is to be deleted. As it is, the cited sources are basically anonymous Spanish historians having no evident credibility. The accusations are too damaging to let stand if not validated. Roesser (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's clearly giving undue weight to a "controversy," using many long quotes as "testimony." There are no other long quotes in the article, so along with using an unsourced "genocide" term and lacking good sources relative to the subject, it's a bit soapish, IMO, and might go against Guidelines. I'd reduce the text to key facts and include it in the body. Any sourced details about the "anonymous" historians or counter-arguments could be included. --Light show (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This has come up before...Quotes should be in the main article on the topic not here. On a side note the section is just a copy edit of Howard Zinn (1996). A People's History of the United States: From 1492 to the Present. Aristotext. p. 18. GGKEY:HC5R4U92BJT.. -- Moxy (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree - The section is a factual recount of internal records and testimony with the Spanish government at the time. Sourcing these facts will be more difficult and nuanced than other more casual or enshrined facts, by their very nature. Yet contrary to that, this section appears to be the more strongly cited section in the article. I would on the contrary suggest the omition of the phrasing "Accusation of --" as it colors the facts within as untrustworthy. It is enough to say that they were testimony and to relay the source. It could be further argued that the loss of life and other negative consequences the subject incurred should compose a greater deal of this article's coverage, as they carry a far greater weight and legacy than the other topics covered here. Clairvoire (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Except when writing historical facts about one of the world's most famous men, we need much more than a small newspaper article and comments from "Consuelo Varela, a Spanish historian who has seen the document," whoever Varela is. When including a large section about a controversial subject, more solid and dignified sources should be used. It's reasonable to have the newspaper article cited, but without more verifiable sources from recognized experts, devoting an entire section gives the subject undue weight. --Light show (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Fraud of Columbus' History and Identity Exposed @ Duke University. Manuel Rosa, Historian and Author of 5 foreign language books on the falsified history of the "Discoverer of America". Mr. Rosa participated in the DNA studies of Columbus bones, has been featured on BBC and WNPR and will present facts gathered over his 23 years of scientific research that show the current history of Columbus includes fraudulent documents, intentional lies, and patriotic inventions, all meant to cover-up the true identity of Columbus as well as his real reason for the 1492 voyage. A controversial author of a controversial subject that has puzzled academics for 500 years. More Information South America focus, Caribbean focus, Europe focus, Multicultural/Identity, Lecture/Talk, Student, and International - See more at: Duke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.144.213 (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

His name was Cristóbal Colon, not Christopher Columbus or Cristoforo Colombo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.3.54 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

His name was either, depending on the language. The idea that names should not be translated is quite recent. So the question of his "real name" is moot.

However, given that he was not a (Christian) Spaniard (everybody agrees on that), at most a Catalan or a Majorcan or Sephardi Jew, Cristóbal Colón is just about the worst candidate you could have picked.

As for Manuel Rosa, we have his hypothesis already covered at the appropriate place. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is saying his name "should not be translated." But depending on whether he was born in Italy or Spain or maybe Portugal, his name is his name in the language of his birth. Whatever it was, it most certainly was not "Christopher Columbus". Obviously, any search for an article of that name should redirect to this one.Daqu (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not so easy even in principle (in the ideal case where we have some sort of birth certificate for the person in question, and not several in different languages giving different names). What if he was (say) born in Genoa to a Portuguese father and a Catalan mother? Even if was born in Genoa to native Genoese parents, would his real name be Italian Cristoforo Colombo (and there's the additional issue of lack of consistent spelling at the time) or something like Old Ligurian Christoffa Corombo (which may never have been used in writing, but very much so in speaking)? What if he wrote in several different languages (such as Spanish, Italian and Latin) and used a different form of name in each language?

People are far too attached to the modern notion that every person has a "real name". For bi-cultural people, especially those belonging to a minority (whether aboriginal/autochthonous or immigrant) culture (say, a Native American person in North America – good luck finding out the "true name" of Charles Eastman), this is certainly not the case. Nor is it for royalty, who are often (notably in Europe) cosmopolitan. Many historical personages have different names depending on the language, and some languages habitually adapt foreign names. In many cultures, there is no such thing as a name that is stable throughout the person's entire life. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre religious nonsense

Why is there constant mention of Catholic this and Catholic that all the way through the article. For a start it's irrelevant and secondly there were no protestants at the time. I see no reason for the stipulation tediously repeated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.232.208 (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems most are to Catholic Monarchs and may be a bit of overlinking/redundant linking, but definitely not Bizarre religious nonsense - just historical reality. Vsmith (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Indians"

"...Columbus called the inhabitants of the lands he visited indios (Spanish for "Indians"). This notion fully accepted by all relevant bodies is patently false. 1. Columbus believed that he had reached Japan. 2. Columbus was aware of the immensity of China and the lands between the Ocean and India. There was no sensible reason to assume the natives he observed were "Indian". The word used to describe those natives was some form of the word "Indigent", depending on the language used. SBader (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Indians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.200.243.7 (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No. "India" had a far wider meaning in Columbus' time than it has now, and Europeans had only very vague ideas of the geography of East Asia. The Behaim globe labels the entire Asian subcontinent region as "India"; the Waldseemüller map shows parts of eastern China as "India superior". Greater India or the Indies encompassed regions as remote as Vietnam, the Malay Archipelago (including the Moluccas, the then-mysterious and coveted "Spice Islands") and the Philippines. It is completely reasonable for Columbus to assume that the Taínos he met were some sort of East Asians (Malays, Filipinos, aboriginal Taiwanese and Micronesians do not look very different: all are relatively dark-skinned people of the Mongoloid phenotype; even Ryukyuans can have relatively dark skin, though that may be mostly suntan). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Just check how this reproduction has (part of) "India" between "thebett" and "zaitun" to the north, and "oceanus Indie superioria" to the south of the Tropic of Cancer. Columbus believed himself to be somewhere south of Japan, i. e., in that very ocean close to the Equator, in the Philippine Sea or the China Seas, probably not far from Taiwan, had he had any clear concept of the geography of the region. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I read something years ago that Columbus didn't name the natives Indians because he thought he was in India, but because the word Indian came from an Italian (?) word that meant something like "children of God." Is this not correct?209.179.58.204 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Opium Addict

Someone should ad that he was an opium addict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.154.56 (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a reference and explain how the factoid is relevant, Vsmith (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

here a source that says he was an opium addict. http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6993344-some-obscure-but-interesting-facts-about-christopher-columbus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.150.154 (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That website, Allvoices, doesn't seem to have any sort of fact checking. Anybody can publish anything and call it news. It thus fails Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Favonian (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Disputed ancestry?

Why does this page lack any controversy over "Colombus's" origins?

There are strong arguments that he was not of Italian origin and may have been Spanish, Greek or even Jewish (I know it is a weak claim). The fact his son claims descendant from a Byzantine Admiral is not even mentioned on the page and there is only a brief mention of Chios even though he continuously draws comparisons between the New World and Chios in his letters. This would suggest he may have been born on the island, but the article does not even explore it.

This is not about conspiracy theories but a real historical question that has yet (and will maybe never) be answered. You would think the Wikipedia article of all places would actually explore in detail who this guy actually was, especially considering how weak the primary evidence that he was from Genoa is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.20.98 (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The very first thing after the article's introduction is a link to Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Expression

[H]e completed four voyages across the Atlantic Ocean that led to general European awareness of the American continents.

Why was this beautiful phrase altered? It was such a excellent way of avoiding the word "discovery", which is not quite neutral. --2.245.167.254 (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

summary line: motivations of voyage...

In the summary section it says: "Columbus himself saw his accomplishments primarily in the light of spreading the Christian religion.[4]"

It would be more accurate to include the modifier "Columbus himself later saw his accomplishments primarily in the light of spreading the Christian religion,[4], however, the immediate focus of the voyages to return gold and slaves to Spain demonstrated his focus on economic achievement." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwatcher (talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Error in date of De las Cases arrival in Hispaniola

I found a date that was wrong on this page. I don't have enough edits yet to change it. Can someone please change it for me.

ORIGINAL PASSAGE De las Casas records that when he first came to Hispaniola in 1508, "there were 60,000 people living on this island, including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this? I myself writing it as a knowledgeable eyewitness can hardly believe it...."[79]

SUGGESTED CHANGES De las Casas recorded in 1508 that "there were 60,000 people living on this island, including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this? I myself writing it as a knowledgeable eyewitness can hardly believe it...."[79]

REASON FOR CHANGES: The date of De las Casas arrival is incorrect, but the 1509 date for the counting of 60,000 is correct

SOURCES: De las Casas arrival in 1502, not 1508: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/330804/Bartolome-de-Las-Casas

Population recorded in 1508: Essays in Population History: Mexico and the Caribbean, Volume 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenecho (talk • contribs) 07:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Arabic mile

This paragraph is incoherent:

From d'Ailly's Imago Mundi Columbus learned of Alfraganus's estimate that a degree of latitude (or a degree of longitude along the equator) spanned 56⅔ miles, but did not realize that this was expressed in the Arabic mile (about 1,830 m) rather than the shorter Roman mile with which he was familiar (1,480 m). He therefore estimated the circumference of the Earth to be about 30,200 km, whereas the correct value is 40,000 km (25,000 mi).

(1,480 m ÷ 1,830 m = 81%) ≠ (30,200 km ÷ 40,000 km = 75%). Someone with access to Morison please fix it so that it agrees with the source, or else find a source that supports other, coherent figures. Do not mishmash Arabic mile references with Columbus sources. Strebe (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not really incoherent. Your second ratio is that of Columbus's estimate of the Earth's size to its true size, while your first, that of Columbus's mile to Alfraganus's mile, is only identical to the ratio of Columbus's estimate to Alfraganus's estimate. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that the value of 1,830m given for Alfraganus's mile is incorrect, since it would make his estimate for the Earth's circumference of about 37,300km in error by about 7%. If I remember correctly, his estimate is generally believed to be quite a bit more accurate than that.

Morison gives no explicit figure for the length of the arabic mile. He merely says that Alfraganus's estimate of 56⅔ arabic miles "works out at 66.2 nautical miles", thus implying a value of 1,852 × 66.2 ÷ 56⅔ =approx 2,200m as the length he assumed for the Arabic mile. Since the provenance of the figure 1,830m is anybody's guess, I suggest simply deleting it.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. The answer to Alfraganus’s accuracy is implicit in Morison’s response: “Alfraganus's estimate of 56⅔ arabic miles works out at 66.2 nautical miles”. The real value of a degree of latitude is 60 nautical miles, so Alfraganus’s estimate is too large by 10%—according to Morison. Van Helden corroborates the 56⅔ figure but does not give a Roman or nautical mile equivalent, instead stating “40,000 ‘black cubits’ of 24 fingerbreadths each”. From my own poking around, there does not seem to be any consensus on the plausible range of an Arabic mile (even less consensus than the 10% uncertainty implied here, a circumstance I would expect for a unit based on fingerbreadths), and therefore the accuracy Alfraganus’s estimate cannot be known. Hence I like your solution: Ultimately it does not matter how large Alfraganus thought the earth was; what matters is that Columbus applied his own familiar version of a mile to 56⅔ miles per degree, and that yields the 75%-of-actual-size error. Strebe (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Morison gave Columbus the benefit of the doubt and suggested he had misconstrued the 'arabic' mile while developing his presentation. The Geodesy expert I.K.Fischer was more sceptical. She believed Columbus had intentionally used dubious numbers to enhance the credibility of his assertions. The navigational evidence in Columbus's journal of the 1492/93 voyage does indicate that Columbus used actual distances as they apply in the real world, so Fischer may well have been correct. regards Norloch (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Knowingly wrong would have been a suicide wish. That hardly seems likely. Surely his calculations were, instead, (very) wishful thinking. Strebe (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We all have some capacity to delude ourselves, so wishful thinking might have been a factor with Columbus. It becomes more difficult to credit if we're willing to accept Columbus's claim that he had more than twenty years experience at sea. Let's suppose an experienced Columbus had come to believe that distances to unknown places were much less than the conventions dictated. From that it would follow that the distances between known places would also be much less. The paradox for Columbus would then have been that he'd spent many years sailing back and fore between lots of those known places and presumably would have gained some knowledge of the actual distances. However, if Columbus's claim of twenty years seafaring experience was just a yarn and if his practical navigational knowledge was quite limited, then, he may indeed have had that capacity to delude himself! Regards Norloch (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not follow why Columbus's merely recording "actual distances as they apply in the real world" in the journal of his 1492-3 voyage would provide any support whatever for Fischer's hypothesis. In the time of Columbus, ocean navigators could only very crudely estimate their longitude by sailing pretty much due east or west from a known location, estimating the distance they had travelled by dead reckoning, and dividing that distance by the supposed size of a degree of longitude at the latitude along which they were sailing. If Columbus really did believe that a degree of latitude spanned only 56⅔ of his miles, rather than the correct 75½, I see no reason at all why he would not record his true estimate of the distance travelled. His journal would only provide evidence of previous duplicity if it were to contain either:

• Calculations of longitude using the correct distance of a degree of longitude at the latitude at which he was sailing, rather than the 30% shorter distance it would have been if the length of a degree of latitude had been only 56⅔ of his miles ; or
• Recordings of latitude during periods of sailing due north or due south, and corresponding estimates of distance travelled of about 75½ of his miles per degree.

Does it?

I would be extremely surprised if this were the case, because every other reputable historian whose comments on the issue I have seen—admittedly, not more than about 4 or 5 at the most—all say the same thing—namely, that Columbus believed that a degree of latitude spanned 56⅔ of his miles, which were about 30% shorter than the ones which Alpetragius's estimate actually applied to. Examples are William D. and Karla Rahn Phillips in The Worlds of Chrisopher Columbus (p.109-110), and Felipe Fernandez-Armesto in Columbus on himself (pp.25-26).

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

In answer to the question - “ Does It ? ”- I would respectfully suggest that it does indeed ! However, perhaps it's something which everyone would want to verify for themselves. Check the details in Columbus's journal for February 27th. 1493. (It may also be of interest to total the daily distances logged between February 24th. and February 26th. as supplementary detail.) Transpose the information to a modern chart of the area and make your own assessment. I.K. Fischer's colourful opinion of Columbus is noted in Fischer's autobiography titled “Geodesy; what's that?”. I can't recall the precise chapter number (chapter 13 possibly?) but it was the chapter which deals with the period in her career when she undertook to make an assessment of the works of the Ancients and their researches and techniques in the science of global measurements. RegardsNorloch (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read the question again. It asks whether Columbus's journal contains either of two things. But there's no trace whatever of either of those two things in Columbus's journal entries for the period February 24th to February 27th, 1493. Since Columbus was sailing east from the Azores during that period, it is only the first of the two—namely a calculation of degrees of longitude travelled—that would have been possible. But there's no trace of such a calculation in Columbus's journal entries for the period, nor any other indication whatever that he knew the correct span of longitude for the distance he had travelled during the period.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I presume the passage in Fischer's book you're referring to is the one on p.286 (in Chapter 13, as you say). If so, I believe you might have read more into it than is actually there. I can see no clear indication that Fischer was there attributing Columbus's conflation of his own mile with Alfraganus's to a deliberate equivocation on his part, rather than the sincerely held delusion which all modern mainstream historians appear to put it down to. Nevertheless, I admit that her otherwise puzzling final statement, "It had nothing to do with the dimensions of the Earth" does tend rather to suggest the former interpretation than the latter.

But, in any case, Fischer's colourful prose in that passage is very poor history. According to Miles Davidson (Columbus then and now, p.68) everything we know about what Columbus knew of the matter comes from postils which he wrote in the margins of books in his library many years after his first voyage ( ibid, p.70). Thus Fischer's account of "dazzling conversations back and forth between degrees and miles" and "in between an unnoticed switch between miles and miles" is either a very fanciful description of these postils, or of purely imaginary events which she is supposing to have taken place when Columbus was trying to "convince patrons".

David Wilson (talk · cont) 05:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This incipit is weird

First of all sorry for my [bad] English :D. I know that probably you talked a lot about this but i would write "Columbus was an italian explorer, colonizer etc.. citizen of the Republic of Genoa". I mean, Italy was his nation (of course not yet a state) while Genoa was his state (u couldnt have the genoan "nationality" cuz genoa was just a state and not a nation). For example look at the Leonardo da Vinci page. barjimoa--UltimateWikiCraft

I fixed some of the grammar on your post UltimateWikiCraft (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I need to add an item

I wanted to add -He didnt actually 'Discover' America.... The natives were their first but they didnt know about the other continents- Is it possible you get "Edit Permission"???— Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimateWikiCraft (talk • contribs)

Hi, the matter is addressed in the Legacy section. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistencies: Did Columbus know he discovered a new continent? Religious motivation/accomplishment?

We have this paragraph in the current article: "Columbus correctly interpreted the enormous quantity of fresh water that the Orinoco delivered into the Atlantic Ocean as evidence that he had reached a continental landmass. As he sailed the Gulf of Paria, he observed the diurnal rotation of the pole star in the sky, which he erroneously interpreted as evidence that the Earth was not perfectly spherical, but rather bulged out like a pear around the new-found continent.[4] He also speculated that the new continent might be the location of the biblical Garden of Eden." which appears to contradict this statement: "Never admitting that he had reached a continent previously unknown to Europeans, rather than the East Indies he had set out for, Columbus called the inhabitants of the lands he visited indios (Spanish for "Indians")." There is an abundance of myths surrounding Columbus that should be dispelled. This would seem to be one of them.

This statement: "Columbus himself saw his accomplishments primarily in the light of spreading the Christian religion" seems rather gratuitous. If Columbus ever made such a statement, a citation should be given, not just a reference to another encyclopedia article. Given the monetary goals and accomplishments of the voyages, as well as Columbus' brutal treatment of natives, this statement would seem to be highly hypocritical. It would also seem to be at odds with this statement later in the article: "He had an economic interest in the enslavement of the Hispaniola natives and for that reason was not eager to baptize them, which attracted criticism from some churchmen." Freond (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Freond

What content change do you suggest? --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Catalonia is not Spain?

It's said in the article that "Some modern historians have argued that Columbus was not from Genoa, but instead, from Catalonia,[15] Portugal,[16] or Spain.[17]". Thats a nonsense. You can't put in the same phrase "from Catalonia or from Spain". Spain as a nation cannot be understand without Catalonia. In the most favorable vision (for Catalonian Nationalism) its the same nonsense as saying that someone is "from Scotland or from Great Britain" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.71.36 (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Reworded as the Telegraph source (#15) says "Catalan speaking man from the Kingdom of Aragon". Vsmith (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Chinese name of Christopher Columbus

The Chinese name is "克里斯托弗·哥伦布". -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Giacomo Columbus

Giacomo (Diego) Columbus 1450?-1515, the brother of Christopher Columbus (source: Encyclopedia Americana) Böri (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

University Professors Now Doubt Columbus Origins

It seems Colon-El-Nuevo was on the right track all those years.
"As regras do tempo mostram-nos que um plebeu nunca se casava com uma nobre, pelo que a origem de Colombo é assaz duvidosa."
Translation: "The social rules at the time confirm that a peasant could never marry a noble by which the [peasant] origins of Columbus are thus, highly doubtful"
Who wrote this? Of course Manuel Rosa insisted on this point in his books beginning in 2006, now Prof. João Paulo Oliveira e Costa, History Chair at Universidade Nova de Lisboa and Director of Centro de História Além-Mar along with Prof. José Damião Rodrigues and Prof. Pedro Aires Oliveira now declare it in a new ooh titled, História da Expansão e do Império Português Lisboa: A Esfera dos Livros, 2014. ISBN: 9789896266271, p. 78 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.175.111 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"Genoese" or "Italian"? Maybe "Genoese (Italian)" would be the best option

Given that the wiki article itself recognizes Cristopher Columbus as born in Genoa I think we should add a reference to his Italian nationality. Although Italy was not an independent nation at the time, people born on the Italian peninsula were commonly recognized as "Italians" by foreigners. Plus, wikipedia itself records Dante Alighieri (Florence, 1265), Galileo Galilei (Pisa, 156 4)and many other prominent Italian people as Italians: I don't see why Columbus deserves a special treatment. Can somebody please change this or explain why Dante should be recorded as Italian and Columbus as Genoese? Thank you87.2.208.227 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Genocide of indigenous people

Why is it that no mention of word "Genocide" of indigenous people appear in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.10.178 (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it didn’t happen. Strebe (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Columbus Was Not Italian?

COLUMBUS: The Untold Story at Florida International University “CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: A HISTORY OF FRAUD & DECEPTIONS" Turns out Columbus was not Italian after all but descendant of Polish Royalty! Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2015, 11:00AM MEUCE/Polish Lecture Series: Book Presentation on "Columbus" (FIU). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1118:2105:C45A:B604:599D:5473 (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what time zone you're in, but where I am, it's the morning of Sunday 8 February 2015. In some other parts of the world it's still Saturday 7 February 2015. That means that "Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2015, 11:00AM" is still well over 2 days hence. It's kind of hard to take seriously any source that has not yet come into existence. So no, it does not "turn out" that their wild fantasies have any relation to the truth. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2015

Reiter's Syndrome is a common presentation of reactive arthritis, a joint inflammation caused by intestinal bacterial infections or after acquiring certain sexually transmitted diseases (primarily chlamydia or gonorrhea). Reiter's syndrome has been described as a precursor of other joint conditions, including ankylosing spondylitis.

Gilmala714 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: The only sentence to be added is "Reiter's syndrome has been described as a precursor of other joint conditions, including ankylosing spondylitis." Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

done with essentially the same request below Cannolis (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2015

Please change from -Reiter's Syndrome is a common presentation of reactive arthritis, a joint inflammation caused by intestinal bacterial infections or after acquiring certain sexually transmitted diseases (primarily chlamydia or gonorrhea).

Change to Reiter's Syndrome is a common presentation of reactive arthritis,a joint inflammation caused by intestinal bacterial infections or after acquiring certain sexually transmitted diseases (primarily chlamydia or gonorrhea).Reiter's syndrome has been described as a precursor of other joint conditions,including Ankylosing Spondylitis.

Source: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Reactive_arthritis Thank you 108.6.114.69 (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Joseph2302 (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Two Portraits of Colón

The article states, incorrectly, that no portrait of Columbus was painted during his lifetime, yet there is a portrait by Pedro Berruguete, Spanish painter who died in 1504- Columbus died in 1506. You do the math!!!! -Furthermore, Alejo Fernández was painter at the Spanish Court in 1505 giving him plenty of time to see and paint Columbus. It is advisable that the Piombo painting, which everyone knows is not Columbus, be replaced by Berruguete's portrait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.158 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have references for that? Strebe (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The article states is that "no authentic contemporary portrait" exits. The word to grasp is authentic. --Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If we want to be more authentic we would use Pedro Berruguete Portrait of Columbus, before we would use a portrait that everyone knows is not Columbus. Would that not make sense?

Columbus Portrait by Pedro Berruguete (1450-1504), who knew Christopher Columbus personally, having he lived at the Spanish court at the time of the great discoverer.T he portrait, the authenticity of which was supported by important experts, among whom Raimondo Sirotti, director of the Academy of Fine Arts of Genoa, was acquires by an American businessman in 1991. The main features of said portrait exactly correspond to the description made by Fernando in his Historie, where he describes his father as featuring "a long face and high cheeks", the same description being reported also by Angelo Trevisan, who was e very good friend of Columbus'. (Information sent to me by Peter Canepa, May 2004).

References

IP address geolocates to Durham, NC. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller, what does your comment have to do with the request to change the portrait? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1118:2105:C4:AA41:2B53:A581 (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And yet another IP editor, or the same one. If any of these are Manuel Rosa, it would be helpful if they made that plain. And "information sent to me"? Whoever 'me' is, we don't use personal information for our articles. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller, you are so out of touch. "(Information sent to me by Peter Canepa, May 2004)." the whole quote is taken from the Reliable Source that you used in the caption under the current Portrait. If you had bothered to click it you would know this.- Again, what does Manuel Rosa have to do with changing the current Portrait, which everyone in the world agrees is NOT Columbus, to a portrait that was painted by Berruguete at Spanish court during Columbus's lifetime? - your obsession with Rosa is keeping you from being impartial, don't you think?

You must have someone else in mind, as I had nothing to do with the quote, I didn't use the source. You seem fascinated with Rosa, you tried to create an article on him and you are editing from Duke's network (as you probably know, Rosa works on an IT help desk at Duke). But I did mean to add[5] Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I do hold Rosa in high regard since all he has presented is backed up by documents and has been praised by many history professors as a paradigm changer in the history of the life of Columbus. So let me understand this. The link you posted says: "Columbus and one by Pedro Berruguete that may be based on direct observation," exactly my point. So why would we not want to utilize Berruguete's portrait instead of a guy we know was not for a fact was Columbus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.158 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You edit from where he works and your 2nd edit was promoting his ideas, which seems to be virtually your sole purpose here. Oh, except for editing the Duke Cancer Institute article, which is more specifically where he works. I hope you wouldn't blame anyone for thinking that if you aren't actually Rosa you know him. So I'd say you have a conflict of interest at best. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller, how do you see a conflict of interest in my request? I don't understand where that conflict is. I merely proposed that we get rid of a portrait that everyone in the world agrees is not columbus and replace it with a portrait that has proof was created during Columbus' life by a painter who painted for the court where Columbus lived. Is this a conflict of interest? Explain how it is, and specific reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.242 (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Claim removal:

The following has been removed from the #Second voyage section and transferred here for possible future discovery of reliable sources:

In retaliation for the attack on La Navidad, Columbus demanded that each Taino over 14 years of age deliver a hawk's bell full of gold powder every three months or, when this was lacking, twenty-five pounds of spun cotton. If this tribute was not delivered, the Taínos had their hands cut off and were left to bleed to death.

According to the archive bot, this may be archived in a month. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 19:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Colon was not Columbus and was Not Italian?

New Academic article in the SPANISH LEGAL HISTORY REVIEW sinks the Italian Columbus once and for all.

DESCRIPTION: Admiral Don Cristóbal Colón*, discoverer of the New World, and the Genoese wool-weaver, Cristoforo Colombo, were two completely different persons. The official history continues to be supported by vague sources that do not stand up when confronted with the actual facts of Colón’s life. One of those important disregarded facts was the Admiral’s 1479 marriage to the noble Portuguese Filipa Moniz Perestrelo, Comendadora in the All-Saints monastery, a Commandery of the Military Order of Santiago. Filipa’s social status at the time was incompatible with that of the Cristoforo Colombo, weaver from Genoa. Colón’s close connections to King João II of Portugal and the high consideration that he and his sons received from the court of Castile indicate that Colón was a person of a social status incompatible with the weaver presented in the famous Raccolta. Admiral D. Cristóbal Colón’s life remains, in many aspects, shrouded in mystery by his own deliberate implementation. Colón hid his true identity and family origins, even though, by all aspects, he was a nobleman with a coat of arms and was elevated to Viceroy of the Indies. His preponderance for lying misleads us about the shipwreck of the Santa Maria on December 24, 1492, which as shown below, was intentionally beached at today’s Caracol beach in Haiti to serve as the beginnings of Fort Natividad. Oh-oh! soon Wikipedia will be out-of-date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.241 (talk) 17:09, January 21, 2015‎ (UTC)

Good luck with that, because to overturn the history books you're going to have to find quite a few more reliable sources to back all that up. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 19:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Already the Portuguese wikipedia states CC's nationality as "CONTESTED" http://pt.wiki.x.io/wiki/Cristóvão_Colombo - soon no academic who reads the facts will continue to stand up for the weaver Colombo fairytale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.250 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Paine Ellsworth Manuel Rosa is an IT Help desk worker at Duke University The IP is posting from Duke. Someone who appears to be Rosa's PR guy has created Manuel Rosa in the last few days, which as also been edited by an IP from Duke and another from Miami, where Rosa seems to be at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It's impressive that an amateur historian had the scones to become an IT professional. What isn't impressive is his (and his book's) present lack of notability, the fact that there is as yet nothing from Rosa's peers that suggests scholarly support, and the fact that, even if true, it does not mean that there was someone else, another man, that history has mistaken for the Polish nobleman, as the IP stipulates above. Until we see scholarly backup in reliable sources, the book is as fictional as The Da Vinci Code. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 20:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Warneńczyk - The theory of a "Polish Colombus" is pure fantasy. According to Manuel Rosa (works on an IT service desk at Duke University), the father of Columbus was Wladyslaw III. There's just one small problem... Polish historians regarded him as homosexual. Jan Długosz, the Polish analyst, has described for the first time a homosexual incidence among rulers concerning King Wladyslaw III Jagiellon called Warneńczyk, who never got married (see also: Chronicles of the Kingdom of Poland). --2.33.180.50 (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the above comment as at least as worthy a contribution to this talk page as that which it is rebutting. The reasons given for its removal in the edit summary of the edit which removed it apply just as much (or even more so) to other comments in both this section and the one preceding it, so I'm puzzled as to why this one was singled out for removal. It would seem reasonable to me to remove the whole of both this section and the one preceding it as being off-topic, since they appear to me to be devoted to arguing about the plausibility of a fringe theory, rather than discussing how to improve the article. But if the latitude given to discussions on talk pages is deemed sufficient to allow this argument to occur at all, I don't see any reasonable grounds for singling out just the above comment for removal.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 22:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. I mistakenly reverted thinking the edit was adding to the article, not the talk page. I must have been sleep deprived. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for the explanation. I agree that the comment would be inappropriate as an addition to this or any other artcle.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about. Rosa had published his first book, resulting from 15 years of research, at least 2 years before he became an IT guy at Duke, if you took the time to review the Duke Article you would know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.33.47 (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Manuel da Silva Rosa "An IT analyst at Duke University, he is also an independent researcher into the life of Christopher Columbus." He is not a historian. Contemporary 15th century – Jan Długosz – Polish historians regarded Wladyslaw III as homosexual. Wladyslaw was fighting with Turkey in the defence of Christian Europe (formally it was a crusade) and he was killed during a battle in 1444 near Warna. He died seven years before the birth of Christopher Columbus. So, a homosexual king had a son, Christopher Warneńczyk, seven years after his death. An incredible story. I advise you to read the Annals or Chronicles of the famous Kingdom of Poland. There is an extensive chapter on the sexual life of the king. --2.33.180.131 (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Manuel da Silva Rosa is a historian who published a 700 page academic book in Portugal in 2006 resulting from 15 years of research and who then went to work in IT. The fact that he went into IT two years after publishing his research is irrelevant.Catalinacoast (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

He's an amateur historian with no qualifications in history. I'm not sure on what basis you are claiming that he didn't work in IT for those "15 years of research" -- no one normally goes into IT without qualifications, or gets a job after being doing something else for 15 years and thus having no or outdated experience. Source? Ésquilo, his publisher, is not an academic publishing house but is describe as "an independent house that publishes books mainly in areas such as Philosophy, History, Espirituality, Psychology and Human Relations, mythical and historic fiction, new scientific paradigms, and other topics related to new century vision." Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Amateur historians are historians even if they are not professors at any University. Most history books are written by authors who are not history professors, Garry Wills is such an example. Furthermore, Paolo Emilio Taviani, who is often quoted by wikipedia on Columbus, did not have a degree in history, although he taught history in Italy he had a degree only in Letters and Philosophy. A historian does not need to have a PhD and does not need to have a History degree. History degrees have only been in existence in the last 100 years and if we follow your logic, then, do say that there were no historians before100 years ago when such degrees became the norm? What irks most people about Rosa is that he is making claims against a history that was based on hearsay by utilizing verifiable documentation, the documentation Rosa published negates what we had been taught. The way I see it, there will be a rewriting of the life of Columbus, it is just a matter of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.250 (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The life of Christopher Columbus has always fascinated me. So, I like to read up on the internet about the great navigator. In my research I found an interesting text written in Portuguese on the origins of Christopher Columbus. ( http://colombodocs.com.sapo.pt/index5.htm ) All users agree that Columbus was Genoese (also seen the number of overwhelming evidence) the only "lone voice" is a user who calls himself "Manuel Rosa". At the end of the fair, he was completely ignored and labeled as a person in bad faith. The person who writes here has the same writing style of Mr. Rosa. --2.33.180.168 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr Italian, 2.33.180.168, if Columbus so has fascinated you, then you must know all about Columbus, a peasant weaver from Genoa. Was he authorized by the King of Portugal to marry an elite Comendadora of the Military Order of Santiago? Therefore, it is quite contradictory for you to assert that there is "overwhelming evidence" that Colón was the weaver from Genoa. In fact there is not a single document that proves Colón and Colombo were the same person as Rosa claims and as is quite well explained by Professor Carlos Fontes here: http://colombo.do.sapo.pt/indexPTColombo.html - that overwhelming evidence disproves most of what we had been taught.

Hearsay evidence such as that provided thus far can only be used if it receives scholarly support in reliable sources, which has yet to be furnished. This is all rather underwhelming, not over. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 04:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Some writers continue to question how Christopher Columbus, the son of a Genoese wool merchant, could marry Filipa. However, Samuel Eliot Morison ( http://books.google.it/books?id=H3ME_u-41PsC&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false Admiral of the Ocean Sea pp. 37-39 ) wrote that this is "no great mystery." Filipa was "already about 25 years old," her mother was a widow "with slender means," and "her mother was glad enough to have no more convent bills to pay, and a son-in-law [...] who asked for no dowry." Manuel Rosa is an amateur historian. He is not a reliable source. I posted the site (in Portuguese) where he was ridiculed by all. A buffoon this "historian". I lost too much time to respond to you. Farewell !

• Samuel Eliot Morison is the leading North American authority.
• Manuel Rosa works on an IT service desk at Duke University, dealing with both PCs and Macs. --2.33.180.98 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Samuel Eliot Morison was as ignorant on Portuguese history as you are. Miles Davidson in his book, Columbus Then and Now: A Life Reexamined, shows the same disbelief in Morison’s fantastic writings by stating: Neither Morison nor Wilford presented any evidence, not even a reasonable possibility . . . Morison offered undocumented details . . . Unfortunately, this was also one of those occasions on which Morrison allowed his lively imagination to run away. Morison changing Columbus’s own statement . . . [Kirkpatrick Sale] found Morison’s book to be “seriously flawed” and “erroneously certain stating as facts . . . Recently the unsupported assumptions made by Morison and others. (Miles Davidson, Columbus Then and Now: A Life Reexamined, U. of Oklahoma Press, 1997.) All I know us that in the end Rosa will prevail because the truth always prevails.

I decided not to comment on your fantasies. However one thing is really fun. You have reported as a source (to discredit the Genoese origin of Christopher Columbus), the book of the historian Miles Davidson. He writes on page 6 [ http://books.google.it/books?id=BR6Ek48GgzEC&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false ] : "Diego Méndez, one of his captains, in testimony given in the Pleitos, he said that Columbus was "Genoese, a native of Savona which is a town near Genoa." Those who reject this and the more than ample other contemporary evidence, given by both Italian and Spanish sources as well as by witnesses at these court hearings, are simply flying in the face of overwhelming evidence." No other comment. This suggests the reliability of this person. Farewell ! --2.33.180.145 (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"One person is responsible for the polemics about the birthplace of Christopher Columbus, and that person is his own son Ferdinand, who, in his biography of his father, displayed ignorance and doubts on a subject which, on the contrary, he should have known well. We must unhesitatingly point out that Don Ferdinand's work is rather tendentious and must be used with great caution. The problem of the Admiral's origin would not exist if Ferdinand had told the truth, which, instead, he deliberately concealed." [...] "His dubious attitude about the Discoverer's origins has given rise to an endless series of hypotheses, some of which are farfetched and fantastic. It is true that Ferdinand, in his father's biography, never ventures away from the Italian thesis, but he creates a great confusion. He tries to condition his readers, speaking of a noble family, from which his progenitor was presumably descended. He seeks it in Italy, and his attempts are aimed at creating a kind of nebula in which the splendour of an uncertain birth shines, and at the same time of a definite noble background. What is behind the father's silence and the confusion originated by the son?" [...] "We cannot blame Christopher or Ferdinand for having wanted to hide their origins. It was natural and human that Columbus, having reached great heights, at the side of the most powerful sovereigns of the earth, should conceal, with a claim of noble ancestry, his humble origins. Let us try to understand these human weaknesses and let us have compassion on his memory." Antonio Ballesteros Beretta (historian)

"It is understandable that certain Spanish historians would seek to bestow full credit for the great discovery on Spain by arguing that Columbus was a Spanish citizen. It is equally understandable that the Castilians and Catalonians - two populations that have been linguistically and culturally divided for centuries - have fought over which of the two had the honor of being the birthplace of Christopher Columbus. But what wild imaginings could have generated a Greek Columbus, an English Columbus, three French Columbuses, and, as if that were not enough, a Corsican Columbus, a Swiss Columbus, and three Portuguese Columbuses? For an explanation, we can look only to the immeasurable greatness of Columbus's achievement and to its profound consequences on the course of human history; only to the mythic figure of the Navigator, the first man to unveil the mystery of the New World to the inhabitants of the Old World, only to the amazing story of his life and his voyages. The glorious myth of Columbus has prompted some minds to hallucinate and some dilettantes to try to appropriate the myth for themselves." Paolo Emilio Taviani

"If, however, you suppose that these facts would settle the matter, you fortunately know little of the so-called "literature" on the "Columbus Question." By presenting farfetched hypotheses and sly innuendos as facts, by attacking documents of proven authenticity as false, by fabricating others (such as the famous Pontevedra documents), and drawing unwarranted deductions from things that Columbus said or did, he has been presented as Castilian, Catalan, Corsican, Majorcan, Portuguese, French, German, English, Greek, and Armenian." [...] "There is no more reason to doubt that Christopher Columbus was a Genoese-born Catholic Christian, steadfast in his faith and proud of his native city, than to doubt that George Washington was a Virginia-born Anglican of English race, proud of being an American". Samuel Eliot Morison

"The Catalan, French, Galician, Greek, Ibizan, Jewish, Majorcan, Polish, Scottish, and other increasingly silly Columbuses concocted by historical fantasists are agenda-driven creations, usually inspired by a desire to arrogate a supposed or confected hero to the cause of a particular nation or historic community - or, more often than not, to some immigrant group striving to establish a special place of esteem in the United States. The evidence of Columbus's origins in Genoa is overwhelming..." Felipe Fernández-Armesto (historian)

"He was at this time elevated above all petty pride on the subject. His renown was so brilliant, that it would have shed a lustre on any hamlet, however obscure: and the strong love of country here manifested would never have felt satisfied until it had singled out the spot, and nestled down, in the very cradle of his infancy. These appear to be powerful reasons, drawn from natural feeling, for deciding in favor of Genoa." Washington Irving

"...new and bizarre conjectures, is that of the origin and birth date of Christopher Columbus, despite the fact that all chroniclers of that period wrote that he was from Liguria in northern Italy." Consuelo Varela (historian). --2.33.180.145 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we please wind down this conversation? I don’t care who “Mr. Rosa” is or where he works. A single primary source is not sufficient to override the preponderance of literature and academic consensus. This shouldn’t be debated here; it should be debated in academia if at all. This topic does not contribute to improving the article. I think I would be within protocol to delete further debate about this. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, dear Strebe. I, however, do not understand how "an IT analyst at Duke University" ( http://sites.duke.edu/dukecancerinstitute/?p=307 ) has a page on wikipedia while the great historians of international repute (as Varela or Felipe Fernández-Armesto) no. A mystery. Um mistério revelado --2.33.180.145 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, they certainly deserve one more than he does. Luckily we have Felipe Fernández-Armesto - why do you say we don't? Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller, the English Wikipedia is the best. However, I do not understand how a person with no qualifications in history has a page on wikipedia. When the most important historians support the Genoese origin of Columbus. The fact was fully accepted by Harrisse, the illustrious late 19th-century American historian. Even Vignaud a relentless detractor of Columbus does not question his Genoese birth. The position of Caddeo, supporter of Columbus Italian and Genoese origins, is adopted by the Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari, who wrote a succinct and impressive biography in the 1930s. The greatest of all Spanish historians, Antonio Ballesteros Beretta as was mentioned previously, Professor of the University of Madrid and director of the monumental series of publications on the Historia de America y de los pueblos americanos [ https://books.google.it/books?id=Qi91AAAAMAAJ&q= ], devotes eighty pages to the question of Columbus native land, and concludes that "no one can cast the least shadow of doubt" on his being from Genoa. --2.33.180.100 (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Antonio Ballesteros Beretta, professor of the University of Madrid is not mentioned on Wikipedia while Manuel Rosa has this honor. Absurd and paradoxical. --2.33.180.100 (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

He has an article because his publicist created it. He may not meet our criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. An WP:AFD would determine that. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:AFD? A great idea, my friend. --2.33.180.100 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Entropy

The article has fallen into a state of entropy; I have undertaken a modest rejuvenation. Specifically, the section that originally intended to describe the contemporary reports that led to Columbus’s arrest and demotion from governorship has become a catch-all for describing modern analysis of his atrocities. I have moved the modern analysis into the Legacy section where it belongs, and have broken up the Legacy with subheaders describing the various components of Columbus’s legacy. I have also remedied some orphan sentences. This could all be considerably improved, but hopefully it’s at least coherent now. Strebe (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the section was muddled and am open to separation of material. However, it seems odd to have an entire section on the reports leading to the termination of his governorship but none on his actual actions while governor (it's of like if a Nixon article dealt at length with Watergate but didn't mention anything about the rest of his presidency). Surely such a section would be a more natural repository for the material documenting his construction of concentration camps, the encomienda system, slave trade, etc. I also believe that it is somewhat misleading to portray the perception of Columbus as initiating a genocide as a purely modern perspective. Some of the material documenting Columbus' decimation of the natives is directly from contemporaries - e.g. Bartolomé de las Casas and Columbus' own writings.

One additional point - there is the claim by de las Casa that three million people were wiped out in just 14 years - all prior to the 1519 pandemic. As his father accompanied Columbus on his voyages, and he was there shortly after, de las Casa's testimony should be given significant weight, not replaced with an unsourced estimate of 300,000. Wormcast (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The modern analysis of Columbus’s actions is not what led to his dismissal; it was contemporaneous accounts that led to it. That section on accusations of tyranny is about the events as seen at the time—hence “accusations” leading to “arrest”. Because De las Casas’s observation came after Columbus’s dismissal, I placed it in the Legacy section. His writing or testimony would not have contributed to the Crown’s actions.

I’m confused about your comparison to Nixon and Watergate. Everything I moved out of the Accusations section got moved into Legacy. It didn’t just go missing.

My point is that Columbus' actions as governor, including those that now reside in Legacy, belong in a section entitled "Actions as governor" or "Governorship". The resulting destruction of the Arawak and the transatlantic slave trade are his (and others') legacy; the actions and policies that caused these travesties are his governorship. -Wormcast (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The article should not take a position on genocide. Sources do not agree. Morison and Loewen use the term, which the article notes, and that is fine, but the reason Morison only finds one other mention is because historians at large, as a matter of definition, require mass killings to have been intended to eliminate the ethnic group in order to qualify as genocide. There is no evidence Columbus intended to destroy the West Indians as a matter of policy. He may have, but we simply don’t know that. It is just as reasonable to attribute the carnage to Columbus’s cruel policies and poor management. And indeed, that is exactly what contemporary accounts attribute it to and the reason he was jailed. The article itself alludes to this fact by noting, “When slaves held in captivity began to die at high rates, Columbus switched to a different system of forced labor…”. Changing policies because subjects are dying too quickly is not the actions of a person who intends to eliminate the people he governs. (I’m not inclined to debate this; that’s not our job. Our job is to present the prevailing views of the sources. Most sources are not willing to use the “g” word, and that’s not out of ignorance or denial.) Strebe (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree in part - legally, "genocide" does not seem to be the correct term, since the evidence is lacking that Columbus wanted them all dead. However, "atrocities" does not strike me as semantically capturing the rapid termination of 98% of an ethnic population that may at the time have been as large as half that of Spain's. Perhaps Liquidation? (the natives were, essentially converted into gold, after all). Eradication? Annihilation?-Wormcast (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

One must keep in mind two things. One is that Columbus did to want the natives dead. He wanted to rule over them and therefore he was not about to exterminate them. He did capture some 500 natives during one of his wars for control which he sent to Spain to be sold as "slaves" of war. However, Isabel released them and warned Columbus that these could not be made slaves since all the New World inhabitants were now "subjects" of the Spanish crown. Did Columbus kill natives? Yes he did fight wars with the natives. Wars that were unfair due to the mismatched weaponry of the Europeans but also mismatched due to force size since the natives numbered in the hundreds of thousands and the Spanish had only 1500 men. Furthermore, one must ALWAYS keep in mind where Columbus was before one blames Columbus for the atrocities. Columbus arrived November 22, 1493 to Haiti and founded La Isabella - he then set sail to go discover around Cuba on April 24, 1494 and returned August 20, 1494. Columbus left for Spain on 10 March, 1496. What is the total time Columbus ruled Hispaniola? November 22, 1493 to April 24, 1494 is 5 months - August 20, 1494 to March 10 1496 is 19 months. Columbus returned on August 19, 1498 to Santo Domingo and Bobadilla arrived on August 23, 1500 pronouncing himself Governor, arresting Columbus who was later sent to Spain on October 1, 1500- Total time as governor during third voyage? August 1498 to August 1500? 2 years - Columbus ruled for a total of 4 years and we want to blame him for all the atrocities that came afterwards? Be realistic.

Are you honestly making the case that since Columbus was only in charge during 6 of the 14 years in which up to three million people were eradicated, he is not responsible for what happened to the natives? It strikes me that setting up concentration camps, enslaving thousands, and butchering thousands of women and children qualifies him more than enough for some serious coverage here. Perhaps you should read some of the source material. It's pretty horrific. If you like, we can add a footnote that explains that Columbus didn't stick around to finish what he'd started. -Wormcast (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wormcast, you are wrong in saying Columbus enslaved thousands and butchered thousands of women and children. I want you to show the source of your claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.33.47 (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"setting up concentration camps, enslaving thousands, and butchering thousands of women and children" who set up concentration camps? Are you referring to Hitler? there was no such thing done by Columbus in Españiola. What unreliable sources are you utilizing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.239 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Crown vs. Empire

They are not the same, which is why the history books specifically state that Columbus claimed the lands he visited for the Crown, and not the Empire. Compare, for example, Guernsey, which is a British Crown possession but •not• part of the UK or its territories. I agree the link to the Spanish Crown is not exactly useful in making the distinction clear, but the link and especially verbiage of Empire is simply incorrect. Strebe (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, to quote a part of the Spanish Crown lead:

A dynastic marriage between Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon united Spain in the 15th century. The Spanish Empire became one of the first global powers as Isabella and Ferdinand funded Christopher Columbus's exploratory voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. This led to the discovery of America, which became the focus of Spanish colonization.

... so the link and the verbiage are anything but incorrect. While scholars like to refer to it as "The Crown" going as far back as the late 15th century, the fact remains that there is more pertinent and detailed information in the Empire article than in the Crown article, which is long on modern and short on history. That is why Spanish Empire is the better link in this context. Since it is the link that has been in the article, perhaps you should restore it, and then you may take further dispute-resolution action if you wish. – Paine  00:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

PS. Strebe, that last sentence may have sounded harsher than meant. I do appreciate the recent good you have done for this article – very much so – however, for this one small point of contention, I hope you will rethink the link change. PS added by – Paine 

Thanks for the comments, Paine. “Spanish Empire” is simply incorrect. There was no such thing at the time Columbus set sail, so he could not have claimed the lands for it. It was the Castile monarchy specifically that financed the expedition and for whom Columbus claimed possession of the territories he charted. These facts are noted in the Spanish Empire article:

The empire… originated during the Age of Exploration after the voyages of Christopher Columbus…

(Emphasis mine.) This makes sense; Castile and Aragon were associated by the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella but were still separately administered, and it wasn’t until Charles I’s inheritance of both crowns in 1516 that Spain even existed. When Columbus set sail, the joint territories of the kingdoms were limited to Castile, Aragon, and the Canary Islands: hardly an “empire”. Please also note that we can’t call things what the experts don’t. The literature says Crown, not Empire. I have further refined the text to be most specific and accurate. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Why Spanish Crown at all?

Given the conversation in the previous section, references to the “Spanish Crown” in the rest of the text are all anachronistic and ought to be corrected. I checked a few of the more scholarly references. “Spanish” is used when referring to the court or people or aggregate territories but are specific about Castile for legalities or merely vague with “the Crown”, but never “the Spanish Crown”. Folks, please comment. Strebe (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully, others will agree that you've chosen an article that is better than both of the other two. SE was already linked in that article, and while the SC was mentioned, it wasn't linked, so I linked it along with a few other cleanup-type edits. Thank you, Strebe! – Paine  13:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Columbus sailed for the crown of Castile and his rewards were granted by the crown of Castile. Current Spain was made up of many independent kingdoms and It was only when King Carlos took over those crowns that Spain became united. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.33.47 (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015

Please change Japan to India. It is not correct Seminyoon2 (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Paine  18:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2015

Footnote 3 does not say anything about Leif Ericson or his journeys. It's rather a meager by-comment on an tourist advertising page. 84.118.107.12 (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that. I made this [6] edit to address it. Gap9551 (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of tyranny during governorship?

Accusations of tyranny, as if that has not been substantiated? As if those are rumors? That title sounds like something you would see in a history book. I think his tyranny is pretty well documented and more than just "accusations". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.249.2 (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Namesakes

There should be a section on things and places carrying his name. For starters, here are a few: Columbus, Ohio; Columbia, South Carolina; British Columbia, Canada; Republic of Colombia; Columbia University; Columbia River; Colon, Panama; etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.31.104 (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Box for Eradication of the Natives section

Clearly there should be a full hearing for the accusations against Columbus, but this section is just shockingly one-sided, and at points literally unbelievable. Case in point, the following quote: "De las Casas records that when he first came to Hispaniola in 1508, "there were 60,000 people living on this island, including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this? I myself writing it as a knowledgeable eyewitness can hardly believe it...."

Can someone explain how there were 60,000 people to begin with, and yet somehow in the following decade Columbus murdered 3,000,000 of them? Did he somehow use God-like powers to create 2,940,000 people from the dust so he could kill them?

This is garbage; or at least if it isn't, you can't tell it from what is written in the article.

This section needs some balance, badly. HenryV1415 (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC

It is actually quite clear that de las Casas meant that the population of Hispaniola had been reduced from roughly 3 million people in 1494 to just 60,000 in 1508. Perhaps a closer read is in order? That said, the use of the word first is misleading - he had, according to his entry (Bartolomé de las Casas) visited Hispaniola prior to 1508 --Wormcast (talk)

Right. HenryV1415 appears to have misread this. That aside, the 3 million figure is unsupported by any modern analysis. Less than a tenth of that is a typical estimate, though with wide variance. It’s misleading to leave De las Casas’s number uncontested in the text. Regardless, the native population was dying rapidly even as De las Casas wrote that; in another nine years only 17,000 remained. Strebe (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Columbus last ruled the island in 1500 - so do not blame the natives' deaths on Columbus who was not even there. There was no census done to know how many natives were on the island in 1493 when Columbus settled La Isabela and impossible for 1200 Spanish soldiers to kill 3,000,000 natives in less than 7 years on hand to hand combat. There also was no Genocide because Genocide is the intentional elimination of a race. Columbus never tried to eliminate the natives he only tried to rule over them.

You guys are correct: I clearly did misread it. Nevertheless, your own arguments are spot-on. HenryV1415 (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• The original point still stands. This section in concept is horrendous. There is already the section Accusations of tyranny during governorship, which covers a lot of this. This is also covered in other Wiki articles on Columbus, The New World, and American colonization. Lastly, Howard Zinn is such a hard-core Western, Culture revisionist, and he's a key citation here. Why not just merge some of the pertinant info into, Accusations of tyranny during governorship? Get rid of the rest which does not relate direct to either Columbus' explorations or term as Governor. 10stone5 (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Flat Earth Myth Citation

Fischer, Irene (1975). "Another look at Eratosthenes' and Posidonius' determinations of the earth's circumference". Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society. 16: 152–167. Retrieved 2015-10-13.104.173.68.20 (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Popular culture section. Do we need to know a cartoon rabbit played him once?

Can we move the Popular culture section to Christopher Columbus in fiction where other things are already listed? I don't see how it helps to understand this real life person, to see how many people mentioned him at all throughout various media. Listing where he has statues of him built may be worth keeping, if there weren't probably thousands of them around the world. I see no reason to mention "Christopher Columbus is played by Oswald the Lucky Rabbit in the 1934 cartoon Chris Columbus Jr." and things like that. You don't prove your notability by having a cartoon rabbit play you in what was probably more comedy than serious documentary. Dream Focus 23:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Get rid of that. Get rid of much of that section. Wikipedia has rules about this and most of that stuff doesn’t qualify. Strebe (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)