Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

WHo was an Italian navigator?

Christopher Columbus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.68.17 (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC) The article starts out saying that "Christopher Columbus (Italian: Cristoforo Colombo) (1451[1] – May 20, 1506) was an Italian navigator, colonizer and explorer whose voyages across the Atlantic Ocean—funded by the Spanish crown...". This is NOT correct. Cristoforo Colombo was an Italian Wool-Weaving peasant. The man who sailed across the Atlantic for Spain was called Cristóbal Colón and was NOT a peasant. He was a Nobleman as the title of DON proves. He held a coat of arms, was called DON, his son was made page to the court, he mingled with the kings and was married into Portuguese HIGH Nobility ALL of this was in place before August 1492 when he set sail on the fist voayge. Please stick to the facts and don´t try to replace a nobleman with a wool weaver.71.111.240.96 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)History Buff.]

Delusionary History Nothing More Nothing Less

The insistent pushing of the fairytale story of the peasant who became a viceroy will soon fall apart once Manuel Rosa's book is published in English.

But you don't have to read his book to see the foolish assertions made every day by those who accept without thinking the lies that are fed to us by worldwide historians. For instance the article shows a map by some unknown mapmaker with a legend "The "Colombus map" was drawn circa 1490 in the workshop of Bartolomeo and Christopher Colombus in Lisbon.[4]" However Columbus was living in Spain with his brother since 1484 how could they have created a map in LISBON in 1490??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.240.96 (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bartolomeu Perestrello is not of Genovese ascendency

Bartolomeu Perestrello's father was a Lombard Knight who came to Portugal in the train of Queen Leonor of Aragon. This article is a gross manipulation of history and a distortion of all evidence known about these trips. The oldest and best preserved arquive of official documents is at the vatican. Why there is not a single citation of the documents arquived at the vatican regarding Cristopher Columbus origin? The major challenge of History is to separate miths from facts. This all article is a orchestrated orgy of miths and segregated facts. I am not using anymore this filthy article at wikipedia.

Although it's not a proved fact that he was Portuguese, his family, mother father and ALL his family was Portuguese. And that is a FACT with documents to prove it. This article has a lot of lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by - - - (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus of Catalonia?

http://www.cristobal-colon.com/COLON/OTRASTESIS/TESISCATALANA/ING-CATALANA2.htm

Christopher Columbus Spanish??? Observation based on the diaries, letters and family shields. According to American researchers say there is evidence to believe that it was of Catalonia . (see also DISCOVERY CHANNEL, American researchers, and Google search)

no it is pretty much taken for granted anymore that chris was genoese, at least since the 1950s. The durants claim this and i challenge you to find falt with william durans facts, I know you should never appeal to authority, however Durant does say something of a possible jewish ancestory but the evidence does point to him being born and raised in Genoa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.26.101 (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Columbus had also a sister

Columbus had not only brothers but also a sister called Bianchinetta.

Added Genocide, Removed Random Rape Account

Many people have commented in this discussion on the need to include information about the genocide of the Arawak Indians. So I've gone ahead and included it. I've also removed the account of the rape. Sadly and shockingly, given the scale of the atrocities committed by Columbus and his men, a single instance of rape is simply not noteworthy. In fact, as it was presented, it tended to be misleading, as it implied that such an event was rare or exceptional, whereas, in fact, it was not. NoahB (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Article completely glosses over horrors suffered by Indians

I've never posted on Wikipedia before and I rarely post anywhere on the Internet, but after reading this piss-poor article I was compelled to write something. This is the worst major article I've ever read on this site. I came here because I read an article linked to on Yahoo about the eclipse incident, wherein Columbus tricked Jamaica's "increasingly hostile local inhabitants," as the Yahoo/AFP article describes them, into providing his crew with food and provisions by threatening to steal the moon from the sky. When I read that, I immediately wondered if the reason for their "increasing hostility" might have had something to do with being enslaved, brutalized, and massacred by Columbus and the Spaniards for the preceding twelve years.

I came here for an account of those atrocities, perhaps some different estimates as to the overall scope of the genocide, but I found none of that. We do, however, get to read a firsthand account of a really bad storm that poor Columbus had to suffer through. I could only find a handful of critical passages, and they were all mentioned casually and given no larger context. The most egregious example is the graphic account of a rape that's told without any context whatsoever and seems completely out of place. So bizarre. Is this supposed to be the "balance?" Then there's this part: "Before returning to Spain, Columbus also kidnapped some ten to twenty-five Indians and took them back with him. Only seven or eight of the Indians arrived in Spain alive, but they made quite an impression on Seville." Well, at least they had that going for them. I have no idea what "quite an impression" is supposed to mean but it sounds like they were put on public display or suffered some other humiliation (which probably paled in comparison to what their friends and family were going through back home, where according to Zinn the Spaniards who'd been left behind at Fort Navidad "roamed the island in gangs looking for gold, taking women and children as slaves for sex and labor"). Perhaps the most telling passage in the article is the one that refers to Columbus as a "fierce supporter of slavery." I guess that's one way of putting it. The man enslaved untold thousands of people! JUST CALL HIM A SLAVER! "Fierce supporter of slavery" makes it sound like it was some deep personal conviction that he was fighting for. What a bullshit phrasing. Then, in the very next sentence, we learn that "Columbus repeatedly had to deal with rebellious settlers and natives." Damn those rebellious natives, making things so hard on poor Columbus. And "deal with"? Seriously? Like how the mafia "deals with" people? Why is the real story here totally obscured by this innocuous language?

From other discussions here it looks like people have tried to fix the article and their edits were removed every time. Someone below quotes a very lucid passage from the introduction of Encyclopedia Brittanica's Columbus article that accurately summarizes the modern, de-mythologized view of Columbus. The Wikipedia article includes a couple paragraphs at the end to that effect, but its anti-Columbus representatives are a Burning Spear song and a Hugo Chavez speech. Couldn't there be a section with criticism from some more reputable sources? Or even Columbus's own accounts of the conquest (which I understand have been deleted from the article in the past)?

Finally, if you go read the BBC story on Chavez, linked in the final footnote, you'll find another example of Western bias posing as "objectivity" on this matter: they call Columbus a "much-lauded adventururer" and use quotation marks around the words "genocide" and even "invasion." Chavez is quoted as saying that the conquistadors massacred Indians at an average rate of "one every ten minutes." There's no time frame given, and the author doesn't bother to tell us if Chavez's claims are, you know, true. But let's take the years 1494-1508. Eyewitness Bartolome de las Casas, a priest who initially participated in the conquest of Cuba before becoming a dissenter, puts the number of dead Indians at 3 million for that 15 year period. Zinn says modern estimates range from under a million to eight million. Chavez's math works out to 788,400. So he actually appears to be at the low end, which I didn't expect.

The bottom line is that when Hugo Chavez is talking more sense on a subject than its Wikipedia article, then that article is in serious need of revision.

3cardmonty (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Austin

I came here because I read an article linked to on Yahoo about the eclipse incident, wherein Columbus tricked Jamaica's "increasingly hostile local inhabitants," as the Yahoo/AFP article describes them, into providing his crew with food and provisions by threatening to steal the moon from the sky. When I read that, I immediately wondered if the reason for their "increasing hostility" might have had something to do with being enslaved, brutalized, and massacred by Columbus and the Spaniards for the preceding twelve years.

It was because Columbus, having been shipwrecked (and awaiting rescue) on a beach in Jamaica for nearly a year, was running out of food supplies for his crews and the local population was becoming increasingly unable and unwilling to provide it. There was no massacre; indeed, for self-preservation, took great pains to ensure amicable relations throughout the stay. The food which he obtained was bartered, not stolen. --Xiaphias (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. It appears I was too hasty in my assumption that Columbus had already initiated the conquest of Jamaica by 1504. The Jamaican Arawaks were not exterminated until after Columbus's death.

3cardmonty (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)austin

Well, they may not have been exterminated, but his practical enslavement of this Indian nation certainly ultimately ensured it - if not with disease brought by the Europeans than by malnutrition they suffered due to his obsession with their mining for gold rather than tending to their crops, or the mass suicides or infanticide by those who did not want to live themselves or have their children live under such brutal oppression. Waleeta (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

From user Jeroen Karas: "Some words to Columbus the slaver: he made at least one commercial trip to El Mina, the first slaving port the Portuguese set up on the West African coast, likely to procure workers for the young sugar industry on the Canary islands. His business relationship with Genuese merchant families indicates strongly that he was decidedly more than a supporter of slavery - one of his friends, Marchionni, obtained 1490 exclusive licenses from the Portuguese crown for the trade with the then-called slave-coast. We should also not forget that it was Columbus himself who, on his second voyage in 1496, sent home a cargo of some 400 Indians to be sold as slaves in Spain (of which only half survived the trip). He did that against the express orders of the Queen. If nothing else that makes him the first slaver operating in America." 3cardmonty (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Austin

I've got no objection to something in the article about Columbus and slaves so long as it is accurate and NPOV. It isn't as simple though as 'against the express orders of the Queen', see The Relationship Between The Tainos And Columbus From 1492 To 1524 in Spanish Documents of the Time although that paper couldn't be used as a reference. I've read that the slaves were freed and returned to the New World but I don't know if that is the case.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

An estimated one third of the European population were also brutally killed by the inquisition during the same period of some hundred years. The horrors suffered by the Indians belong in the Catholic section, and not under Columbus. St.Trond (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Guns, Germs and Steel

It seems to this reader that several of those who have a problem with Columbus being lauded for the courage to set out on his voyage of exploration are tainted with a far left political bent. I suspect that much of the pooh poohing of this mans accomplishments is eminating from a deep rooted hatred of anything that furthered the advancement of man undertaken by white Europeans.

One need only look to the celebrated scholar Jared Diamond and his excellent work "Guns, Germs and Steel" to see that there existed certain "have's" and "have not's" throughout history. The Arawaks, through no fault of their own were "have not's" and the white Europeans, through their own industry and the resources they had at their disposal, were "have's".

I would also look askew at anyone who puts any great deal of stock in that which spews forth from Mr. Chavez. If an advocate of capitalist self-determination were to tell him that 2+2=4, he wou'ld go to great lengths to prove it doesn't.

nebulamoonbeam 02/21/2008

This post makes no specific rebuttals to any of the points raised by me or the other people who have tried to make this article less biased. The author throws out some lazy accusations of capitalism-hating left-wing bias. My view on Columbus may be seen as leftist in the U.S., but I assure you it's a very mainstream view internationally, especially among Latin Americans, Native Americans, and other "have-nots" who have been on the wrong end of European guns, germs, and steel. Diamond specifically says that he doesn't see Europeans as smarter than the peoples they conquered, their civilization just developed faster for reasons mainly associated with geography. Moreover, what is so wrong with including the have-nots' side of the story? Obviously they're going to have a different view of colonialism, is it less valid than the haves' simply because the haves succeeded in subjugating the have-nots? And I hope you weren't referring to my post directly above yours when you talk about people "putting a great deal of stock" in Hugo Chavez's comments. I specifically said it was unfair to use Chavez in the article as one of the only representatives of the critical view and that more reputable sources should be included.

3cardmonty (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Austin

I agree -- except is it right to actually blame Columbus for being a child of his time? By all means, make the injustices clear and don't paint him as a saint. But you can't paint him as a devil either (and plenty of Native Americans had similar attitudes to 'others').

Claiming that Columbus was a child of his time assumes that his attitudes were general. But Isabella's opposition to sending slaves back to Europe (she wanted them treated as Spanish subjects) and other people's concern with conversion to Christianity rather than slavery shows that there were other attitudes in Europe at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.227.191 (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few flaws in Jared Diamond's book, don't take it as gospel (I'm talking about detail, not the business about 'haves' and 'havenots'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A devil would be far too kind a word to describe him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.115.119 (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that much of the pooh poohing of this mans accomplishments is eminating from a deep rooted hatred of anything that furthered the advancement of man undertaken by white Europeans.

Columbus put Hispaniola on the map. Spain also became incredibly rich thanks to his discovery of gold that could be easily stolen and slaves that could be easily kidnapped. Columbus kidnapped hundreds, and was responsible for the brutal murder, torture, theft of billions of dollars in current money of national resources, and infantcide. His men buried people alive and raped women left and right. This isn't a advancement of man. This is a descent to savagery that is matched only by the most brutal death squads in the Congo and Uganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutralaccounting (talk • contribs) 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"He was responsible..." Really? So do you also hold the belief that Einstein is responsible for the Cold War and Arms Race? Is Pfizer responsible for all the deaths related to taking cocaine with Viagra? Columbus discovered a resource. Does that mean he is responsible for his exploitation of that resource? I don't know enough about the history to try and defend the guy, but to state that "This is a descent to savagery that is matched only by the most brutal death squads in the Congo and Uganda" is a bit steep (and, quite frankly, belittles the true horrors occurring in those countries). padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Columbus is responsible for what he and his men did- which was a heroic expedition capped off with crimes against humanity and billions of dollars of looted gold for Spain.

Einstein is also responsible for what he and the people immediately with him did- which was intellectual research. Neither Einstein or his students at his classes in the 40's or 50's ever did anything comparible to what Columbus did on his second or later voyages.

What did Columbus and his men do? They chopped off arms (http://www.solarnavigator.net/history/christopher_columbus.htm). Who else chops off arms? Ugandan death squads: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2982818.stm

What did Columbus's men do? Rape on a mass scale (http://www.newessay.com/database/Christopher_Columbus_Villian_o-172111.html). Who else has practiced rape on a mass scale? Rwandan death squads. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/07/30/congo.rape.reut/index.html

What did Columbus and his men do? They kidnapped on a mass scale (http://www.geocities.com/loyal2truth/ethics/gdfrgvam/gdfrgvam1.html). Who else kidnaps on a mass scale? Ugandan death squads: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3046426.stm

What did Columbus and his do? They killed mothers along with their babies. They killed pregnant women (http://www.indio.net/aymaco/slaughter.htm). They practiced mass infantcide. Who else had practiced killing women children on such a mass scale? Rwandan death squads: http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_rwanda1.html

What did Columbus and his men do? Burn people alive with straw and firepits (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/100.html) (http://www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/btt/columbus/native_peoples.shtml) (http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/examining_the_reputation_of_christopher_columbus.htm). What did gangs in South Africa do? Burn people alive with car tires (http://www.csvr.org.za/wits/papers/papball.htm)

Einstein is not responsible for other people using e=mc2 to build atomic weapons anymore then Columbus is responsible for other people using his knowledge of navigation to go a land where the people were easy to enslave with resources ripe for the looting.

Oh and compare Rwanda and Uganda to the Tainos? It's called Haiti and Cuba not Tainosland. Wanna know why? Because the Spanish almost entirely killed the native population and had to re-settle the land with slaves and colonists. There's still a Rwanda and Uganda. But Tainos Island is no more. Other peoples live there now. Neutralaccounting (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Einstein is not responsible for other people using e=mc2 to build atomic weapons..." you may want to brush up on your knowledge of what Einstein did and didn't do (hint: he signed a letter to the president urging the development of the atomic bomb. It wasn't his work that enabled the atomic bomb but rather that of Fermi and Szilard, but other than that every assumption you made was wrong ).

I never said Columbus didn't do any of those things. In point of fact I said I wasn't defending him. I said the comparison between his slaughter of several thousand (even several hundred thousand) and the slaughter of several million was out of line. If you feel the need to blame Columbus go ahead. You are more than welcome to write an article laying out exactly how he's solely and completely responsible for whatever you want - so long as you source it with third-party reliable sources and no POV. Have a ball, it can only add to the quality of the WP. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"I said the comparison between his slaughter of several thousand (even several hundred thousand)"The number of natives killed by Columbus and his men is most definitely not a certain figure but it was only the beginning to more death,pestilence and slavery.."What did Columbus and his do? They killed mothers along with their babies. They killed pregnant women" past atrocities definitely shouldnt be compared with modern ones in the African nations.. Columbus instilled fear and enslaved natives.. Nothing as worse as what ALL the modern western nations have done.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.77.70 (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image Removal

The picture of Columbus heretofore included in this article is, in fact, nothing of the sort. Check this:

A 1519 portrait by the renowned Venetian painter Sebastiani del Piombo [...] which industrialistist J. P. Morgan donated to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1900, shows a surly, fat, middle-age man with thick lips and a flat nose. Columbus looked nothing like that. Piombo [...] had never been to Spain, let alone set eyes on the Admiral. And Columbus never had his portrait painted or likeness sketched during his lifetime. [...] Art Historians would later discover that the inscription was not part of the original painting byt was added years later by an unknown hand. They would also surmise that the painting was not created in 1519, but as many as fifteen years afterward. Most damning, the subject was definitively identified as an Italian cleric.

This text comes from Martin Dugard's 2005 book, The Last Voyage of Columbus, pages 265-66. --Xiaphias (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Source for Arms should be given as two different arms is showed in other litterature. St.Trond (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace

I'm going to remove most of the mentions of 'controversy' surrounding Columbus' place of birth.

Even with less than a complete record, however, scholars can state with assurance that Columbus was born in the republic of Genoa in northern Italy, although perhaps not in the city itself, and that his family made a living in the wool business as weavers and merchants. [...] The two main early biographies of Columbus have been taken as literal truth by hundreds of writers, in large part because they were written by individual closely connected to Columbus or his writings. [...] Both biographies have serious shortcomings as evidence.

Quoted from William D. Phillips, Jr. and Carla Rahn Phillips in the The Worlds of Christopher Columbus, page 9. --Xiaphias (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Historical consensus exists. See Cristofor Colombo : Documenti e prove della sua appartenenza a Genova published in 1931 for example. All serious (and real !) historians claim the Genoese origin. DocteurCosmos (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"I agree. Historical consensus exists." Consensus does not make truth. Truth makes truth. NO ONE during Columbus Lifetime nor after ever shown proof that the peasant Colombo in Italy 1479 was the same nobleman in Portugal in 1479. Consensus in this case only serves to cover up a shortcoming of historians' inability to find the true discoverer. 71.111.247.223 (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not here to determine truth. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal. --Xiaphias (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"A lot of new evidence has accumulated that points to Christopher Columbus being Portuguese - please change the main text, since it is most unlikely that he is actually from Genoa. Everyone knows that his alledged will (the only source pointing him as Genoese) was fake because some Italian guy wanted his money" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should at leaste be mentioned the existence of the Portuguese theory, as well as the Spanish one, eventhough the Genoese has been long entrenched in western culture. Contrary to what was said earlier, there are some interesting proofs such as the fact that he only ever wrote in Portunõl, a language spoken by portuguese people when adressing castillian/spanish speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliOGrande (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

An article (mentionned in the intro) is devoted to these questions. DocteurCosmos (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the nationality or origin it does not make sense to change the article to a plain one sided view of CC. If anything he was mysterious from till the end. respect that. This article seems like hijacked by some over-enthusiastic newcomer --BBird (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I repeat : all serious (and real !) historians claim the Genoese origin. It's not "plained sided view" but only "seriously sourced view". CC is not that mysterious. There's nothing to respect but historians' work. DocteurCosmos (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Cosmos. The Genoese origin is far and away the historical consensus at the moment. Putting in a note about the controversy is fine, but that's about all it warrants.NoahB (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Its the first time I edict something in wikipedia but Im here to tell the true the ultimate true.Columbus born in Cuba,a small village in south of Portugal near Spain and as you may see the names that Columbus gave to "New world" territories are the same names of Portugal villages with more than 700 years like Cuba and are much more evidences that show us that Columbus is portuguese.213.30.65.175 (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Professor of Portuguese history

There are NO EVIDENCE so ever that Colombus was born in Genoa! That information is WRONG. NO ONE can say that is was born in Genoa. No one can prove it. It's FALSE. There are NO historical consensus. So remove the part where it says Genoa because it's just an assumption. Actually it's a LOT more probable that he was born in Portugal then in Genoa. So put "Cuba, Portugal" or just put it unknown and or a note about controversy. There is also FALSE information about his father. This is not a theory or something. It's based on facts and in the work of many serious and important historians. No one can say that he was born in Genoa. It's false. Remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by - - - (talk • contribs) 20:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What he was not for sure is ITALIAN since Italy did not exist at that time. If he was born in Genoa, then he was Genoese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.189.226 (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no state called Italy at the time but there was a region called Italy of which Genoa was a part. The region has been called "Italy" for millenia. Thus someone from Genoa (a city-state in the region called Italy) would be an Italian, just like Plato was a Greek and Hildegard of Bingen was a German despite there being no unified Greek or German states during their respective lifetimes. Josh (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree with the above comment. Tom Green (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of you are misinformed. During Columbus time, what existed was a Republic of Genoa, not Italy. Italy is a much later reality. He was Genoan, not Italian and this is what it says in any other encyclopedias, at least European ones. And at least, until it is proved he was from somewhere else. It is a historical error to say he was Italian. I strongly disagree with the two previous comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.141.69 (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that Columbus was not from Genoa nor Italy. The Galician theory (Columbus born in Pontevedra, a location in Galicia, Spain) is the strongest one. And the only one that honestly makes more sense in all the aspects.

• Language: He barely spoke italian while he used to speak and write annotations/letters in a mix between portuguese-spanish (that is galician language). Of course, he could also spoke and write correctly in Spanish, Latin and Greek.
• Toponimia: He named all the places (islands, rivers, mountains, etc) he discover after places from Galicia (north Spain) or Portugal. Never Italian names.
• Family: There are great number of documents supporting the Colón family name and properties in Galicia (that is how Columbus is written in Spanish).
• Education: The Genoa theory supports that his father was middle-class wool weaver (where did he got the navigation skills?). The Galician theory supports Colon comming from a sailors family, indeed a powerful one, with several almirants (there are 5 anchors in is family arms coat).
• Experience: Not to compare, the Atlantic navigation skills needed for a transatlantic trip with the Mediterranean ones... The main ship, the Santa Maria (with nickname "La gallega", was built in Pontevedra, Galicia.

As a curious note, in Cuba and most of South American countries, still the spanish people are called "gallegos". [[1]] Please, remove the entry that Columbus was Italian or from Genoa. That is insulting the facts. At least, conclude that the origin is still in discussion and provide the different theories with its weights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.94.3 (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Real name

I report a part of the introduction: "Also well known are his name's rendering in modern Italian as Cristoforo Colombo".

Cristoforo Colombo is the real name of Christopher Columbus, born in Italy from an Italian family. Then, Christopher Columbus is only the name's rendering in modern english.

More trash. The discoverer does NOT have a real name yet. The name used was Colon and NEVER Colombo, Columbus or Columbo. Again the shortcomings of historians who never investigated in search of the truth brings us a name that is NOT TRUE for the name Christoferens Colon was an alias and invented to hide his true name. Read your history. This article is as much fantasy as the story that Colon always believed to be in India. Fantasy history and myths nothing more and still misleading the public with these fantasies. 71.111.247.223 (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Source? --Xiaphias (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I absolutelly agree with this last comment. It is about time to end with this burlesque "Cristopher Columbus" version of his name Xferens Colon. His name is in several official documents in the vatican and spanish crown! Why the need to create a FAKE name instead of using the documented name? For God's sake!

READ EVIDENCES AND HISTORICAL WORKS. But I will explain shortly. By the way "Diego Colon Moniz" was his son. Can you read COLON in his son's name? anyway. Colon was a Portuguese spy working for the Spanish crown. Just like Ferdinand Magellan. And with the Ferninand Magellan no one can say it's false because it's a pure proved fact even by his autobiography. With Colon it's the same thing but there are only few documents that proves it. And the reality is that many people want to hide the truth. But get your opinion based on facts or historical works. Don't just say "NO" just because yes without any argument that supports your "no". —Preceding unsigned comment added by - - - (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

His real name according to the statute in Columbus Square in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic is CRISTOVAL COLON. Why is the Spanish written with a B? Keywestjay (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Keywestjay, you are very correct. He signed his name as XpoFERENS ./. The navigator never called himself Colombo or Columbus but COLON. His name was at the time written as Xpoval Colon. This is Xpo from Greek for Christ and Val which in Spanish today is Van and in Portuguese is Vam meaning to go substituted for the Ferens in his name. Ferens is from the Latin Fero to carry where English gets its Ferry from. The Spanish have some times swapped the V for the B in their words and this is how we ended with Bal for Val.Colombo.bz (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

                        About de " Terra Rubra": 'The family "Piccolomini de Sena" settled in Sardinia (Sardinia at the time was also part of Genoa) in the province of Oristano.A distinctive type of color from the city of Siena (Sena) is the "Terra di Siena" - "Earth of Siena", just a dark red-brown,also called "Terra Rossa" (or "Terra Rubra" in spanish), that's well known to artists.The city of Siena (Sena) is and was well known for his Terra Rossa. The name "Colom de Terra Rubra" may also come from "Pic-Colom-ini de Sena " if shorted and translated in spanish ("Colom de Terra Rubra"). His son Diego founded the first settlement called "Oristan" in Jamaica, now the old Oristan is called Bluefields.Realtavirtuale (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ridley Scott

"As in many of Scott's movies, the character is presented as having some ideas that weren't current at his time."

How many movies should that be? - I count two. What's the relevance in an article about Columbus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.38.22 (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Gina gao (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think names matter as long as we get the infornmation.

Physical Description - Eye Color

In the "Physical Description" section for Columbus it does seem pretty accurate except it omits a description of "his clear blue eyes" by Bartolome de las Casas who actually knew him quite well after his voyages. It appears in the most well known portraits his eyes are brown in color. http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/admiral.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synchaser (talk • contribs) 21:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All known portraits are posthumous work... DocteurCosmos (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize the portraits of Columbus are posthumous. But a line under the "Physical appearance" says artists who have reconstructed his appearance have done so from written descriptions. Most of the well known portraits show him with hazel colored eyes or what appears to me to be dark brown eyes. This doesn't match the historical consensus of Columbus' eyes being light blue as his hair being red.

Bartolomé de Las Casas, Historia de las Indias, ed. Agustín Millares Carlo, 3 vols. (Mexico City, 1951), book 1, chapter 2, 1:29. The Spanish word garzos is now usually translated as "light blue," but it seems to have connoted light grey-green or hazel eyes to Columbus's contemporaries. The word rubio can mean "blonde," "fair," or "ruddy."

The above text taken from pg. 282, The Worlds of Christopher Columbus by William D. & Carla Rahn Phillips Synchaser (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-worked Physical appearance section

Removed line under Physical appearance - de Bry etching is a copy of Piombo portrait. Curiously, Theodore de Bry, the famed printer and engraver at Frankfurt, claimed that a metal engraving made by his son Jean used in his book Collectiones Peregrinationum in Indiam Occidentalem was copied from a painting of Columbus commissioned by the King and Queen of Spain after the Admiral's first voyage. If so, the work would be the inspiration for all of the Jovian portraits. The engraving, however, is a copy of the Piombo canvas. Andre de Hevesy The Discoverer: A New Narrative of the Life and Hazardous Adventures of the Genoese, Christopher Columbus. 1929, pg. 278.

Removed line about artists reconstructing Columbus' appearance from written descriptions. Some may have but it appears most haven't. I added a line corresponding to the following: No less than 71 alleged original portraits of Columbus or copies were exhibited at the Chicago Exposition of 1893. They showed lean-faced, long-jowled Columbuses and fatfaced, pudgy Columbuses; blond Columbuses and swarthy, olive-tinted Columbuses; smooth-visaged Columbuses and Columbuses variously mustached, bearded and whiskered; Columbuses garbed in all manner of costume, lay and ecclesiastical, noble and vulgar, from the Franciscan robe to the courtier's dress, and in styles ranging over three centuries. Most of them tallied in no way with the contemporary descriptions, and the jury who examined them could find no satisfactory evidence that any one was authentic. See Samuel Eliot Morison Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus, pg. 47-48, Boston 1942.

Added description "light colored eyes". I don't think it can definitively be said what color his eyes were, but if I had to pick a color I'd say blue because that's how the Spanish word "garzos" is usually translated. I would like to see Carlo's evidence for this word being connoted light grey-green or hazel eyes in Columbus' time. If somebody has more info about that please post it here. For the time being I think "light colored eyes" is pretty descriptive and neutral. See Physical Description - Eye Color topic above for reference. Synchaser (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Include in Governor info

Governor of the New Indies needs to be included under the Governor info so when one skims down to this area, they know the location of his governorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valerie J. Lee (talk • contribs) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Columbus is a liar and a fraud Gina gao (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rape account translation

Is the English translation of the rape account direct from the source, or did someone do the translation to put it in this article? I ask because it's quite questionable grammatically in a way that the Spanish doesn't appear (to my iffy Spanish knowledge) to be. If it's like that in the source, that's one thing, but if it's just a poor translation, it would probably be good to have someone with better Spanish-English capabilities go over it and re-translate. I could give it a go if there's no one else, but I'm not terribly confident that my Spanish abilities are up to it. Chaoticfluffy (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It has all the earmarks of being translated using an inline translator ("A beautiful woman caribe"...?) A "true" translation would necessitate the services of someone trained not only in Spanish but in 15th century Spanish and it’s usage. That’s a tall order. I think we need to make note of what translation method was used and if someone better comes along then great. Padillah (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the best I could to improve it. Anyone else who might be more fluent is welcome to take a crack at it, since as Padillah pointed out, 15th C. Spanish isn't exactly my specialty, but I think it at least reads more coherently now. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's efforts but we need to find out where this text comes from. If this is a quote of someone's translation (if some historian wrote it in a book) then we are bound to the exact quote (regardless of how goofy it looks in English). If this is a translation of the entry itself then we are OK, so long as we don't get into OR during the translation. But the first thing we need to do is find out what we are quoting. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 14:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference for the passage is in Spanish, so I assumed that the book was probably written in Spanish, which would make it unlikely that it included an English translation (i.e. readers of a Spanish-language passage in a Spanish-language book are not likely to need/want a translation from Spanish to English). Of course I could be wrong, and I don't have a copy of the book, but it seemed a logical assumption given "Cólón, Cristóbal, Michel de Cúneo y otros (1982). Cronistas de Indias: antología, Buenos Aires: Colihue ISBN 950-581-020-2" is the source. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's what we're stuck with, unless and until we find a translated text in a college somewhere. So far I've found this account and this other account. Neither of which is a quote. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Dollar" = What?

Article says: "the King and Queen of Spain gave him an annual annuity of 12,000 maravedis ($840)". The dollar mentioned here is what, the US dollar circa 2008? The US dollar circa 1808? The former would be "not much". The latter would be "not bad". Or is this some other currency altogether? Can anybody clarify this in the article? Thanks -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus's Fourth voyage

From Reference Desk/Humanities

According to the Fourth voyage of the Christopher Columbus article it points out Columbus and his men were stranded on Jamaica in 1503. It goes on to say that Columbus, in a desperate effort to induce the natives to continue provisioning him and his hungry men, successfully intimidated the natives by correctly predicting a lunar eclipse for February 29, 1504, using the Ephemeris of the German astronomer Regiomontanus. However, this website points out that it was the tables of Abraham Zacuto. This article says it was Zacuto's son that was with Columbus that advised Columbus to use the tables in the moment of need. Which is correct? --Doug ^talk 21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll only be able to get to the bottom of this if there are good contemporary sources. I see our article cites Regiomontanus from Samuel Eliot Morison's Christopher Columbus, Mariner (1955), pp. 184-92. Morison was a respected scholar, and on the face of it he's more likely to be right than a web site devoted to Zacuto, but if I were you I should take a look at Christopher Columbus, Mariner, and see what's there. Xn4 18:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point on a website devoted to Zacuto. I have come across this also from Famous First Facts in their item 2287 on page 109 as they say Columbus had in his possession an almanac, written by the Spanish Jewish astronomer Abraham Zacuto, that contained astronomical tables from which he was able to calculate the time of the eclipse. Yes, Morison is a respected scholar. Your advice is the correct thing to do to follow up on this. Thanks! --Doug ^talk 21:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

According to M.Hirsch Goldberg's book "The Jewish Connection" (Shapolsky: New York, 1986) p.90: "Columbus used Zacuto's accurate prediction of a moon eclipse to frighten the local populace into supplying critically needed food. Columbus's copy of Zacuto's tables, with notes by the explorer himself, is preserved today in Seville." Some details of Zacuto's life as brought in Hirsch's book: Abraham ben Samuel Zacuto was born in 1450 and died about 1525. He was a Jewish astronomer and Rabbinical scholar who compiled tables used as navigational guides by Columbus, Vasco de Gama and others. He was also a professor af astronomy at the universities of Salamanca and Saragossa and wrote an important work on the stars that was translated into Spanish and Latim. When Spain expelled its Jews, Zacuto travelled to Portugal, where he became the Royal Astronomer. Later he had to flee to Tunis where he wrote a history of the Jews entitled Sefer Hayuchasin. Simonschaim (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps information on this could be put into a footnote, pending detailed review by someone knowledgeable in these matters and with access to the pertinent sources. The Wikipedia article on Abraham Zacuto describes his Almanach perpetuum as including ephemerides "for the years 1497 to 1500." It would be helpful to obtain information on the applicability of these astronomical tables to Columbus' situation on Jamaica in 1503. The Wikipedia article on Regiomontanus describes his ephemerides as being "printed... for the years 1475–1506, which would include the year 1503. Nihil novi (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In Samuel Eliot Morison's book Admiral of the Ocean Sea - A Life of Christopher Columbus on page 653-654 it says,

At this juncture Columbus bethought himself of a strategem. Among the few books aboard ship was a Regiomontanus "Ephemerides," printed at Nuremberg before the end of the century, but containing predictions of eclipses for thirty years ahead. In three day's time, on the night of February 29, 1504, Regiomontanus predicted a total eclipse of the moon. It then goes into detail explaining that Columbus predicted to the Indian chiefs the moon eclipse. They were skeptical, however when it happened the indians were scared and brought Columbus all the provisions he needed - praying the Admiral to intercede by all means with God on their behalf, that he might not visit his wrath upon them, promising for the future diligently to furnish all that stood in need for.

I would have to say at this point to leave the article as it now stands, since it looks like Columbus actually obtained the information from Regiomontanus' Ephemerides, not Zacuto's. --Doug ^talk 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Side note, there is a small grammatical typo on the second paragraph of this section, "Here Bartolomeo found native merchants and a large canoe, which was described as "long as a galley" and was filled with cargo." This should be, "... as "long as a galley" that was filled with cargo." 12.206.59.238 (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Questionable statement in article

In the main article " Voyages - Navigation plans " - the 5th. paragraph begins...' There was a further element of key importance...' - the section then goes on to state that Columbus "discovered, or had otherwise learned, a closely held fact" about a particular sailing technique which would give him a reliable route back to Spain.

That particular sailing technique certainly wasn't 'discovered' by Columbus. It is sometimes referred to as the ' Volta do Mar Largo ' - which could be translated roughly as, turning, or proceeding, into the open seas of the Atlantic - and it was developed before Columbus was born. The Venetian trader Alvise Cadamosto (see Wikipedia article) mentioned it in his writings about his west African voyages in the 1450's. It's also unlikely that the technique was a 'closely held fact' in Columbus's time. By then, it must have formed an essential part of the voyage planning for a significant number of ships engaged in the expanding slave trade between west Africa and Portugal. (There's nothing good to be said about the ethics of the slave trade but, more than for any other type of maritime cargo, the transportation of slaves had to be swift and reliable to be profitable. In the North Atlantic, that could only have been achieved by means of the long sailing reach across the north east trade winds until the prevailing westerly winds could be found in the latitude of the Azores.)

Columbus claimed that he had voyaged to the Portuguese trading post of Mina, in west Africa. If that is true, it seems probable that he would have learned a good deal about the ' Volta do Mar Largo' at that time.

As a suggestion - that paragraph in ' Navigation plans' could be changed to... " There was a further element of key importance... although the direction of the prevailing winds would, seemingly, have made it extremely difficult to return to Spain - Columbus evidently had knowledge of an established sailing technique used by ships returning from west Africa to Portugal.(This technique was known as the Volta do Mar Largo.) Columbus used a variation of that, to ensure a reliable route for his return voyage." sgn. J.Fowler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.31.113 (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with rephrasing that passage, it sounds awkward at best and like OR at worst. But I don't think it's very clear what Columbus was discovering. It sounds to me like he knew about the winds you are talking about in going toward the Canary Islands. What is not so clear is his knowledge of the North Atlantic trade winds to come back west. There's no way to use the North Atlantic to come back from Africa so I think you are talking about the easterlies going out of the Canary Islands. That still leaves a doubt about his level of expertise in determining that the westerlies even existed. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply to the points made above. With reference to to the question of Columbus's fore-knowledge of the prevailing westerlies in the middle latitudes of the north Atlantic - it's true that we don't know the extent of Columbus's own personal knowledge of those winds but there must have been general knowledge of them, in Columbus's time, because we know that settlements were being established on the Azore islands from 1439 onwards.(see Wikipedia History of Azores). It would be surprising if Columbus didn't know of that while he was living in Portugal in the 1480's. There is also a short comment in Columbus's personal 'Diario' - dated January 16th. 1493. That comment suggests that Columbus must have been aware that he had to proceed to the latitude of the Azores to find the westerly winds that would take him back to Spain. -sgn. J. Fowler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.220.249 (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you've got your facts straight. Now find a citation and a way to phrase that without introducing original research or assumptions and edit away. You sound like you might be able to help with the rape entry mentioned above. If you can that'd be great. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite to edit but, the Columbus article is semi-protected. (Quite rightly - for a significant subject.) -Apart from that, I don't think that my own Wiki-editing skills are good enough, at present. For anyone who has the time and the eligibility to make the the changes - here are some citations...

1. The Diario of Christopher Columbus's first voyage to America 1492-1493 translated into English by Oliver Dunn & James E. Kelley Jr. (copyright 1989 by Oliver Dunn & James E. Kelley Jr.) - Quote from Diario entry - 16th January 1493 …"So he - (i.e. Columbus) had to leave the route that he believed led to the island and returned to the one straight to Spain, North East by East....." N.B. - Columbus's planned voyage track of North East by East, would only make sense if it was his intention to head for the general area of the Azores. It isn't the 'direct' course back to Spain. In other words, it demonstrates that Columbus was aware that it was necessary to head for the middle latitudes, where the Azores were located, to find the westerly winds which would return him to Spain.

2. "Setting the stage for Columbus" by Lionel Casson (Portuguese mariners sail down the coast of west Africa and find a way to return against foul winds) - Published in 'Archaeology' - May/June 1990, pp 50-55. ( A history of the exploration of the western coasts of Africa which includes a description of the development of the 'Volta do Mar Largo' sailing techniques, in the middle of the 15th. century.)

3. "The Age of Reconaissance" by J.H. Parry. (copywright 1963 - J.H. Parry) Part II chapter 8. - notes incursions by Andalusian ships, and others, into west African regions which the Portuguese considered was their exclusive trading area. Negotiations about these incursions eventually led to the 1479 Treaty of Alcacovas. (N.B. This indicates that, before 1479, not only Portuguese, but Andalusians and others must have been quite familiar with the sailing techniques which enabled them to return from west Africa to Iberia - against the contrary winds.)

Rgds - J.Fowler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.82.83 (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Academic consensus about his birthplace

The current version reads: "Academic consensus is that Columbus was born in Genoa, though other minor theories try to challenge it". I removed the word "minor" a couple of edits ago because it's undeniably POV, but it's made its way back in. That he was born in Timbuktoo or wherever might not accord with the current majority opinion, but does that make it a "minor" theory? I think not. All theories are just that, theories, and until one of them is proven they all remain theories. We give prominence to the majority view (Genoa), and that speaks for itself. We don't need to downplay alternative theories with the epithet "minor". The "try to challenge it" wording suggests the Genoa theory is established fact, which is not the case. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. NO ONE can say that he was born in Genoa. In fact ANYONE that reads a bit about his biography will understand that he was Portuguese and that he couldn't be from Genoa. Although no one can prove that he was Portuguese, no DNA tests done (because it's not convenient to known the truth and the authorities denied a test that could give the confirmation). People think he is from Genoa because it's a generalized myth with little or none historical evidences or documents to prove it. It's a lot more likely that he was Portuguese. It's the Genoa theory that is minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by - - - (talk • contribs) 01:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, that's an example of what I'm talking about. Pardon my impertinence, but you clearly seem to have a non-neutral point of view about this, and you finish up making exactly the same error that I'm talking about. He may have been Portuguese for all I know, but he might just as well have been Jewish, Genoese, Spanish or anything else. None of these theories is "minor". They're all theories, and until any one of them is proven, they all have exactly the same status - unproven conjectures. The evidence for some of them may be more compelling (to some people) than for others. That's all. If you take the view that "Theory A is more persuasive to me than Theories B, C or D, and therefore this means that Theories B, C and D are all minor theories", this is the quintessential definition of POV. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jack. I don't agree with you. Historical theories don't work the way that you are suggesting. Yes, we can't absolutely know for sure where Columbus was born. However, that doesn't make all theories about the subject equal. There is better evidence for some theories than for others. As an example, there is very good evidence that the Norse had colonies in North America before Columbus. There is lousy evidence (but not nonexistent evidence) that the Irish did. One theory is better than the other. In presenting a neutral POV, Wikipedia needs to give a sense of which theories are considered by experts to be better than others. It isn't wikipedia's job to find the truth, or to state all theories equally when some are better attested than others.

I'm not sure the language as it stands is ideal, but Wikipedia certainly should tell folks which theories have more academic cred, and which have less. NoahB (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that. Which is why we say "academic consensus is that Columbus was born in Genoa". That speaks for itself. We can't not mention the existence of other theories, but we go too far if we rubbish them by calling them "minor". People can click on the link and discover what these other theories are, and decide for themselves whether any of them are worthy of credibility, research or investigation. The bit about these theories "trying to challenge" the Genoa consensus is absolutely off limits as far as I'm concerned. Consensuses by their very nature are points of view that are generally, but not universally, held; they are not established fact. If they were universally held, there wouldn't be a need to come to a consensus about them. But the "try to challenge" wording reads is if anyone who disagrees with the Genoa consensus is some sort of crank. That's not OK. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, "minor" means that only very few pseudo-historians try to make some noise about their book.

You can't say "They're all theories, and until any one of them is proven, they all have exactly the same status - unproven conjectures." : the genoese theory is proven. The only remaining question is : was he Jewish ? (cf. Madariaga and Lebovici). DocteurCosmos (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Either Genoa is proven, or there's a consensus. It can't be both. If it's proven, let's provide the evidence that puts it absolutely beyond doubt; and we should then cease referring to a consensus. Unless, of course, it's only proven in the minds of certain commentators and not others - in which case it can hardly be said to be proven because in that scenario the evidence would not be universally compelling; and this "proof" would be accepted or not depending on one's POV. If it's not proven, then that leaves open the possibility of a consensus about one or other of the theories; even so, one of the less favoured theories may well one day turn out to be shown correct, and these alternative theories should be referred to objectively and dispassionately, and not pejoratively. I should make it clear that I have no brief for any of the theories and I'm supremely indifferent to the question of where he was actually born; my sole interest is ensuring we keep to NPOV in the way we talk about it. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I enter into this fray with trepidation, but I feel like there should be a little more discussion of the more plausible theories of CC's origins in the article, like those that link him to the Iberian countries (note I said countries not states), e.g. Portugal, Catalonia, et al. I don't know much about the evidence for him being Jewish, but if that has any traction in academia, then that should be mentioned too. If I get time I'll try to do a little research on this and maybe include a couple sentences about the plausible possibilities. Maybe there should be a short article solely on the question of his birth and ethnic identity.Josh (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Should all crimes be mentioned?

Murder, Looting, Rape, Torture, Infantcide, Kidnapping... which of the Spanish crimes shall we not mention? Which shall we replace with weasel words?

Shall we say 'Commonly referred to as genocide' or shall we say 'Buried people alive' and 'burned them until they died'?

Is that neutral point of view to not to even mention their mass torture, rape, and infantcide?

Or perhaps it's less offensive to western sensibilities to delete that acount from history considering how repugnant raping women and skewering infants with their mothers would be to western sensibilities.

Neutralaccounting (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In Columbus&redirect=no&oldid=229227653 the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "book2" :
  • {{cite book | author= Clements R. Markham, ed | title=The Journal of Christopher Columbus (During His First Voyage) | Hakluyt Society (1893) | ASIN=B000I1OMXM}}
  • {{cite book | author= James W. Loewen | title=Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong | Touchstone Books (1995) | ASIN=1402579373}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Columbus was he the first man on north america that did not live here???

No he was not the first people here the first were the vikings but Columbus was one of the first person here but he was not the very first person here but he was close to be the first but did not get here in time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.204.135 (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Cristóbal Colón no era italiano, era español! Christopher Columbus wasn't Italian, he was Spanish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.127.123.200 (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a lie. Corte-Real arrived north america first then colombo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by - - - (talk • contribs) 01:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Embarrassing Article

This man, who "discovered" America, was also a mass murderer, a rapist, and known terrorist. In fact he returned to spain in shackles. Why is there no mention of his crimes against the native american peoples in this article, his enslavement of the Taino Indians, rape of their women, and torture of thier children? Or how he worked them to death, mistakenly believeing they were hiding large quantities of gold on them, and eventual campaign of genocide? This is beyond absurd, it's embarrassing. We need to fix this article soon. Lakerking04 (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fun Fact: Christopher Columbus married a Portugese woman, the daughter of a mapmaker, so as to go after her father's priceless navigational charts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annacb05 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC) The real columbus: MAny may see him as a hero. But Who was he anyway? He was a latin americain terrorist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.8.105 (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol. There are more terrorists today wearing suits and ties who see peoples lives as a number on a piece of paper. Save your energy on them, not someone who's long gone. --93.97.181.187 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Though Columbus is way "long gone", his legacy still lives on today. Unfortunately, every American toddler learns in elementary school about how Columbus was the country's hero and a real saint, and The-Man-Who-Brought-The-World-Out-of-Ignorance-By-Discovering-That-The-World-Is-Round. On this thread, one can see that the reality is, Columbus was a raping, pillaging, Indian-enslaving, cruel, greedy, feudal-lord-wannabe and idiot. (The latter is evidenced by the fact that, while many of Columbus' intellectual contemporaries knew the distance between Europe and Asia to be greater than 3,000 miles, and the world to be round, Columbus ignored their evidenced theories so that he could dream of prancing about as Admiral of the Seas.) It is important that all Americans know the truth about the "discovery" of North America, and the mass-murder and enslavement of hundreds of thousands of natives that resulted from it. If millions of Americans continue living in ignorance about the terrorists of our past, then what hope is there for preventing genocide and terrorism in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.151.150 (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of these posts above. Columbus did terrible things to the natives of the Caribbean Islands and is responsible for the deaths of millions (estimated in Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"). Instead of being remembered as a genocidal killer, he has state capitals and a federal holiday. Please add something to his wikipedia page to reflect his true past.

Nationality

Most foreign Wikipedias (in fact, all that I've seen) put Colombus' nationality to question or don't mention it at all, so I don't see what concrete evidence we have here that the others don't in order to so confidently state that he was Italian. 76.16.162.66 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

See the above discussions Josh (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

syphilis

Note to wiki editors - there is now definitive evidence of syphilis in Europe 2,000 years before Columbus as evidenced by syphilitic teeth grooves on the remains of children found in greek and roman burial sites. This section of the Columbus page should be updated to reflect this new movement away from the 'indians infecting europe' model. 209.204.172.183 (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Spanish words incorrectly written

The names of the ships are "La Niña", "La Pinta" and "La Santa María". "Nina" and "Santa Maria" are incorrect and present multiple times throughout the article. I also saw "Mendez" instead of "Méndez". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.239.53 (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well what i have read in the history of Christopher Columbus it says that he was born in August 25,1451 in Genoa Italy.He died on May 20,1506 outside Valladolid Spain.His nicknames were Cristoforo Colombo,Cristobal Colon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.5.198 (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever wonder that what you have read and that which was written has no evidence to support it? He never had a "Nickname" that is an Italian invention. The man was known as Admiral Cristóbal Colon and that his how he appears in the official documents as well as in his own documents. Prove that Amdiral Colon at any time was the weaver Cristoforo Colombo from Genoa and then you may have an argument. Right now what you have is an itslian propagada machine propped up by fascist city mayors who forged documentation to claim as theirs a man who never even set foot in Italy.22:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.240.96 (talk)

Sentence Fragment

In the section about his early life the second paragraph starts with this sentence fragment "Prince Henry's school of navigation in Sagres, Portugal." To what is this referring? Was it caused by an editing mistake? Anybody know? Dr. Morbius (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Born in Genoa? Maybe. Italian? Definitely not.

Let's not forget that Italy did not exist as a political entity until about 1860. When Columbus was around there was a genoese republic where a genoese language was spoken and written, therefore it doesn't make any sense to mention the italian (that is: tuscan) translation of his name. I would recommend to replace it with the genoese (that is: ligurian) translation of it, Christoffa Corombo [kri'ʃtɔffa ku'ɹuŋbu], the one that he would've presumably used to introduce himself to another genoese person, if that matters anyway. G.B.Parodi dec.21.2008

I took the liberty to edit the page myself and replace the non pertinent italian name with the original genoese one: if this wasn't the appropriate procedure to follow please accept my apologies Gbparodi (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Italy did exist, although as a geographic name and not as a state. Thus, it makes sense to say that Columbus was Italian, meaning that "he came from that particular peninsula". As for the Italian translation, the Tuscanian dialect was already the de-facto lingua franca in the Italian peninsula since at least the 14th century (see Dante Alighieri). So it makes very much sense to leave it there.--Sidsel Sørendatter (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As you correctly stated, Parodi, the Genoese version of his surname is a translation made two centuries later by SOME (who?) who translated the Tuscan (!) piece of work "Gerusalemme liberata" by Torquato Tasso (http://books.google.it/books?id=re4OAAAAYAAJ&dq=Ra+Gerusalemme+deliver%C3%A2&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=6h45wt-roa&sig=0oLT8SGk1BvOb31AFzqhWTTcCvI&hl=it&ei=bTn9SbqCJYWLsAaGsLC5BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPP7,M1). Who is the author of the "Rime diverse" you cited? Besides, if I understand your contribution correctly, you derived the first name "Christoffa" from an unprecised book of poems of the 16th century, and the surname "Corombo" from a 18th century translation in Genoese of a 16th century Tuscan poem. This seems to me as far too ungrounded reconstruction to write the Genoese name is "the original". According to the sources visible at the Italian page, the only written records of Columbus' name at his time were in Latin. This should be written. --S vecchiato (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but conjectures are not scientifical evidences at all, and yours is just a conjecture. It doesn't exist something like a Genoese (Venetian, Milanese, Neapolitan, etc.) surname "translated" into an Italian surname. If that was true, all the Italian surnames existing today should have been invented after the Unification of Italy.. And this is an antihistorical claim. Therefore noone had used any "Tuscan translation of his Genoese surname", but his actual surname.

Besides you forget that the archives of Genoa kept documents about Columbus' father where he is mentioned as "COLUMBUS" (Lat.), if his original surname was "Corombo", as you may think, the latinized version should be would have preserved the "r". Also, the documents using his original Italian surname show it as COLOMBO, not only the Italian ones: even in the Turkish Piri Reis' map _that confirms Columbus was a Genoese_ the Ottoman characters spell the Columbus' surname as "Colombo". Yours is a mere conjecture based on a literary work and not on an official document. You can't even show any reliable historians nor studies to confirm your thesis. In short, your conjecture is interesting within the space of this "Columbus:talk", but it can't be considered as a scientifical evidence and it is not confirmed by any any historians.

So I'm sorry but I am going to delete your correction from the article because it's not scientifically reliable, it is not supported by any scholars and the supposed sources you post are just 2 literary works.

As regards the fact the he was Italian, that's obvious. Even if Italy was not a unified State when he was born, its inhabitants were already known as Italians. By the name of Italian it was not only indicated a man who was from the Italian peninsula, but also a man of a particular ethnicity, the Italian one. Columbus was an Italian man and a Genoese citizen.

The adjective "Italian" to indicate an individual from any part of the Italian peninsula was largerly used since the ancient times: i.e., the Roman poet Virgil call the Romans "Italians" in a passage of the Aeneid.

Nonetheless, to solve every doubt you may have about, I'll show you some passage from important chroniclers and scholars who were coeval of Columbus and who named him "Italian":

The Portuguese Rui de Pina wrote two works, Chronica d'El Rey, don Alfonso and Chronica d'El Rey, don Juan II. It has been ascertained that the manuscripts had been completed before 1504, although they were published in the Eighteenth century. Chapter 66 in the second manuscript, "Descubrimiento das Ilhas de Castella per Collombo," explicitly states, "Christovan Colombo italiano."

The Portuguese Garcia de Resende writes the Cronic de don Joao II between 1530 and 1533, and it was published in 1544. In chapter 165, "De como se descubriram per Colombo as Antilhas de Castella," he writes, "Christouao Colombo, italiano."

The Flemish Theodore De Bry published the HistoriaeAmericanae Secunda Pars conscripta a Jacobo Le Moyne dicto De Morgues in Frankfurt in 1591. In it is written, "Christopher Columbus the Italian Genoese (p. 4)".

I think this is more than enough.

Vittuone (talk) 4:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the evolution from [l] (alveolar lateral approximant) to [ɹ] (alveolar approximant), from latin to archaic ligurian language, please visit the genoese dialect page. thanks! Gbparodi (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

confusion

in one book i read that christopher was gone for the se arch of spices and in other book i read that christopher went to confirm that the world was flat or round. in any book i have not read about these above talks together --115.186.96.62 (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I assure you, he went for a trade reason.21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mus640 (talk • contribs)

Navigation skills

I think there needs to be more clear commentary on Columbus's skills as a navigator - or at least what is known of them. Currently in the "Early Life" section there is a sentence fragment, "Prince Henry's school of navigation in Sagres, Portugal." This needs to be cleaned up and clarified in itself, of course. Also, another sentence in the "Navigation plans" section states: "Columbus's error was put down to his lack of experience in navigation at sea." That's not a particularly clear sentence (not to mention that its footnote credits a book apparently published in 1942). I could very well be wrong (this is why I would like to see some clarification about his actual navigation skills, which I think are an important component of who he was), but it had been my understanding that, despite his general error on the size of the planet, Columbus was actually a very gifted navigator, good at using stars, etc., to chart his path and direct his ships. If he was not a good navigator, someone among his crew must've been, I would think. Harry Yelreh (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The myth of Columbus the Genoese adventurer includes several mistakes: he was illiterate, he could not sail, he managed to marry a Portuguese noble lady using only his beautiful eyes, he was lucky, et caetera; the historical Colon was unmistakingly: literate, bright, of noble descent, very well connected inside Portuguese society, a proficient speaker, reader and writer of Portuguese (he could scratch some Castilian but knew nothing about Geonoese), and an excellent and higly experienced navigator who knew very well where he was going! All the marks of a Portuguese navigator like Bartolomeu Dias or Gonçalves Zarco (btw, "Zarco" is greek for "Colon"). He may not have been an experienced COMMANDER OF SHIPS but he was certainly an experienced sailor.

Agree with the above, but controversy and varying opinions about Columbus make it difficult to improve those aspects of the article. There are several passages, in the transcripts of Columbus's 'Diario' of his first voyage, where his own words appear to show that he was not an experienced commander of ships at that time. However, a lack of practical experience doesn't prove that he lacked theoretical knowledge about navigation techniques - including celestial navigation.

Can you tell us in which specific "passages, in the transcripts of Columbus's 'Diario' of his first voyage, where his own words appear to show that he was not an experienced commander of ships at that time." I am very interested in looking at that evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.158 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref. Columbus and lack of experience. There are maybe a dozen specific references in the Diario which indicate that. A typical example can be seen on 21st. February 1493 - while Columbus was manoevering the ship during stormy weather. The transcript states… "The Admiral says he felt little pleasure because he had but three experienced sailors, most of those who were there knowing nothing of the sea." In that sentence, Columbus is complainng because he is short-handed, in difficult weather conditions. However, if you read the details for the preceding days, it's apparent that the reason he is short- handed is because he had allowed many of his capable men to go ashore and they were then detained by the Portuguese. An experienced captain never leaves himself short-handed - especially not when the weather is doubtful - and definitely not when the ship is in a dangerous anchorage. That is something which only a novice captain would do. It's also a rather foolish thing to advertise the fact, by writing about it in the ship's logbook! It wouldn't be appropriate to give full details of all the other examples, here, because this page isn't a forum - it's intended for discussion on improvements to the article. Check Columbus's 'Diario' yourself, there could be other examples which I haven't identified. A good place to start might be the period 23rd.-25th. December 1492. Norloch (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Norloch, spoken like a true believer of the tall tale. There is no where in the Diario that Columbus says he is inexperienced. You infer from the written account what you wish but because you don't realize the whole lie of the voyage you and everyone before you assumed he was incompetent. There was no danger in Santa Maria in the Azores nor was there a storm at Lisbon in March 3 1493. The lies, and what you see as incompetence, are all part of the plan to mislead the Spanish into not catching on to the fact that Columbus was working for the King of Portugal. The same trick of lies is applied by Columbus when he made a deliberate trip to Madeira in 1498 and to Arzila in 1502. It is incompatible logic to accept that João da Castanheira would send a warm welcome with food the day before and then try to arrest the guy the next day. It is even further fantasy to assume that a Portuguese Captain having half the crew arrested would FREE that same crew so that the prize could sail off on its merry way. But even if you doubt Columbus's own words and his expert actions, I give you King John II's words in 1488 saying that Columbus had "skillfulness and ingenuity will be necessary to us", or Queen Isabel's words to Juan de Fonseca saying "Columbus knows more than all of us" and if those don't suffice read Jaime Ferrer's words to the Queen "I will always refer to those who know more than myself like the Admiral of the Indies who at tempore existente knows about this issues like no one else” and th same Jaime Ferrer to Columbus "of all this you Lordship know more sleeping that I awake." The pigeonhole you guys have blindly been trying to fit Columbus into for 500 years is contrary to the evidence, is not the truth and is not even impartially researched.Colombo.bz (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The passages written about Colon's inexperience are rather farfetching; the loss of his men proves nothing about his experience; the writing about it in the diary was essential; knowing how many good men he had was evidence he could tell who the good sailors were, and that does not prove he is inexperienced, by the contrary shows that he knows what he's doing and regrets not having enough men.

About the storm forcing him into Lisbon... did the storm also pushed him into land, forcing him to encounter King John II miles from the coast, before meeting his spanish "bosses" to tell them the good news? Now, that's an inexperienced sailor...

It certainly seems unlikely that anyone would have loaned him money for an expedition - without ensuring that there were several competent navigators included in the crew. It also seems unlikely that his Royal backers would have instructed him to find new lands for their empire without checking first that the expedition would have sufficient competent navigators to ensure that the positions of all those new territories were known as accurately as possible. Norloch (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Columbus obviously was not a great navigator, simply by virtue of the fact that he did not reach his destination. Navigation at that time was difficult for any sailor, primarily due to the inability to know a ship's longitude. Lattitude could be discerned using astronomy, but finding longitude using the stars would not be possible for another 500 years and then only after the collaborative work of dozens of now famous astronomers and scientists.Veazus (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)veazus

Unless you think out of the envelope, and ponder that maybe Colon wanted precisely to reach the Antilles (as the Portuguese had named them 50 years before); on the other hand, the mismeasure of "longitude" could be due to the fact he was using Portuguese charts who reduced longitudinal distances on purpose, to keep prying foreign eyes away from the land they were discovering westward.

By 1492, the techniques required for navigating the mid-Atlantic region seem to have been well understood by a considerable number of navigators. We have virtually no information about the methods used - nor the people who used them - but this must have been the case. That can be deduced from records which detail the increasing number of unfortunate West Africans who were sold at the Lisbon slave market, year after year. The logistics of the slave trade demanded swift, reliable, voyages. It follows that the navigators on those ships must have been skilled in ocean navigation. An essential part of that skill would have been some reasonably accurate means of determining both their latitudes, and their longitudes, at key points in the voyage. The precise methods that they used is something which has still to be discovered! Norloch (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; Portuguese were able to sail the open ocean (they discovered the Açores 50 years before Colon's travels); to travel in the open Atlantic ocean required only to measure latitude (the height of the Northern Star at night or the Sun at mydday would be exactly the same) and to know East from West, then follow straight on!

By 1492, America had already been described in the "History of Norway" (page 3, lines 2 - 5 ) for three centuries. According to the introduction to the web edition of the text, the "History of Norway" was known to be used in the first half of the fifteenth century in Kirkwall (page x, line 16 ), and it may have been written to influence the papal church (page xvii, line 22 ). The existence of the text in Kirkwall is of relevance, as Tor Borch Sannes argues that Cristopher Colon's father, Domenico Colon, was employed at the monastery [2] of St. Columba on nearby Iona. Both the monastery of St. Columba on Iona and the St. Magnus Cathedral in Kirkwall belonged to the bishopric of Bergen. St.Trond (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the above edit was heavily revised on 09:59, 30 July 2009 by St. Trond. Without a cite saying Columbus knew about this document, it's irrelevant to the article. In any case, page 3, lines 2-6, are about Greenland: "Greenland is cut off from these by icy crags. This country, which was discovered, settled and confirmed in the universal faith by Icelanders, is the western boundary of Europe, almost touching the African islands where the waters of ocean flood in" and in an even more complete context, "However, when certain shipmen were trying to return to Norway from Iceland, they were driven by contrary tempests into the wintry region and at last made land between the Greenlanders and the Bjarmians where, so they claimed, they found men of prodigious size and a country of maidens (these are said to conceive children by a drink of water). Greenland is cut off from these by icy crags. This country, which was discovered, settled and confirmed in the universal faith by Icelanders, is the western boundary of Europe, almost touching the African islands where the waters of ocean flood in.". I find it hard to get America from that - Africa maybe, and certainly a real lack of clarity about the geographical location of Greenland. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

Which difference would it make to the navigation if "Greenland" instead of "Vinland" was "almost touching the African islands"? St.Trond (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The churches of Iceland also belonged to the same bishopric of Bergen. Norse sagas would therefore also be available to tell the difference between Greenland, Helluland, Markland, and Vinland. St.Trond (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum to speculate on what might have taken place. You need reliable sources saying that Columbus knew about North America (and explaining the problems that causes), before it can be included in the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller: Adam of Bremen's Descriptio Insularum Aquilonis shows that Vinland was known also in Copenhagen and Bremen in the 11th century, for those interested in the north of the Atlantic. Also Ari Thorgilssons "Islendingabok" from the 12th century on Icelands history shows that the knowledge of land in the west was available throughout the territiories of those speaking norse, in norse and latin texts. Viking ships used to cross the Atlantic via Greenland, were smaller than the ships available in the 15th century. St.Trond (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

St. Trond's comments on latitude sailing are valid, as a generalisation, but not so true when considering the specifics. For all commercial ships, time is money. It follows that trading ships must seek the most efficient routes to their destinations. Navigators who allowed excessive easting or westing, en-route, lengthened voyage times and diminished profits. (In other words, some knowledge of longitude was an important factor.) As noted above, slaves were the most difficult cargo to carry profitably. The fact that unfortunate West Africans were increasingly being sold in Europe during the three decades preceding 1492 would indicate that a well established body of experience existed, in the techniques necessary for efficient Atlantic navigation. It would be incredible if Columbus didn't make some use of that body of navigation experience, when he planned his voyage.

Norloch (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth name

A Spanish historian has claimed Columbus' birth name was Pedro Scotto. A period chronicle apparently refers to "Pedro Columbus" rather than Christopher.[3][4] 59.167.49.237 (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

From a UK paper [5]. He is a prolific writer on Columbus but not a professional historian, see [6] -- he's an engineer (in my experience, a surprising number of people with, to put it kindly, 'fringe' ideas are engineers)> [7]. 11:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)dougweller (talk)

DougWeller, can you tell us what History Degree the Columbus novelist Paolo Emilio Taviani held? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.247 (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The original name was, in fact, Cristovam Colon; Cristovam (with an "m" in the end) is Portuguese; some say the name is a secret message, especially when Colon's signature was strange: ".X. .S.A.S. .X.M.Y. Xpoferens;"; the last "s" is an inverted letter "colon" and is followed by the greek "zarco" (;), which may mean he really is not "Colon" but "Zarco" ("Zarco" is "Colon" in greek); "xpo" is "Xristo" or "saviour", and "ferens" abbreviates "Fernandes"; so, some believe the real name was Salvador Fernandes Zarco, the grand-son of the great navigator Gonçalves Zarco, born in the village of Cuba in Portugal (a village with a big wool industry and red-earth, "terra rubra", like the historical description of Colon's birth-place); the signature is important because the only official document proving Colon's Genoese origin is a document discovered in the 17th century where the signature is all wrong (namely, the third line ".X.M.Y." appears as ".X.M.J.", because it meant "Xristo, Maria, Yoseph" and "Yoseph" was written with an "Y" in the 14th/15th centuries, but as "Joseph" with an "J" in the 17th century, proving it was a late forgery...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.0.63 (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

About de " Terra Rubra": 'The family "Piccolomini de Sena" settled in Sardinia (Sardinia at the time was also part of Genoa) in the province of Oristano.A distinctive type of color from the city of Siena (Sena) is the "Terra di Siena" - "Earth of Siena", just a dark red-brown,also called "Terra Rossa" (or "Terra Rubra" in spanish), that's well known to artists.The city of Siena (Sena) is and was well known for his Terra Rossa. The name "Colom de Terra Rubra" may also come from "Pic-Colom-ini de Sena " if shorted and translated in spanish ("Colom de Terra Rubra"). His son Diego founded the first settlement called "Oristan" in Jamaica, now the old Oristan is called Bluefields.Realtavirtuale (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Indians ?

He always knew where he was (not really)? I am of Native North American desent. In no way do native North and South americans resemble persons native to India. How wrong was Columbus. 76.71.17.88 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For 'Indians' read 'orientals'. Not literally people from India. dougweller (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Columbus didn't call Native Americans by Indians because somehow he truly believed to be in India. He was only doing it to convince the Spanish Kings that he had reached India. It was all part of his initial plan to fool the Spanish which he did.Colombo.bz (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

At the same time: a Portuguese sailor on Columbus's crew presented a Spanish noble with two cinnamon sticks claiming they were given to him by an "Indian" that was carrying tons of them (and that he alone saw), and the Spanish noble then showed to Columbus, and he used that as an evidence that they had reached India (that was the first and last time they found cinnamon on that island); then he managed to flounder the Santa Maria with the Spanish noblemen inside (they had to survive alone in the island after Columbus stroke a deal with the Indian leader and then kidnapped a few Indians before departing, leaving the Spanish lords to suffer the vengeance, and they were killed), took all the pilots with him back to Spain, and forced the sailors to swear they had been in India with a heavy penalty in case they spoke the truth; back in Spain, his claims were supported only by Portuguese, Italians working for the Portuguese, or foreigners on the Portuguese King's payroll... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.0.63 (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Colombus would have never actually seen an Indian (South Asian), so the comparison could not have been based on physiology.68.148.123.76 (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't say that Columbus was conspiring to lie to the Spanish government and as your resource you simply put that years have researching have given these four answers. If you are going to say something groundbreaking like this, please provide proof or don't submit it to an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.196.209 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that columbus called them Idians beacause he thought he was in India. That simple.22:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw an interesting theory somewhere... here[8]. Near the bottom is a letter that the website author recieved from a Native American explaining his opinion that Columbus was not "a lost white man" and did not call them Indians because he thought they were India. According to this person, he called them "En Dio" which means "In With God", correctly translated. I'm not sure when India was actually called "India", and I haven't researched the validity of his argument at all, but all things considered his POV seems much more rational than the... er... interesting conspiracy theories presented by the no doubt worthy editors above. --Song (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Columbus Breaking the Egg' (Christopher Columbus) by William Hogarth.jpg

Recently the file File:Columbus Breaking the Egg' (Christopher Columbus) by William Hogarth.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 23:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've addded your image to the Egg of Columbus article where I believe it is appropriate. --Anthony5429 (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC) FISH!!!

proofs? facts?

The article states that Columbus was Genoese. Can someone prove that is true? otherwise change the article because it's a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.98.18 (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The article also says there are other suggestions for his origin. But most academics say he is Genoese, and our articles reflect what reliable sources have to say about a subject - you need to read WP:RS to know what we mean by reliable sources. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to 'prove' anything. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller. If we're looking for "facts" or "proofs", we can say that maybe it will never be 100% safe to say that Columbus was Genoese, but this is the consensus of the vast majority of academics. And it's always been the same for 5 centuries. Different theories are not necessarily wrong, but they are supported by fewer "facts" and "proofs" than the genoese theory. 212.97.44.126 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

can you proof that "most academics" agree with that theory which doesn't have any supporting proof? you are making a judgement! you are saying that the vast majority of academics believe that Columbus was born in Genoa. That's totally false. It's a false argument it's a judgement. you are not being impartial. if there was a consensus there wouldn't be so many theories. And even if the majority believe it what's the point of stating that in the article when there's no proof whatsoever that Colombus was born in Genoa. it's like saying he was born in china or somewhere else. it's a lie. there's no proofs. maybe we should change every article even if it's false in order to agree with the "consensus of the majority of academics" even if it's proven totally wrong. wikipedia is about facts not arguments. you can't write a lie it's wrong. "Colombus was born in Genoa" it's wrong, it's a lie. "most people believe he was born in Genoa" it can be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.109.16 (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The "proof" that the vast majority of academics believe Columbus was born in the Genoese Republic is simply the fact that the vast majority of Encyclopedias - written by academics - state this as the most trusted version. I don't think that they saw Columbus being born in Genoa during a dream in the night, and neither that this is an idea coming from their own fantasy. By the way, I don't see any "proof" or "fact" neither in your post which looks like plain trolling, so no reason to comment anymore. It's not by shouting that you'll obtain a change in a wikipedia entry. 212.97.44.126 (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Religion of Christopher Columbus

The religious belief's of Christopher Columbus are relevant to the motivation behind his voyages as well as his actions. A key historical source for this period was Bartolome de Las Casas, he was a contemporary of Columbus and his father and uncles all traveled with Columbus on various voyages. Las Casas was the person that made a transcript and abstract of the Columbus diary. He notes that Columbus was a very devout Roman Catholic. His motivation for the conquest of the New Lands was to convert the native population to Christianity (Roman Catholicism) as well as to find gold. The legacy of Columbus and the subsequent conquistadors that follow was of a forced conversion, mass baptisms, indoctrination or the native people. How therefore can his religion be irrelevant or ignored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivergomez4000 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Nobody would ever be able to figure out Columbus was a Christian. He converted the natives to Scientology, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.79.124 (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Inter caetera, which shortly after Columbus's first voyage gave Spain the right, over Portugal, to the New World, required that Spain spread the Catholic faith among the natives. This was not the legacy of Columbus so much as the Papacy. Pfly (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus active role in evangelization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivergomez4000 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would argue for Christopher Columbus active role in evangelization: Ample proof exists that Columbus's legacy included conversion of natives to Christianity and not solely that of the Papacy, Columbus himself requested of the Crown to dispatch friars to "reform the faith in Christians and convert the natives." (Letters to the monarchs sent in the ship of Fernando Colon p 407). Columbus further argued in Spain for the recapture of Jerusalem (crusades) he believed that as St. Augustine had predicted, the world would soon come to an end. Columbus writing and thought are filled with a religious ideas and was very mystical nature. His religious beliefs cannot be separated from his own conquest of the new world. In fact, Christopher means "Christ bearer" and Colon, or "Columbus" means colonizer. He saw his own name as being someone who was chosen by God to convert the natives and find lots of gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivergomez4000 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Pope demamded evangelization, and that was necessary for the Spanish to lay claim on the land; but that would also cellebrate the Tordesillas treaty dividing the world betweem Portugal and Spain and reinforce Portugal's claim to the oher half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.0.63 (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

the point isn't the pope- this article isn't about the papacy or spain's claim to the right of conquest. Its about Columbus. A Columbus that had very strong Catholic religious assumptions and beliefs that impacted his actions and his behavior. My only point is that I cannot see how the religious beliefs of someone can be considered to be unworthy of comment in their biography especially when so many distorted views exist regarding columbus religious beliefs. Having a section that speaks objectively to what those beliefs were can help dispell the myths surrounding Colubmus religious faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.77.47 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of origins and motivation

The idea that Columbus was of Italian ancestry can now be confidently considered outdated. As explained in the entry Origin theories of Christopher Columbus the most likely hypothesis is that Cristobal Colon was a Catalan of noble ancestry, engaging in piracy off the coast of Portugal. How else would the son of " Domenico Colombo, a middle-class wool weaver, who later also had a cheese stand", marry a Portuguese noblewoman after shipwrecking in Portuguese shores? In medieval times, a wool weaver, seller of cheese would not marry into the nobility. If one tried, the family of the woman would probably kill him.

It is ridiculous that anyone would take seriously the idea that Colon was originally Norwegian. It is a flight of fancy, but just that. Like in other matters, Colon is a revered figure (apart being a Dead White Male), so everyone wants a piece of him.

The important navigational insight Colon had was in the seasonal winds that cross the Atlantic, blowing eastward one time of the year and westward six months later. His calculations about the size of the planet were obviously wrong, but just to put the issue in perspective consider that the Portuguese had been sailing the coasts of Africa for a whole century, taking stretches of navigation into the ocean away from the sight of shore, for which accurate latitude measurements were important. If you go south and the Sun everyday is slightly higher in the sky at noon, until you see it directly above, and then having the zenith to the north of your ship, how would the Portuguese fail to grasp accurately Earth's sphere? In spite of popular belief and the trial of Galileo Galilei one hundred years later, that Earth was round and circling the Sun was known by expert people of the time. That knowledge is further supported by the need to regulate the yearly calendar.

Further that Colon may have offered his services around, including the English king, needs to be documented appropriately. Rumor has it that he made many travels (including, unbelievably Greenland, a Norse colony dying at the time, only reachable weather permitting and thus infrequently from Iceland), in an obvious case of putting someone all over the map.

Well, the Portuguese were sailing those waters since the beginning of the 15th century, with the Danes, and Colon participated in some of those travels as a teenager; and Greenland was rediscovered by the Portuguese on their way to Canada, so... what's so unbelievable?

It is a well known fact of Portuguese History that Columbus offered his services to King John II of Portugal, who first procrastinated and then declined the offer, before Columbus took the offer to the Spanish Queen Isabella I of Castile. The thing is: John II already knew there was land to the West, but had no reason to let that be known outside a close circle. 1) The Viking colony of Greenland, where Vinland existence was a well known fact, had a Vatican diocese and several churches there. Portugal was at the time a major European power with excellent relations with the Papacy. 2) The Portuguese explorer João Vaz Corte-Real visited Northern Canada (where a stone slab exists) and also Greenland. 3) During the negotiations of the Treaty of Tordesillas, King John II deliberately asked the separating line to be moved West, in the process including land of the Americas, importantly Eastern Brazil. Columbus was right for the wrong reasons and the Portuguese already knew it, but had no need to indulge him or take seriously his services.

Ultimately Queen Isabella heeded to Colon's pleas, by financing the expedition with a few pieces of her personal jewelry, and because she noticed the whole thing would cost about as much as one week of expenses in accommodating and entertaining any high level foreign envoy.

It seems to me there is plenty of reasons to rewrite portions of the article on Cristobal Colon, and make it more accurate. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This looks very much like original research -- see WP:OR and as such does not belong on this talk page or in the article. You haven't brought any reliable sources -- any sources at all, to the table. Let's start with your 'stone slab' in Northern Canada. What's your source for this? Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The stone slab is Dighton Rock, engraved with Portuguese markings (notice the symbols in the photo at Miguel's page). My mistake in attribution to João when it was his son Miguel Corte-Real in 1511. However it is well known that João sailed with two of his sons before that, discovering what the Portuguese call "Terra do Bacalhau" (possibly Bacalao). Both this last link and the Portuguese page on João Vaz Corte-Real give 1472 as the date respectively for a grant of land after his discoveries, or to his voyages. Because there would be a document about the grant of land, João's voyages have to be placed before that year. Today, the land off the coast of Newfoundland is one the biggest cod (Portuguese, Bacalhau) fisheries in the world.

John Cabot reaches America in 1497. Just putting a line in the sand.

John Cabot, the same who hired Portuguese pilots with experience sailing to Newfoundland and Labrador?

From the book in Portuguese "História de Portugal" by José Hermano Saraiva (a very well known scholar) 2nd edition, Publicações Europa-América: page 576. 1492/1498 The Portuguese João Fernandes Lavrador and Pedro de Barcelos travel to Greenland and Newfoundland.

That's how "Labrador" got his name from.

I'll be back in a moment. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

why the article states he is genovese as if there is scholar consensus? schollar consensus? Which consensus? this is not reliable, it is tending to a so called established consensus that never existed. --188.80.91.8 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Discovery of America by Spain

Why don't you state that Christopher Columbus was the discoverer of America? I am perfectly serious when I state that it is historical fairness the fact of writing it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgljuarez (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Because current historical consensus holds that Leif Ericson was the first European to visit the America 500 years earlier. --Leivick (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

How can one person discover two continents inhabited by millions of people?

With a ship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.58.67 (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Columbus didn't discover the Americas, there were already people there. He was simply the first European to reach the Americas.--What shall i call it? (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Born in Spain

Colombus was born in Spain, in the town of Pontevedra according to the data coming from the names appearing on his maps. --88.18.150.26 (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, valid point. Recent DNA evidence has suggested that Columbus wasn't of Italian (i.e. Genoa) decent at all but probably from Cataluna or Galicia. Why does the article not reflex this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.8.93 (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, review the Galician origin of Columbus. A lot of his documents has Galician-Portuguese words. It is thought about the close relation he had with Galicia. There was a Columbus/Colombo sailors family in Poio Pontevedra in those days.

Nomenclature

It is stated in Thomas Ayres' book That's Not In My American History Book that Columbus went by the name Colon. Can someone explain? --15lsoucy (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The real name was Cristovam Colon ou Xpoval Colon, but his (strange) signature (http://columbus.vanderkrogt.net/other_illustrations/Ccsignature.jpg) has the letters ".S." (1st line), ".S.A.S." (2d line), ".X.M.Y." (3d line), ".Xpoferens.," (4th line), which leaves plenty of room for interpretation; one says that ".Xpoferens.," is encrypted and means "Salvador Fernandes Zarco", the name of the grand-son of the Portuguese navigator Gonçalves Zarco born in Cuba, Portugal. Several quotes from that time refer to him as "Colombo", but "Cristophoro Colombo" only appeared with the famous 17th century forgery that celebrated the myth of the Genoese Columbus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.0.63 (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The 4 voyages

In my opinion, the whole "Voyages" section must be removed from here, or short summaries can be left, and the reader must be referenced to the main article: "Voyages of Christopher Columbus". In the current state, the Voyages section from this article is even more developed than the main, referenced article. It has no sense to always upgrade both articles when new details are to be included.- Mazarin07 (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Voyages of Christopher Columbus covers it, a Wikipedia:Summary style can be done. J. D. Redding 22:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no objection, a Wikipedia:Summary style can be put here and the article {{main}}'ed. J. D. Redding 04:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In the "third voyage" reference is made to claims of genocide with citations being needed. "A People's History of the United States" - Howard Zinn published in 2001pages 4-5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thushw (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of Columbus that are not considered historical documents

On page 55 in Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen, there is a photograph of a T-shirt with six faces of Christopher Columbus; Loewen says that while many U.S. history textbooks include photos of Columbus, the six on the T-shirt would not be considered historical documents as they were made after Columbus's death. The T-shirt is from the U.S. Library of Congress Quincentenary Program, and it has the caption "Who is this man?". - Here is the question: Where do I put this tidbit in this article? What section should accommodate this? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown the Castille Controversy

I see you went through the Christopher Columbus article and systematically substituted "Crown of Castille" or "Castille" for "Spain". Since you gave no explanation, I would like to know why. What were you trying to accomplish? Do you have some persnal affinity for "Castille"? Anyway, I thought that Ferdinand and Isabella represented a new country which was formed from former kingdoms called "Aragon" and "Castille". Most people know this country as a place called "Spain", even if the government has changed since then, so there needs to be a very good reason to substitute another place name for "Spain". --Zeamays (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your question Zeamays. I have none special affinity for Castile of course, but it´s very important don´t confuse terms and concepts, and it´s only I´m trying, don´t confuse. Spain is a modern state founded in 19th century because it´s kingdom since 19th century, before there were mainly kingdoms and Crowns. For example, Galicia or Leon were kingdoms in the Crown of Castile, as Valencia or Aragon were kingdoms in the Crown of Aragon, until 18th there were diferent laws in diferent Crowns, and also coins were diferents, and the Courts were diferent too. Before 1833 the modern Spain was made by diferent kingdoms, so we can never understand "the Catholic Monarchs" as "Spanish Monarchs", Isabella I was queen of the Crown of Castile, and Fernando of Aragon, when they married was a personal union, Spain wasn´t born still, for example Aragon had the half of modern Italy and territories in Greece. We shouldn´t confuse antique concepts with modern concepts. So, when Columbus arrived to America, he reclaimed the lands for the "Crown of Castile", but never to Spain (Spain didn´t exist). Thanks for your attention and apologies for my large explanation. Thanks.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In answer to the explanation that you provided on my talk page, I only note that most native English speakers know Spain as a geographic place name (the Iberian peninsula minus Portugal), not a specific (present or past) government, so I am not convinced by your argument. I think it should just be "Spain". If you want to add explanations of the national governments that ruled Spain in those days, that would be appropriate. I think that your changes need to be reverted. --Zeamays (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your message. I understand what you mean, but altough most native Speaker of English know it as "Spain", it doesn´t mean which it is right, for example: In Portugal, Spain or Brazil (etc..) native speakers think that England is the same that Great Britain or United Kingdom, and as you know they are concepts very diferents, and although those native speakers think it´s correct, it´s not correct nor it´s real. Could I say Glasgow is a English city? or Belfast is in the Great Britain? Obviously I could, but it would be wrong.

Going back to the text, who wrote "Spanish Monarchs" is completly wrong, why?, first because There didn´t exist a Kindgom called Spain, you can see it in all documents, the kingdom of Spain was created in 19th century, secondly because for example even the Catholic Monarchs never have the title: "Spanish kings or Kings of Spain", this is the real titulation:

"Don Fernando e doña Ysabel, por la graçia de Dios rey e reyna de Castilla, de Leon, de Kingdom of Aragon, de Seçilia, de Granada, de Toledo, de Valençia, de Galizia, de Mallorcas, de Sevilla, de Çerdeña, de Cordova, de Corçega, de Murçia, de Jahen, de los Algarves, de Algezira, de Gibraltar e de las yslas de Canaria, condes de Barçelona e señores de Vizcaya e de Molina, duques de Atenas e de Neopatria, condes de Ruysellon e de Çerdania, marqueses de Oristan e de Goçiano."

They are a lot of kingdoms, principalities, duchies, etc.., and they have only one link, they were ruled by a same kings, but it´s not Spain as you can see. Even when the Catholic monarchs married, the Iberian Peninsula existed: Kingdom of Portugal, Kingdom of Granada, Kingdom of Navarra, Crown of Castile and Crown of Aragon, they are independent and free kingdoms without link, I repeat "Spain" only was a concept to design sometimes the Iberian Peninsula and sometimes only middle of Iberian Peninsula, for example you can see it in the documents which are refers to kingdom of Galicia, for example: "Pont Ferrat, fin d’Espagne, commencement de Galice (Ponferrada, end of Spain and begining of Galicia).

Even after the conquest by Castile, "Indias" depended directly from the "Consejo Real de Castilla".

We can observe modern maps about 15th century: [9], [10], [11], [12].

If you need many arguments, please say me. thanks for your message. By the way, if you look.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nuniho, we don't need many arguments, we need correct arguments. I think you are still confusing the names of kingdoms (Castille) with placenames (like Spain). How can we compromise this without making the article unintelligible to people who do not know the detailed history of Spain? --Zeamays (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer Zeamays. I don´t understand really what´s the problem. Spain or Portugal or England are not geographical names, they are political (states) names, "Spain" was the name for Iberian Peninsula only during Roman Times. In 15th century, England was a kingdom, Portugal was a kingdom, but Spain didn´t exist still. If the problem is that the most native speakers of English don´t know what was "Crown of Castile" and it´s easier write "Spain" (altought it´s false), so we must change a lot of articles, so Hammurabi was Iraqui (not Babylonian), so Moctezuma I was Mexican (nor Aztec) or Charlemagne was French and not Frank. The problem is that Columbus never knew a country/kingdom called Spain, mainly because it didn´t still exist. It is not confusing, if people don´t know that is Crown of Castile they can click in the word, or if you prefer we can to say "Crown of Castile (a part of modern Spain)" in the first phrases of the article (but if we write only Spain, we are deceiving to the readers). It´s not a "detailed history of Spain", simply we must be rigurous and respect the history, we can invent history to make it easier, I´m sure we agree. I repeat, I don´t know what´s the problem. Best regards Zeamays.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nuninho Martins raises an important point of detail. It is a false comparison to equate the modern nations states of "Spain" - or "Portugal" - with the system of monarchies that existed in 15th. century Iberia. However, it also less informative to use the term "Crown of Castile" in the article as an alternative to actual geographical locations. For example, in section 2.3 it now states that Columbus left Lisbon and proceeded to "Galicia in the antique Crown of Castile". That is not informative, nor is it accurate. According to Columbus's own log - after he left Lisbon - he intended to sail to Seville. Two days later, in his log, Columbus stated that he had arrived at the bar of "Saltes" (Palos) at sunrise on 15th March 1493 and entered the harbour about midday - thus returning to the place from which he had sailed, on August 3rd. of the previous year. Rather than using "Crown of Castile" throughout the article, it might be better just to add a brief subsection explaining the relevant differences between the 15th.century Castilian monarchy and modern Spain. - signed Norloch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.232.146 (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Norloch, I understand your point of view for the section 2.3, and if you think it´s most rigurous change it I will agree with you. According to the differences between "Crown of Castile" and "Spain", two concepts are totally diferents, Spain as I said before, it didn´t exist, and "Indias" was a "conquest" for Castile, not for Spain.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nuninho - yes, we are in agreement on the general point, but the alteration you made in section 2.3 of the article still needs to be corrected. If you really do believe that Columbus sailed to "Galicia" after he left Lisbon (13th. March 1493) then you must also include evidence and an explanation for that, in the article. The evidence from the transcripts of Columbus's Diario shows that he returned to "Saltes" (in Andalusia) on March 15th. 1493. (reference - The Diario of Christopher Columbus, folio 67r, lines 15 to 21.)As far as I know, Columbus's Diario does not say anything about "Galicia". - regards, Norloch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.232.146 (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I though it was Bayona (modern Spain). I correct it now.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK - my thanks for the correction Nuninho. (It was actually Captain Martin Pinzon, not Columbus, who reached Galicia in March 1493 where he gave the first reports of their discoveries.) With regard to the general use of the term "Castile", I still believe that it would be better to describe the important differences between Castile and modern Spain in a short subsection within the main article, because your edits have made the article less clear. For example, the changes made in the section about the Second Voyage now appear to say that it was the "Castilians" who tortured and enslaved the native Taino people. It is true that people who sailed on the second voyage did massacre or enslave the Taino people - but were they all Castilians? To be accurate, you would have to prove that everyone who sailed on that second voyage was Castilian - or, alternatively, that it was only the Castilian voyagers who were brutal. In fact, the Castilian Crown did not approve of the brutality or the slavery. It was done without their authority. Regards Norloch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.232.146 (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer and your information. Yes, I agree completly with you that it´s very possible that not They all were Castilians (understanding this concept as Castilian people nor people from the Kingdom of Castile), but for this reason, I linked Castilian to "Crown of Castile". I mean, As you know Castile wasn´t only a kingdom but also a Crown, and really when I wrote "Castilian" it refers as "habitant of the Crown of Castile" (for it I linked to "Crown of Castile" and not to Castilian people nor people from the Kingdom of Castile, I understand that it is dificult and for this reason I think you´re right when you propose a short subsection, maybe near to the top of article?¿, with it, the reader will can understand better all this article, what´s your opinion?. Thanks.--Nuninho Martins (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that rather than a subsection, you should at first usage identify the antique kingdoms by their modern place names, "Castille in modern Spain" or "Palos in modern Spain". That would be shorter. You could also have a note at the top to refer to appropriate articles on Spanish history (See also: etc.). --Zeamays (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have indicated in his talk page [13] such changes of deleting Spanish are a fruit of WP:ORIGINAL and WP:SYNTHESIS, and they do not agree with the secondary sources, which use really the word Spanish. Trasamundo (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Trasamundo's points are well taken. I believe that Nuninho's edits should, in general be reverted to just "Spain", although explanations of the names of the antique kingdoms could be added in some places where no original research is required. --Zeamays (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Rethinking Columbus

Christopher columbus also known as Sahil patel was not the explorer of America he just came to a part of America but native americans were on the land first chris just came kinnaped them bring them back to Spain with him and said guys i found this land and he kept thoese people as slaves he started slavery he was a bad man rethink him before you celebrate christofer columbus day [Entry 04:01, 25 September 2009 by 66.41.235.179 (talk) (40,439 bytes)]

We all read things differently, but this I restored because I take it as a valid comment on the article, i.e. that it should "rethink" Columbus and the text should be more balanced with stronger criticism, especially as to the consequences of his life story. Even if we don't agree, we should allow such opinions to be expressed even in "forum style" and avoid ever looking like censors of them. Cordially SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess you can read that into the IP's edit, but I respectfully disagree. I do think that if you disagree with our guidelines you should try to change them at source rather than on a talk page. There's a header at the top that says "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.". Do you really disagree with that or have I misunderstood you? Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my apparently being unclear! I perceive the comment as being a matter of discussion regarding the article not the subject unrelated to the article. The article contains little ot no criticism of the subject. The life story of Columbus and its consequences are however quite controversial to many people. I think a reader might react to the article in this way and want to start a discussion about that - regarding the article - even if I concede that such intention was not perfectly clear here. My point was also that we might not want to remove anything that is not directly disruptive from talk pages, especially when such removal might be taken as censorship on a controversial topic. It seems there are a lot of much worse rule-breakers than this one, such as gross incivility and obvious article ownership, on talk pages all over WP that nobody would even think of removing. I hope my good intentions are obvious in this. Anyone know how to archive most of this page? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He started slavery? Please...

Remove link on stand

I'm not in 'autoconfirmed' group yet. But I guess the link on 'stand' disambiguation page in first paragraph of Early Life should be removed. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnivanov (talk • contribs) 08:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, but rather than removing the link I have made the appropriate addition to the disambig page. Thanks! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Started slavery in the Americas

My thought is that this is probably some Columbus Day vandalism. If this is true, someone ought to tell the guys editing Aztec slavery about it. Corbmobile (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly false. Slavery existed in the Americas well before Columbus' arrival. Some of the tribes Columbus first ran into were already practicing slavery, such as the Arawak. I believe that sentence, as well as the previous one about Columbus being personally responsible for the deaths of millions of Native Americans, is simply Columbus Day vandalism, as you suggested. Almost anything with a cite to Zinn's People's History is highly suspect, since Zinn is famous for his own lack of adequate citation. Tovish (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is opinion stated as fact?

It seems strange that Wickipedia would state as fact that "Columbus himself was responsible for the deaths of millions of Native Americans", which is only the opinion of those in references [2] and [3]. These references only talk about his journal but do not actually quote them. There are specific instances in his journals where Columbus states other motives for his voyage that these authors do not mention. Therefore this statement appears unfair and unbalanced. AboutColumbus (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus should be famous, but for the right reasons. He was brutal to the Native Americans, he did awful things, and we need to remember this. He took advantage of their "peace" and used it against them. But he was also a great navigator, how else would he have been able to find Central America? We need to remember the truth. Historians shouldn't cover up history and try to paint him as a heroic role model.

Hispañola and funding of voyage

I have just finished reading this article and I find 2 factual mistakes. First Colombus did not land in the Bahamas, he landed in Hispañola which is known to us as the island that has the countries Dominican Republic and Haiti. The other note I would Iike to add that Another form of funding for his first voyage was that Queen Isabella I sold some of the royal jewels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.95.132 (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Colombus wasn't Italian, from Genoa. His mother tongue was Galician-portuguesse

Recent studies confirm that he was from the Kingdom of Castilia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/6326698/Christopher-Columbus-writings-prove-he-was-Spanish-claims-study.html 92.3.149.145 (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC) That's actually not very accurate... at the time that Colombus was born the Galician-portuguese had already evoluted to Portuguese. But yes, their mother, his father, his brothers, they were all Portuguese born and they all spoke Portuguese and THAT is a PROVED HISTORICAL F A C T.

Disputed Origin of Columbus

If we are to be neutral, we should keep Genoa as the birthplace agreed by most historians during the 20th century, but at the same time state that this is disputed, in many cases by scholars that have no nationalistic purposes. It is not good to simply state he was surely from Genoa, and that all other theories are not valid. The Italian theory has also some inconsistencies. The best place to defend any theory is the page Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus. On top of that, during Columbus life neither Spain nor Italy existed as a nation, and therefore it is much better to use Castile , and Republic of Genoa or Liguria, as the death and birth places. --Jordiferrer (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Origin of Columbus

I think we all should be wary of the citation in this article supporting the claim that Columbus was born in Genoa and giving details on his early life. You'll notice that the citation is of the 1955 Britannica, which is hardly the most up to date resource around, and certainly plagued by the attitudes of the time. Dwharrington (talk)

You can find citations about Columbus being genoese in the vast majority of modern encyclopedias, not only in Britannica. And the number of sources reporting this theory is - quite frankly - ten, maybe one hundred times bigger than the number of sources reporting that he was portuguese, spanish, from Norway or maybe from Mars... In these pages of discussion, I've only read dozens of posts stating that he was Portuguese/Spanish/etc... and statements like "this is a proven fact" (maybe with the word "fact" in upper case, to show it better...) , but I never read anything about these magic "proofs" and neither about these "facts", and anyway nothing compared to the dozens of documents proving that he was born in the Republic of Genoa. Of course reporting alternative theories is good, but I think that wikipedia is the only encyclopedia in which this issue is so much debated. I see that now in the introduction of the article Columbus is no more considered "genoese", meaning that now his origin is "officially" considered unknown. Well, I think that trusting "alternative theories" so much just damages the reputation of wikipedia. And to be fair, this puts wikipedia on the same level of websites talking about alien abduction theories. 212.97.44.126 (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are many documents that indicate that Columbus was possibly from Genoa. But not all of them can be considered totally valid, because the heirs of Columbus did manipulate some documents, when they were fighting for the heritage. If you can read spanish, please see: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleitos_colombinos Would be nice if someone can translate this wiki page to english. Therefore I think we should keep Genoa as the birthplace agreed by most historians during the 20th century, but at the same time state that this is disputed . I think it is not nice to compare Professor Estelle Izizarry from Georgetown University with abduction theories. --Jordiferrer (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood my post. I didn't compare any professor's theory with abduction, and I didn't talk about any of the various alternative theories regarding the origin of Columbus. My statement was: "...trusting alternative theories so much...puts wikipedia on the same level of websites talking about alien abduction theories". I was just talking about the structure of the wikipedia entry, not about the validity of the theories about the origin of Columbus. If you have 100 sources stating that Columbus was genoese and 2-3 stating that he was portuguese/spanish/etc..., it's simply not fair to write that he "was" considered genoese "during the 20th century", just as if now his origin is considered unknown by academics. Listing every theory is good, putting them all on the same level simply doesn't reflect the reality. Anyway, everybody will "survive" even if the entry states that Columbus "was" considered genoese, I was just pointing out that now this entry looks like a U.N resolution to make everybody happy, no matter what the academic consensus (still) is. 212.97.44.126 (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The documents from the Genoese archives were found by historians in the 19th century. They are "of proven authenticity" and have nothing to do with the "pleitos colombinos." These documents are discussed in many books, including in Chapter II of Samuel Eliot Morison's "Admiral of the Ocean Sea." On page 14, Morison wrote:

Besides these documents from which we may glean facts about Christopher's early life, there are others which identify the Discoverer as the son of Domenico the wool weaver, beyond the possibility of doubt. For instance, Domenico had a brother Antonio, like him a respectable member of the lower middle class in Genoa. Antonio had three sons: Matteo, Amigeto and Giovanni, who was generally known as Giannetto (the Genoese equivalent of "Johnny"). Giannetto, like Christopher, gave up a humdrum occupation to follow the sea. In 1496 the three brothers met in a notary's office at Genoa and agreed that Johnny should go to Spain and seek out his first cousin "Don Cristoforo de Colombo, Admiral of the King of Spain," each contributing one third of the traveling expenses. This quest for a job was highly successful. The Admiral gave Johnny command of a caravel on the Third Voyage to America, and entrusted him with confidential matters as well.

Italus (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

COUNTERING THE "Ignorance" BIAS

I would ask that the people editing this article seriously consider revising the old idea that Columbus was an idiot lost in a small world and using wrong measurements. A good look at all his writings dispels that wrong bias and lets us see a man who was truly a genius of his time. It's about time we start waking up to the facts. You should reconsider adding this back into the article as it is factual evidence that can be found in the documents of the time> 1450, 1493 & 1502. (Wednesday 27 February 1493, ... He reckoned that he was a hundred and twenty-five leagues off Cape St. Vincent ... and a hundred and six from Santa María.) Do the math 125+106=231 leagues S. Vicente to Santa Maria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.244.149 (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"While Columbus's calculations underestimated the circumference of the Earth and the distance from the Canary Islands to Japan by the standards of his peers as well as in fact, Europeans generally assumed that the aquatic expanse between Europe and Asia was uninterrupted. However, Columbus in his Ship Log indeed correctly measured 231 leagues from Santa Maria in the Azores to Lisbon (about 6000 kilometers per league), and that this distance is the same that is given by Valentim Fernandes in his Book of Marco Paulo. Also, already in 1450, Prince Henry "the Navigator" gives this same amount of leagues in the donation of Terceira Island to Jacques de Bruges. It follows therefore that Columbus instead of being lost or wrong, hid what he knew to deceive the Spanish Monarchs and that the Globe created by Martin Behaim, an expert of King John II of Portugal and member of his Board of Mathematics was part of the same deception."

Also, he was Portuguese, so he should known those things since he learned everything in Sagres school.