Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

People

There is almost nothing in this article about the large amount of people who are against Columbus and celebrating the holiday. There should be a 'criticism' section. --Randomfrenchie 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry about posting this at the top of the page. Move it down if you want, but dont delete it.

Wrong Translation

In the first paragraph it incorrect to say: The name Christopher Columbus is a Latinization of the Spanish Don Cristobal Colón. It is correct only to say In the first paragraph it only correct to say: The name Christopher Columbus is a Latinization of the Italian Cristoforo Colombo

Colon (punctuation) would be Colonus NOT Columbus.

I entirely agree, and would say furthermore, why is this article closed including the commercially interested alterations of phenomenal historian Manuel Rosa, like this one? IT SHOULD REVERT QUICKLY TO THE VERSION PREVIOUS TO THE DISASTROUS CHANGES OF HIS INTERVENTIONS HERE. And then close the article again for good.

Funny History

WHO IS WRITINGS THIS RUBBISH? "In the early 1470s, he was in the service of René I of Anjou in a Genoese ship hired to support his unfortunate attempt to conquer the Kingdom of Naples. Later he allegedly made a trip to Chios, in the Aegean Sea. In May 1476, he took part in an armed convoy sent by Genoa to carry a valuable cargo to northern Europe. On August 13, 1476, the convoy was intercepted by Portuguese ships near the Genoa coast. Columbus was wounded in the battle that ensued, but managed to land at the small town of Lagos."

In Colombus time Lagos was not a town

This paragraph has NO basis whatsoever: Colon never sailed in a Genoese ship to help René D'Anjou where did you get this from? In 1476 Portuguese ships intercepted Colon's convoy near Genoa??? and he washed ashore in Lagos??? May I remind you that there is NO location knonw where Colon went a shore and that there is NO way a Portuguese fleet that woudl attack ships near Genoa 1000 miles away would leave Colon washing ashore in Portugal....216.15.127.229 00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

YOU HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT: This article says: "Although it is generally accepted that he was Italian.." When you navigate to Genoa it says there: "Christopher Columbus, a native of Genoa, donated...." Yankale 09:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

The claim in the first sentence of the introductory paragraph, which i inserted, needs to be supported by historical evidence. hernando colon, the admiral's own son, asserted in his father's biography that the correct latinization of the name Cristoval Colon would be Christoforum Colonus (or something like that). so..is that proof enough or do we need to revert to a previous version?GUi 17:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

False Last Will

This Last Will and Testament of 1498, which resides in the archives of Seville, is a copy of an original whose whereabouts is unknown. It contains many inconsistencies, such as being signed El Almirante, whereas in the notarized copy of the codicil of 1506, the public notary stated clearly that the will that he had inspected was signed Christo Ferens furthermore this Testament of 1498 has now been proven to be false in all aspects thus making the only document that connected the Admiral Colon to the wool weaver Colombo inadmissible as evidence. [1]

Furthermore DNA tests of 477 Colombos and Coloms in Italy and Spain have proven that the navigator Colon was not from those lineages. The current history of a Genoese wool weaver is a false history. [2]

Manuel Rosa on Eliot Morison

It seems Morison was not such a "superb historian" according to the book O Misterio Colombo Revelado, here are some things severely wrong with Morison's story translated by me into English since Rosa's book is only available in Portuguese:

Eliot Morrison: There is no mystery about the birth, family or race of Christopher Columbus. He was born in the ancient city of Genoa sometime between August 25 and the end of October 1451, the son and grandson of woolen weavers, (page 5).

Manuel Rosa: Not true. Colon’s true origin has always been a mystery. His own son, Hernando Colon, did not know (or would not tell us) where his father was born. Simply by saying there is no mystery Morison alludes to the actual mystery that there is. (page 152).

EM: Nobody in the Admiral’s lifetime, or for three centuries after, had any doubt about his birthplace, (page 6).

MR: Again Morison completely ignores the facts. There has always been doubt about Colon’s birthplace, and Isabel’s accountant calls him Portuguese in 1486. (page 152).

EM: The youngest brother, Giacomo (age 16) . . . there is record of his apprenticeship to a clothweaver in 1484, (page 9).

MR: Assumes the clothweaver apprentice Giacomo is the same as the noble brother Don Diego Colon. Does not explain how Giacomo, weaver apprentice in 1484, became Governor of Hispaniola in 1494, nor does it explain his noble title of Don or his ability to read and write. (page 152).

EM: Probably displayed the arms (blue bend on a gold field with red chief) which the Admiral afterwards quartered with the arms of Castile; members of trade gilds [spelling?] in the Italian cities often used just such a simple coat as this, (page 9).

MR: Assumes this was the coat of arms of the guild of weavers in Genoa with no proof. Assumes a person could claim as his coat of arms the coat of arms of a guild. Assumes Queen Isabel allowed him into the exclusive “Nobility Class” without an investigation. Worst of all assumes that Colon modified his own coat of arms, usurping a right that belonged to the kings. (page 152). [even wrongly implies a simple coat of arms is worth less than an elaborate one]

EM: The old man, through with weaving, and living on remittances from his sons in Portugal . . . So “Domenico Colombo son of Giovanni, citizen of Genoa, formerly clothweaver,” leased the garden and most of the house to a shoemaker in 1483 . . . years later, Domenico’s creditors put pressure on him to sell the house, (page 11).

MR: Wrongly assumes Domenico Colombo was getting money from the noble Colon brothers in Portugal, a statement without any factual basis. Also, Giacomo was yet one year away from starting his apprenticeship (see quote above) but the father was all done with weaving and leased the house even though we have to assume the son, age 15, was still living with him! (page 152).

EM: A poor boy of Genoa would not have known Italian, unless he had learned it at school. Christopher undoubtedly left home almost if not completely illiterate, and when he finally learned to read and write used the Castilian language, page 13. Christopher’s Latin, which shows that it was learned after Spanish, (page 12).

MR: Assumes he learned to read and write Castilian and Latin instead of Portuguese while married and living in Portugal. Assumes a completely illiterate and penniless 26 year-old Colombo washed ashore would put his efforts into learning Latin and Castilian, languages used by Portuguese avant-garde nobles, and not needed to thrive in Portugal as a sailor as if he knew that in eight years he would be moving to Spain. (page 152).

EM: The one impossible circumstance is Columbus’s claim to have been the Captain. No young fellow of about twenty who had been carding and weaving wool most of his life would so quickly have risen to command, (page 18).

MR: True, no wool weaver could suddenly be a captain thus Morison dismisses Colon’s statement that he Captained a ship for King Rene d’Anjou. He incorrectly assumes the post was earned by the age of the person as opposed to his class status. Fernando of Aragon, thirteen years of age, was placed by his father at the head of an army that gained a victory over Pedro Constable of Portugal. (page 153).

EM: We may assume that Christopher and Felipa were married in the latter part of 1479, after he returned from Madeira and Genoa, and in the chapel where they first met, (page 34).

MR: Obviously Morison admits this is his assumption, but he further assumes that a marriage between a completely illiterate and penniless peasant and a foreigner to boot with a noble and educated woman could happen in those medieval times in any of the kingdoms of Europe. (page 153).
Historian Manuel Rosa appears to be much more impartial than Morison and makes one think what is true doesn't it?Colombo-o-novo 00:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus Article

My students and I printed the Christopher Columbus article. There was profanity in the article. I don't think I will recommend this encyclopedia to any other students. Has this happened to anyone else?

This is one of our most commonly vandalized articles. Generally, there are several of us keeping an eye on articles like this, and vandalism is usually reverted within a minute, but, due to the open editing allowed here, it's always possible you could arrive just after a vandal has struck and before it's been repaired. It's a problem with an open encyclopedia, and people with nothing better to do. Fan-1967 20:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to print Wikipedia articles for use in lectures and classes, you might want to use the "history" tab, to check for recent vandalism, and print the most recent page that is okay. Shinobu 16:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

i need to know when did he born and when did he died.

It's right in the first line of the article. Fan-1967 15:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fan-1976 makes an important point. If you (any teacher or student who wants to use Wikipedia) go to Wikipedia:About you will find,

Because Wikipedia is an ongoing work to which in principle anybody can contribute, it differs from a paper-based reference source in some very important ways. In particular, older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles may still contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this in order to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation which has been recently added and not yet removed. (See Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia for more details). However, unlike a paper reference source, Wikipedia is completely up-to-date, with articles on topical events being created or updated within minutes or hours, rather than months or years for printed encyclopedias.

If you have not done so, we invite you to take a few moments to read What Wikipedia is (and is not) and Researching with Wikipedia, so that you have an understanding of how to use, rely upon or contribute to Wikipedia as you continue. Further information on key topics can be found below.

No one should use Wikipedia without understanding these points. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is excellent for getting good info fast about non-controversial subjects difficult to find elsewhere. Columbus is an emotionally charged figure (especially for people who claim he's a big nobody and then spend their lives writing about how unimportant he is), but I can't add anything and tell my publisher that my work has never appeared in any other form. I am an old-fashioned dates and context historian and I will attempt to add resourced facts and do a balanced edit once my one-time rights are returned. This is a topic kids are going to look up all the time, and controversial subjects are probably the weakest aspect of an open encyclopedia. I know that the Wiki "management" has closed some pages to further editing, and at some point in the future, CC would be a good candidate for that!

Fan-1967: Columbus died on May 20th, 1506, making this the quincentenary of his death. Almost nothing is known about Columbus's early life. He, like Queen Isabela, was born in 1451 (still in what we call the Middle Ages), perhaps on St. Christopher's feast day? He doesn't enter history -- by which people mean the earliest date at which his name appears in primary sources such that there's no controversy about whether the name is question belongs to the subject in question -- in 1476, swimming out of the ocean following an international naval engagement. (Columbus-haters are driven nuts by such entertainingly myth-like aspects of his life.) His own son writes, "Two things which are important to know about every famous man are his birthplace and family ... [but my father], imitating Our Lord himself ... chose to leave in obscurity all that related to his birthplace and family." - First page of Chapter 1, "The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus by His Son Ferdinand," Rutgers University Press (Benjamin Keen, translator), 1992. (Notice that his son opens by comparing him to Jesus Christ! What does this tell us about Columbus's relationship with his "natural" son? I hope my kids remember me that way.) YankeeInCA 21:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out why that was directed to me. No, the "when did he born" question was from an anon. My only edits to this article have been vandalism reversions. (I read the Morrison book in school 30 years ago. That's about what I know on the subject.) Fan-1967 21:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE NACIONALITY OF Christopher Columbus?

Christopher Columbus born in Portugal;Alentejo;Cuba and is real name is Salvador Fernandes Zarco. The truth is that. Visit the pag http://www.dightonrock.com/colombo_era_100.htm is write in portuguese but if you look the pag in google you can translated. Portugal is the home of this Great Cristhopher Columbus (Salvador Fernandes Zarco). Spain and Italy are false.

The superb American historian Samuel Eliot Morison, who had absolutely no reason to be anything but completely objective, wrote the following in Chapter II of his book Admiral of the Ocean Sea, pp.7-8.

“ There is no mystery about the birth, family or race of Christopher Columbus. ... There is no more reason to doubt that Christopher Columbus was a Genoese-born Catholic Christian, steadfast in his faith and proud of his native city, than to doubt that George Washington was a Virginia-born Anglican of English race, proud of being an American.

Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese. Three contemporary Genoese chroniclers [and Giustiniani] claim him as a compatriot. Every early map on which his nationality is recorded describes him as Genoese. Nobody in the Admiral’s lifetime, or for three centuries after, had any doubt about his birthplace.

If, however, you suppose that these facts would settle the matter, you fortunately know little of the so-called "literature" on the "Columbus Question." By presenting farfetched hypotheses and sly innuendos as facts, by attacking documents of proven authenticity as false, by fabricating others (such as the famous Pontevedra documents), and drawing unwarranted deductions from things that Columbus said or did, he has been presented as Castilian, Catalan, Corsican, Majorcan, Portuguese, French, German, English, Greek, and Armenian. User: Italus 28 October 2006

”

tomb in Seville photo

... removed duplicate (after certain hesitation between taking one out vs. putting a third one, encore :) ) -- please revert if there was in fact a good reason for having two exactly same photos of Columbus's tomb in this article. - Introvert • ~ 07:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese blockade?

The present article says

In 1507, the region was blockaded by the Portuguese in an effort to discourage trade along the old route and encourage trade around Africa. The Portuguese also promoted the establishment of trading posts and later colonies along the African coast. Columbus had a different idea. By the 1480s, he had developed a plan to travel to the Indies (then construed roughly as all of south and east Asia) by sailing directly west across the "Ocean Sea" (the Atlantic).

• What has an event in 1507 got to do with any impetus for the voyages of Columbus? There is no mention at all of the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. Has history changed that much? Does it run backwards now too?
• The Portuguese Empire article does not mention such a blockade - and its empires's extent would not affect the OVERLAND route from, say, Italy
• --JimWae 00:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I hear that Christopher Columbus is actually buried in the Dominican Republic and the body in the Cathedral de Sevilla is actually Christopher Columbus' son. Anybody else hear that?

Columbus' portrait caption

Hello. I do not understand what "a non-authenticated [portrait]" means, in the caption of the first image of the article. I wanted to remove it, but if someone introduced it, maybe it means something.--Panarjedde 13:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is non-authenticated because there is no proof that it is the authentic face of CC. Many erroneous faces have been painted over the years and none that we know of while he was alive. The picture in the article is the closest to an authentication that we have since it is the only portrait commissioned by the state of Spain and painted by an artitst that was alive and working during CC's last years. Colombo.bz 00:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

How many portraits and statues share the "non-authenticated" status? Who should authenticate a Julius Caesar's bust, or Christopher Columbus' portrait?--Panarjedde 13:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "non-authenticated" means, in a word, "imaginary." BUT - about 100 years ago a portrait by Lorenzo Lotto of a very young Columbus was discovered, and its authenticity as a painting by Lotto was confirmed by a Lotto expert in 1956. It was painted only six years after the subject's death, and it adheres to all the contemporary descriptions of Columbus, who had a startling countenance by all accounts, not to mention the high color of a redhead. The best painting to come from the Lotto portrait is "Departure of Columbus from the Port of Palos" by Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida, hanging in The Mariner's Museum in Newport News, Virginia. It's so brilliantly painted and so alive you would almost recognize who it was from the many descriptions - especially the famously "intense" eyes. You've probably seen it. I will upload it as soon as I work up the patience to figure out how to do it! (Maybe it's there now. I haven't looked lately! It's on the cover of "The Worlds of Christopher Columbus" by Phillips and Phillips if you go over to Amazon. It won first place by a landslide in 1992 for most probable likeness in a worldwide survey of historians.)YankeeInCA 08:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Murderer Sources

Since I was asked to provide sources as to whether or not Columbus was a mass murderer, here they are.

[3][4][5][6][7]

If you need anymore I shall find them.--CyberGhostface 18:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Up until now, only Zinn contribution has any kind of meaning. The other sources simply state that he is considered the symbol of the European colonization, with all its consequences.--Panarjedde 19:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. If we want to include him in that category, you'll need to justify the term "murderer" -- and then include every single leading colonist and conquistador, everywhere. Which is probably fair, but singling out Columbus doesn't make much sense. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can find any other colonist who has done the same level of atrocities that Colombus has committed, then by all means, go ahead. I'm not doubting there are. But just because the other articles are ignorant doesn't mean this one should be.--CyberGhostface 19:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I told you that the articles you provided are not stating what you want them to say. Are you going to get upset and go away, or are you going to answer to this point? In general, adding an article to a category would require some kind of presentation of the matter of the category in the article itself.--Panarjedde 19:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, I didn't see your reply and was replying to jpgordon's. Regarding your statement: So is the Zinn one good enough for the article then if the others aren't?--CyberGhostface 19:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Zinn is a very controversial writer. He wrote a history book he felt necessary to call "A People's" History of the US. This does not mean that Columbus is widely and uncontroversionally considered a mass murderer. Write a NPOV section about the matter, if you feel, and let's consider its inclusion in the article.--Panarjedde 20:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mass murder was the way of the world then as it is now in Iraq, Somalia, etc. Alexander the Great was a mass muderer, the Turks who occupy Turkey were Mass murderes, the English who fought in the battle of Concord were mass murderes and so were George Washington's, General Lee's and Grant's armies. We canot judge a conquerer of medieval times by the terms of today's society. Yes CC killed natives while trying to establish his new colony not because he went there to kill natives but because the natives were not too interested in having some foreigners take over their land (rightuflly so). BUT it is a misguided view to say that CC was the mass murderer. CC ruled Haiti for a mere 6 years. If you want to hear about mass murder read about his followers Bobadilla and especially Ovando who herded the natives into their homes and set them afire in the name of the crown and conquest. You canot judge the past by today's standards. You can't convict the white lady who sat in the front fo the bus in say 1930 while the black lady had to walk all the way to the back. It was the law of the land and believed by them to be right, even if today we see it was wrong. If you want to mention killing say that ti was done as conquest not in as murder. But it is a slippery slope, you will have to include all others who did the same to the natives including Custard, Daniel Boone, all the way back to the Pilgrims. Colombo.bz 10:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether CC was or not a mass murderer depends on one's political/social stripping. That does not mean one is wrong or right, but biased. It is possible to write an article and discuss Columbus' actions and let anyone decide if that makes him a mass murderer. Just list what Stalin did, and one can conclude the same. "Mass murderer" is loaded and leads the issues. An encyclopedia's role is not to do that (NPOV). Also, I am sick and tired of "don't judge them by today's standards". That is BS. Even back then, contemporary writers and observers wrote that what was happening was bad. And of course, CC would not have done what he did to "his kind". Those killed were stripped of their humanity and that has been the basis of all such action son others. So do not defend them. They knew better, they just did not DO better.Gary Joseph 17:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea: Try "the proof is in the pudding." There are 70,000,000 Indians in Spanish America - by the strictest standards (genetics, language and lifeways). Anglo-America, Portuguese-America and the rest can't hold a candle to this miracle. (Bolivia has an Indian president now.) Human rights itself was the brainchild of Friar Bartolomé de Las Casas, who knew Columbus personally, deplored his sins (crimes for which Columbus was punished in his own lifetime) but loved and deeply admired him as a human being. That's not a bad character reference, especially for someone 7,500 miles off-course, ill, and driven mad by the need to pay for his voyages.YankeeInCA 09:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cause of death?

It's not listed in the article. RobertM525 06:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The widely accepted theory is that Columbus contracted Reiter's Syndrome on Voyage II, a food-borne bacterium that most of the settlers recovered from, but which can go on to cause arthritis, eye disease, painful urination and other problems in susceptible people, who are usually of Celtic ancestry. (CC was a redhead.) Nowadays he would be cured with antibiotics, of course, but at the time he was in chronic pain during all his remaining voyages. He died at home in bed (against all odds to say the least), but my guess would be that some secondary infection like pneumonia carried him off. He was 55. Isabela, his exact contemporary, had died of cancer (with a visible tumor) two years previously. His last houseguest was his best friend Amerigo Vespucci, who was back from what would be called South America. Columbus certainly knew from him, if he didn't know already, that there was another ocean to cross...

A sad end to an obscure, forgotten merchant seafarer...YankeeInCA 10:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

He died not at 55 years of age. Years before that he was already called an ancient, and received special privileges just because of his age. He was about 90 years old when he died. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.83.48.81 (talk • contribs) .

Do you have a source for that claim? Eron 14:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone can cite any of this, it should be added to the article. RobertM525 18:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a bad article

I think "B" class is a bit generous, and this i snot to deride the hardwork that went into it. Also a historical perspective is needed here as a start. For example, Columbus cannot be Italian since Italy did not exist at the time. Generally a picture of the world, at his time would be needed. But since this article is of a controversial subject, I will not even attemot to edit it.Gary Joseph 17:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Columbus cannot be Italian since Italy did not exist at the time", I agree, and it is also impossible that he "discovered America", as no America existed at the time. (Run Gary, run!)--Panarjedde 20:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Italy didn't exist at the time? It's existed since Roman times. The snare 04:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Italy as a state did not exist. Several states and city-states dominated what is now Italy. --BBird 22:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We have philosophers in our midst... But yes, I agree. The article is so atrocious it gives Wikipedia a bad name. It's sad because kids are more likely to look this up than any other topic. Good writers are scared away by the passion CC arouses. You feel like you might be disparaging someone's religion, and it's not worth the effort to write something decent and balanced. Can the HONCHOS direct people to other sites at the top of the page?YankeeInCA 09:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Badly-written addendum

There’s some stuff at the end there that needs to be integrated into the article (if it needs to be included at all). The text I removed was the final section, “The Real Story”:

While Columbus was believed to be a Hero around the world.The first people who actually discover America were the Vikings, but all they wanted to do was settle a new land and they became extinct over time. Before, While and After discovering the Americas Columbus killed many people. Columbus's main goal was to become wealthy and bring wealth to Spain. Columbus that when he conquered small islands in order to get rich. Columbus believed that there was gold in Haiti. While trying to find it he wiped out all the Arawaks on the island. This was a great genocide. Once he ran out of slaves in the West Indies he went to Africa to get slaves to help him find gold. He created Racism and Slavery. Go to http://www.homeworkhero.com/cgi-bin/aahero03/acceptit20/display.cgi?kaiyal+fl_nova02 and click on Columbus and the Age of Exploration: Dr. K's real notes.... I would like to give all the credit to a wonderful teacher Dr. Kaiyal

As you can see, the grammar is atrocious, and it’s not even close to following conventions for Wikipedia (e.g. citing references, integrating content into appropriately labelled sections). If anyone wants to integrate it, go ahead, but it looks a little bit … rabid … to me. --Joshua 23:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to do a decent job, but he's gone from being "first and last begotten hero of the sea" to Asshole of the Universe, and anything I'd write would be stripped bare or vandalized, and like most people I have better things to do than babysit this sorry site. :-(

Picture gone missing?

I took the following out of the article, but I thought there was supposed to be a pic of the explorer.

{{Infobox_band
| band_name         = Christopher Columbus
[[Image:Jae Millz.jpg|250px]] 
| caption           = Spanish Rapper Christopher Columbus
| image             = | years_active      = [[1451]]- [[1506]]
| origin            = [[Spain]]
| music_genre       = [[Hip hop music|Rap/Hip hop]]
| record_label      = Wanna Blow Ent. / [[Universal Music Group|Universal]] 
| website           = http://www.christophercolumbus.com/
})

Ortolan88 00:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It was just vandalism – Gurch 01:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but apparently the original picture is gone as well.--CyberGhostface 01:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

At one point it was gone, yes, but it's been restored. I've temporarily semi-protected the page, so it should be safe from this sort of edit for a while – Gurch 01:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Im moving some large quotes off the page for now due to the acward placement they should go back in later

He wrote of the Indians:

“ …we might form great friendship, for I knew that they were a people who could be more easily freed and converted to our holy faith by love than by force, gave to some of them red caps, and glass beads to put round their necks, and many other things of little value, which gave them great pleasure, and made them so much our friends that it was a marvel to see. They afterwards came to the ship’s boats where we were, swimming and bringing us parrots, cotton threads in skeins, darts, and many other things; and we exchanged them for other things that we gave them, such as glass beads and small bells. In fine, they took all, and gave what they had with good will. It appeared to me to be a race of people very poor in everything.…They are very well made, with very handsome bodies, and very good countenances [features]. They neither carry nor know anything of arms, for I showed them swords and they took them by the blade and cut themselves through ignorance. They have no iron…I saw some with marks of wounds on their bodies, and I made signs to ask what it was, and they gave me to understand that people from other adjacent islands came with the intention of seizing them, and that they defended themselves. I believe, and still believe, that they come here from the mainland to take them prisoners. They should be good servants and intelligent, for I observe that they quickly took in what was said to them, and I believe that they would easily become Christians, as it appeared to me that they had no religion. ” — Christopher Columbus, Journal of His First Voyage, Markham, pp. 37-38

“ Your Highnesses, as Catholic Christians and Princes who love the holy Christian faith, and the propagation of it, and who are enemies of the sect of Mahoma and to all idolatries and heresies, resolved to send me, Cristobal Colon, to the said parts of India to see the said princes, and the cities and lands, and their disposition, with a view that they might be converted to our holy faith; and ordered that I should not go by land to the eastward, as had been customary, but that I should go by way of the west, wither up to this day, we do not know for certain that any one has gone. ” — Christopher Columbus, Journal of His First Voyage, Markham, p.16

and he wrote this too,

“ I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of Their Highnesses. We shall take you, and your wives, and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command. And we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their Lord and resist and contradict Him. And we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their Highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us. ”

the requiremento, or Spanish Requirement that was read aloud (in Spanish) by Christopher Columbus and other conquistadors whenever they encountered another native community (formalized into law in 1513) The snare 05:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Requirement wasn't WRITTEN until 1513, by Palacios Rubios at Ferdinand's request -- seven years after CC's death. It had medieval precedents, but CC's "Mission Accomplished Statement" was nothing like it. Sorry to disappoint.YankeeInCA 09:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I found this commented out

Not verifiable; original research; conspiracy theory: does not belong in Wikipedia

Portugal and its controversy

There is also a radical conspiracy theory that Columbus was a Portuguese double agent helping to force Spain into a new treaty. Spain had never been an exploring nation prior to 1492 and never had its eyes set on India, but Portugal had sought this sea route secretly for 60 years. Portugal feared that once it opened the seaway to India, Spain would be right behind them. This was the case with all of the Western Africa discoveries made by Portugal from 1434 until 1484 (Ivory Coast, Gold Coast, Slave Trade, etc.) places where Spain continuously sailed to raid and trade. Portugal and Columbus, theoretically, knew about the Americas before the rest of Europe did because of the secret voyages done by its Templar Order of Christ headed by Henry the Navigator). Columbus's job would have been to sail to the Americas and convince Spain that it was the famous India thus giving Isabel a reason to want to sign a new treaty with Portugal. Isabel believed the Treaty of Tordesillas prohibited Portugal from entering into India. However, Spain was fooled by Columbus and the real India was thus saved for Portugal.

Columbus was the only expert Spain had to rely on as far as information of the New World and Columbus's lies only benefited Portugal. Not only was Portugal in a better position to negotiate because of their secret knowledge of the Atlantic Ocean but the treaty would never have been done if it wasn't for the king of Portugal. King John II not only crafted this treaty he was the only one who requested it. Had John II simply played dead after the first voyage there would be no Treaty of Tordesillas. [8] Portugal knew well what it was doing. Portugal and its agent Columbus both knew that he had never sailed in the direction of India. Portugal and Columbus both knew that Portuguese ships captained by Bartolomeu Dias had already visited the Indian Ocean in 1487. Furthermore a Poruguese spy Pêro da Covilhã had already been to India sailing on Arab ships and done a secret map of that sea route. {reference Conde de Ficalho} Columbus stopped in Lisbon March 4, 1493 and met with the King of Portugal thus giving him all the information on those new lands before Queen Isabel and King Fernando even knew that he had returned safely to the Old World. This theory is not accepted by mainstream historians.

////Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not original research. These are commonly known facts: 1/Spain had never before CC sponsored a voyage of discovery Portugal yes. 2/ Henry the Navigator was Grandmaster of the Templar Knights (being the new Order of Christ). 3/ Isabel tried to kill the king of Portugal 1483-1484 to gain access to the African Trade routes. 4/ CC knew abut the secret rounding of the Cape of Good Hope in Dec 1488 yet still insisted on taking Spain far away from the real India. 5/ King John II's letter of march 1488 calls CC our special friend in Seville. There is no other letter from the king with this designation to anyone. 6/ CC gave his news of the "discovery" not to Spain but the the same King of Portugal. 7/ The Treaty ot Tordesillas was completly a Portuguese idea it ws never done by the Pope nor by the Kings of Spain it was a contract written and planned by Portugal. This is NOT original reseach read your history. Colombo.bz 13:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth to this discussion, User:Colombo.bz's user page is solely a link to his website to sell his book entitled: "UNMASKING COLUMBUS: Lies, Spies, Cover-Up and Conspiracy". JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 16:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I found some more commented out text

Columbus' name in various languages

• Greek - Χριστόφορος Κολόμβος
• Latin - Christophorus Columbus
• Catalan - Cristòfor Colom
• Italian - Cristoforo Colombo
• Icelandic - Kristófer Kólumbus
• French - Christophe Colomb
• Spanish - Cristóbal Colón
• Belarusian - Хрыстафор Калюмб
• Bosnian - Kristofer Kolumbo
• Croatian - Kristofer Kolumbo
• Arabic - كريستوفر كولومبوس
• Czech - Kryštof Kolumbus
• Danish - Christoffer Columbus
• Dutch - Christoffel Columbus
• English - Christopher Columbus
• Esperanto - Kristoforo Kolumbo
• Estonian - Christoph Kolumbus
• Finnish - Kristoffer Kolumbus
• Galician - Cristovo Colón
• German - Christoph Kolumbus
• Georgian - ქრისტეფორე კოლუმბი

• Armenian - Քրիստոֆոր Կոլումբոս
• Bulgarian - Христофор Колумб
• Hebrew - כריסטופר קולומבוס
• Hungarian - Kolumbusz (or sometimes Kolombusz) Kristóf
• Ido - Cristoforo Colombo
• Norwegian - Christopher Columbus
• Polish - Krzysztof Kolumb
• Portuguese - Cristóvão Colombo
• Romanian - Cristofor Columb
• Russian - Христофор Колумб
• Serbian - Kristofer Kolumbo
• Slovenian - Krištof Kolumb
• Swedish - Christofer Columbus
• Persian - كريستوف كولومب
• Turkish - Kristof Kolomb
• Latvian - Kristofers Kolumbs
• Lithuanian - Kristupas Kolumbas
• Chinese - 哥伦布

//// Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this was just taken from the interwiki links. (So the information is essentially still in the article, if you know where to look) – Gurch 02:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese version in te beginning of the article is wrongly spelled. It says "Cristóvão Colon" there, but should read "Cristóvão Colombo"

WHAT IS THE NACIONALITY OF Christopher Columbus?

Christopher Columbus born in Portugal;Alentejo;Cuba and is real name is Salvador Fernandes Zarco. The truth is that. Visit the pag http://www.dightonrock.com/colombo_era_100.htm is write in portuguese but if you look the pag in google you can translated. Portugal is the home of this Great Cristhopher Columbus (Salvador Fernandes Zarco). Spain and Italy are false.

Article split

Two rather large sections of this article have now been split off into articles of their own – Voyages of Christopher Columbus and Origin theories of Christopher Columbus – Gurch 04:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible references

Eagle 101 has found these links, which may be useful as references in the article – Gurch 15:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ulloa, S. Alfonso (1571). "Historie del S. D. Fernando Colombo" (XHTML 1.0). Retrieved 2006-10-11.

• Markham, Clements R (1893). "The Journal of Christopher Columbus (during His First Voyage, 1492-93)" (HTML 4.01). Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Retrieved 2006-10-11. we already have this in the refs section, it has been {{cite book -ed.

• Patrick, John J. (1992). ""Teaching about the Voyages of Columbus"" (html 4.0). ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies. Retrieved 2006-10-11.

• Urvoy, Jean-Michel (2004) "Où est enterré Christophe Colomb?" l'Histoire 2 (April): 20-21. (Trans. "A chain to solve the mystery about Christopher Columbus’s remains")

Nationality of Columbus

It is rather misleading to refer to Columbus as Italian, when the country of Italy did not exist at that time; and would not for almost four hundred years. Thus, refering to Columbus as "Italian" is anachronistic. It might be better to refer to him as a Genoan or Genoese from where he was reputedly born, or Sicilian since he spent part of his life there. It must be pointed out, however, that the theory that Columbus was actually Catalonian is making a comeback in academic circles, and with better proof to back it up...

Miguel José Ernst y Sandoval Moya

If you can provide references which explain this, or if you fixed it yourself, we might not only incorporate the changes... you might even get a barnstar out of it! *dangles barnstar* You want one, don't you? :D ~Kylu (u|t) 23:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because Italy wasn't a coherent nation until the mid 19th century...? This is general knowledge to any Italian. Up until that point, Italy was a collection of independent city-states. Jachra 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus was portuguese, born at Porto Santo, in Madeira. It is known he lived their several years (his house now is a museum) and that i married with Filipa de Moniz daughter of Isabel Moniz and Bartolomeu Perestrelo, first donatary captain of Porto Santo both very portuguese. It's a fact the son of Columbus is also portuguese, born at Lisboa or Porto Santo. Colombus learned the art of sailing and has done some nautic studies in Porto Santo. I'ts also a fact that Columbus presented his plans first to John II, king of Portugal, in 1485. It was not one request, Columbus insisted with John II. Just after the John II refuse Columbus he went to Ferdinand II, king of Spain. Why he doesn't went to ask for an audience to Ferdinand II first if he were spanish and not portuguese? doesn't make sense. No one can say exactly were he was born but the truth is that there are more evidence (and this ones are just some small facts) that he lived and born in Portugal and not Spain or Genoa. My request is to change the local of birth to:

Born c. 1450

Genoa ? Portugal ? Spain ?

or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by - - - (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but all this information is pointless unless you can cite it to some reliable sources. Until then, keep discussion here and please do not add this information to the article. JoeSmack ^Talk 07:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no reliable infomation or source that Colombus was born in Genoa. http://www.cm-cuba.pt/detalhenoticia.aspx?Cod=40 Recently, in 2006, the reseachers found that Colombus was born in Cuba, Alentejo, Portugal. Son of D. Fernando, Duke of Beja and D. Isabel Gonçalves Zarco. The source of this information is the portuguese authorities . Please contact Câmara municipal of Cuba for future information if you don't belive it's true. There are other sources. After many years of investigation it's a FACT that Colombus was Portuguese.

Contemporary Understanding of Columbus

A section needs to be added with the above -- or a similar -- title. This is an important piece of who Columbus is in 2006, and is not only of national, but international importance. Some consensus needs to be created about the morality of Columbus' actions, a summarizing of any atrocities he committed, and the value of his discovery of the Americas. We (wikipedians) also ought to include a comprehensive mention of the quincentennial celebrations of Columbus ('92) and how many Native Americans virulently opposed those celebrations. Can I get any help on this, or how can we start this proccess of adding this section? Matthew 18:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the extemely long quote by Ward Churchill in the Modern Day section of the article needs to be shortened or summarized in paragraph non-quotation form. I also think the opposition movement to Columbus should have clear recognition in the article. To a reader that just skims through the article, it is not clear that there is any serious major opposition to Christopher Columbus, but there is. A few weeks ago, I added the following sub-section under 'Perceptions'. What I wrote was titled 'Critism' and was relatively short. This is the exact text:

"Many people criticise Christopher Columbus and the claim that he "discovered" America. Critics argue that a new world was not discovered, because there were already native people living on the land. They also cite the fact that Columbus was a slave-trader before making his famous voyage. When he arrived in the Americas, he treated the natives as less than human. He has been labeled an imperialist and a racist.

In 2003, Venezluan President Hugo Chavez urged Latin Americans to not celebrate the Columbus Day holiday. Chavez blamed Columbus for leading the way in the mass genocide of the Native Americans.

Others claim that Columbus should not be receiving praise for finding the Americas because Vikings and Leif Erikson landed in Canada prior to Columbus's voyage."

After a few days, this section was removed. I believe it should be reinstated or that it should be clear to the reader that there is opposition to Columbus. I do not think that what I wrote above was biased. Please share with me your thoughts. Randomfrenchie 23:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems clean to me. Nothing there is opinion, it's all just reporting what has occured. Jachra 00:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to reinstate this piece of information-- if not right now, probably tomorrow. Matthew 01:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

People give Columbus so much overwhelming power - viruses, global warming, cultural genocide... they turn him into a god. That explains the obsession, too. No wonder Lord Hurakán showed him so much respect! YankeeInCA 09:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Christopher Columbus

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationality

WHAT IS THE NACIONALITY OF Christopher Columbus?

Christopher Columbus born in Portugal;Alentejo;Cuba and is real name is Salvador Fernandes Zarco. http://www.cm-cuba.pt/detalhenoticia.aspx?Cod=40 The truth is that. Visit the pag http://www.dightonrock.com/colombo_era_100.htm is write in portuguese but if you look the pag in google you can translated. Portugal is the home of this Great Cristhopher Columbus (Salvador Fernandes Zarco). Spain and Italy are false.

See Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. The most widely accepted origin theory is that he came from Genoa, Italy. Most of the surviving records from his lifetime, including legal documents, indicate that he was from either the city of Genoa or its surrounding region. Other interpretations such as the Portugese one also exist, although anyone today would need a time machine to pronounce any as absolutely true. Durova 19:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Durova, can you tell me please what 'legal documents' you have seen that confirm CC was from Genoa or its surroundings?Colombo.bz 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If Columbus left Genoa at the age of 24 why he never could write or talk in itallian? Why he never proposed to Genoa the trip to India? why in the XVI maps appears more then 40 portuguese names and NONE italian or spanish name? I really want to see the those documments, it's now a proved fact with the new investigations in 2006 that Colombus was born in Cuba, Portugal. The mos widely accepted theory it's just a THEORY, not a fact and it's false, just because people accept the theory it doesn't make it true. Sources: Amler, Jane Fances Christopher Columbus Jewish Roots Jason Aronson Inc., Northvale, New Jersey Barreto Mascarenhas 1992 - The Portuguese Columbus, Secret agent of King John II. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Da Silva , Manuel Luciano 1971 - The Portuguese Pilgrims and Dighton Rock, Nelson Martins, Editor. Published by the Author: Bristol, RI. Da Silva , Manuel Luciano - Columbus wasn’t Columbus, Massachusetts Academy Magazine, Fall/Winter 1989-1990, Vol. III, No. 3, pp. 3-10. Harrisse, Henry - The Discovery of North America. Amsterdam: N. Israel Publishing Dept. Reprint 1969 De Mello, Alfredo El Verdadero Colón, Montevideo, Uruguay. Author's Edition Thacher, John Boyd 1967 - Christopher Columbus: His Life, His Work, His Remains, 3 Vols. New York: AMA Press Inc. Wiesenthal, Simon 1973 - Sails of Hope - The Secret Mission of Christopher Columbus. New York: Macmillam.

Columbus was Catalan, not portuguese. Get it right. Norum

There are no evidence that Columbus was from Genoa or Spain, altought the theory that he was portuguese is now a proved FACT and it's easy to demonstrate if you read the latest investigations.

No mention of him looking for India?

Before he found AMerica, he was going to India. And I dont think this article metions that.....It said Indian ocean....but come on.....it should also say India.....I mean when he came to America, he thought he was in India, and named the people Indians.....What more proof do u people need? ARYAN818 07:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't specifically looking for India; he was looking for Asia, as is mentioned in the article here. "By the 1480s, he had developed a plan to travel to the Indies, then construed roughly as all of south and east Asia, by sailing directly west across the "Ocean Sea" i.e. the Atlantic." (See also the article on the Caribbean, which notes "'West Indies' originates from Christopher Columbus' idea that he had landed in the Indies (then meaning all of south and east Asia)." The name "Indian" was derived from Indies, not India. Eron 08:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(Europeans had a very vague picture of the East.) THE TURKEY was named such because CC thought he was sneaking up to the Ottoman Turks from behind! He turned Isabela on with the idea of recapturing Jerusalem, and he thought he was getting close. Gives you a feel for how lost he was. Corn is called grana turca in Italian for the same reason. We eat a Muslim country in effigy at Thanksgiving without realizing it! (But he had nothing to do with Thanksgiving. He writes of Jewish and Muslim wisemen and how much he owed them.)YankeeInCA 09:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC) How do you answer directly to a person but have it show up here? I forget.

You are very funny YankeeInCA, where did you get the proof that Colon named pavo (sp) or peru (port) by the English name turkey?Colombo-o-novo 06:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a text with all the truth on Cristhoper Colombus (he seems that the text bothered much people)

because they had erased the text that was written in day 2 of November of 2006.

Already see that it was a loss of time to write it since the liberty of speech is not applied here.

I left a note on your talk page. PLEASE find someone who knows English to help you. Your post was impossible to understand. Fan-1967 22:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not understand what who is written does not want to understand or if the text dislikes to it!

I will use simple words: We can not understand what you write. You need help to translate it. Fan-1967 22:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

WE'VE GOT BORAT WORKING WITH US!

Columbus pseudo-history

Thesis as the exposed in web pages like this[[9]] or this[[10]] are pseudo-history. Such ideas were already rebuffed by Portuguese historiography, but sadly they are finding a new life elsewhere. Jjesuswiki 14:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Jjesuswiki please explain who has rebuffed the book O Misterio Colombo Revelado. - Unfortunatly it is not in English so most people won't read it but I have read it and I know a multitude of others who have read it and I have yet to hear one of them rebuff it. To the contrary a quote taking right off that site states that Captain Joao Garcia, (a published historian in Portugal) praises the book for its accuracies unlike any other. His exact words are "É, entre o muito que sobre o tema tenho lido, dos trabalhos mais válidos." It is amongst all that about this subject I have read, the most valid.Colombo-o-novo 06:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I must add that after reading this book no one will read Morison's Admiral of the Ocean Sea with the same eyes ever againColombo-o-novo 06:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Historians and amateur historians

The first man you mention isn't an historian but acts in a scientific method to explain his discoveries. The second you mention is an historian and his book was received in the "universidade lusofona". None of the ideas in those 2 books were rebuffed by anyone. You don't even read at least one of the last books do you?

Read the books, meet the men if you can and then make your judgement, don't speak about things you don't know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.83.48.81 (talk • contribs) .

In the future, personal attacks should be removed from this page. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just correcting the man, where are the personal attacks?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.83.48.84 (talk • contribs) .

I may not have the IP right. This tone from the OP is not welcome at wikipedia. Please sign your comments with ~~~~ Dominick ^(TALK) 14:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What tone, but is it a tone or a personal attack you are referring? I can't understand, there's a wikimember bashing and speculating about books where some articles are based without having read them, just saying inconsistante things, what should I say instead?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.83.48.84 (talk • contribs) .

Can't I just stay anonymous?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.83.48.84 (talk • contribs) .

Perhaps ~~~~ would make it easier. I don't have much else to say. Some editors don't say much to the anonymous. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't understand the purpose of your intervention, all this talking with you for what? Can't you also justify what you said please? 195.83.48.84 15:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you didnt write it, the matter is closed. Thanks! Dominick ^(TALK) 15:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

but write what?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.83.48.83 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The first comment in this section (starting "The first man you mention isn't an historian...") was added by an anonymous user posting from IP address 195.83.48.81. That user subsequently made some other minor edits to correct typos.

Another anonymous user, 81.66.153.219, added the statement "None of those 2 books were rebuffed by anyone."

The original statement, from 195.83.48.81, contained the comments "you don't even read at least one of the last books," and "don't speak about things you don't know." While perhaps not personal attacks, these certainly are close to the line and can't really be considered constructive additions to a discussion of this article.

The difficult we seem to be having figuring out who said what and when underlines why we ask users to sign their posts. It also highlights why it can be helpful to create an account.

As to the sources that were the start of this whole debate, I'm not seeing a reference to them here so I can't make any judgement on them. All I can add is that if they are to be used for this article, they must be reliable and verifiable: "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." Eron 15:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

refutations of "Pseudo-History - refutations" below

In the below entry one can read listed many Portuguese sources who supposedly contradicted the Portuguese theory but this is not true. Many of these sources were attacking the Portuguese theory on their approach and not the theory itself.

And when our friend "Soldier" lists among all of these the illustrious Luis de Albuquerque he fails to mention that Luis was only exposing "Doubts" and not proof that the Portuguese theory was wrong. Furthermore none of these books by the authors SÃO PAYO, MOURA, MARQUES, TÁVORA, ALBUQUERQUE, etc, were ever put before a "Peer review" if they had been their flaws would have been very clearly discussed.

BUT it is even more important to note that the person putting here the below refutations never even read the book O Misterio Colombo Revelado if he had read it he would have known it is not based on the "kabala", on "Freemasonry", on the "Templar Knights", or on any other such theory. It is based on the interpretation of solid facts that are available to any one who whish to seek them out. O Misterio Colombo Revelado is well researched and well thought out and does not make a Portuguese theory out of the facts but allows the reader to make their own conclusion after reading the facts. Colombo.bz 20:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-History - refutations

Manuel da Silva Rosa and Eric J. Steele, O Mistério Colombo Revelado [Columbus’ Mystery Revealed], Lisbon, Ésquilo, 2006, 638 p., printed in October 2006, it’s the Portuguese translation of Unmasking Columbus: Spies, Lies, Royal Cover-up and Conspiracy, from the same authors.

The Portuguese edition is based in reformed theories like the ones of Patrocínio Ribeiro (1882-1923), O caracter misterioso de Colombo e o problema da sua nacionalidade [Columbus mysterious character of and the problem of his nationality], Coimbra, Imp. da Universidade, 1916, Sep. Academia de Sciencias de Portugal, 1st series, t. 5 or A nacionalidade portuguesa de Cristovam Colombo / The portuguese nationality of Christopher Columbus, Lisbon, Liv. Renascença, 1927, and Será Colombo português?, 1ª ed., Lisbon, Prefácio, imp. 2000, ISBN: 972-8563-08-6.

Another key author in this line of reasoning is Alexandre Gaspar da Naia: A gênese do equívoco colombino. Um Colombo corsário e um Colombo "lanério"; Cristóbal Colon. Instrumento da política portuguesa de expansão ultramarina (1950); Dom João II e Cristóbal Colón (1951); D. João III e Cristóbal Colón: factores complementares na consecução de um mesmo objectivo (1951); O problema colombino resolvido (1954); As concepções geográficas de Cristóbal Colon (1954); Colombo e Colon. Mentiras transitórias e verdades eternas (1956). From the beginning this theories were criticized by more careful historians, especially Luís de Albuquerque and Teixeira da Mota, among others.

It’s superfluous to mention others that discovered the real identity/name of Columbus. I just mention G. L. Santos Ferreira and António Ferreira Serpa for whom Colombus was Salvador Gonçalves Zarco (and not Fernandes as it is for others) whereas for Pestana Junior the Admiral’s name was Simão Palha.

Luciano da Silva also has some theories about Columbus and were joined in a book form this year: Manuel Luciano da Silva; Sílvia Jorge Silva, Cristóvão Colom (Colombo) era Português [Cristóvão Colom (Columbus) was Portuguese], QuidNovi, 2006. In his theories he follows Augusto Mascarenhas Barreto, The Portuguese Columbus, Secret Agent of King John II, London, Macmillan, 1992 (original Portuguese edition, Cristóvão Colombo Agente Secreto do Rei D. João II, Lisbon, Referendo, 1988).

All the theories above were in due time criticized and rebuffed has lucubration, bad science, infantile mistakes, poor understanding of the sources, etc.

Below a small list of critics to such theories…

ALBUQUERQUE, Luís de. Colombo - Columbus, Lisboa, CTT, 1992.

COSTA, António Domingues de Sousa. «Cristovão Colombo e o Cónego de Lisboa Fernando Martins de Reriz, Destinatário da Carta de Paulo Toscanelli sobre os Descobrimentos Marítimos», Antonianum, n.º. 65, Roma, Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum, 1990.

LENCASTRE e TÁVORA, Luís de. Colombo, a Cabala e o Delírio, Lisboa, Quetzal, 1991.

MARQUES, Alfredo Pinheiro. «Epilogue: Triumph for da Gama and Disgrace for Columbus», Portugal: the Pathfinder. Journeys from the Medieval toward the Modern World. 1300-ca.1600, ed. de George Winius, Madison, Luso-Brazilian Review-University of Wisconsin, 1995, pp. 363-372.

MARQUES, Alfredo Pinheiro. «O Sucesso de Vasco da Gama e a Desgraça de Cristóvão Colombo», Las Relaciones entre Portugal y Castilla en la Epoca de los Descubrimientos y la Expansion Colonial. Actas del Congresso Hispano-Português (Salamanca, 1992), ed. de Ana Maria Carabias Torres, Salamanca, Universidad de Salamanca - Sociedad V Centenário del Tratado de Tordesillas, 1994, pp. 181-194. Reed. Biblos. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Coimbra, vol. LXX, Coimbra, FLUC, 1994, pp. 119-137.

MARQUES, Alfredo Pinheiro. «Os Objectivos e as Teses deste Livro», Portugal e o Descobrimento Europeu da América. Cristovão Colombo e os Portugueses, 2ª ed., Lisboa, Círculo de Leitores, 1992.

MARQUES, Alfredo Pinheiro. As Teorias Fantasiosas do Colombo "Português", Lisboa, Quetzal, 1991.

MOURA, Vasco Graça. Cristóvão Colombo e a Floresta das Asneiras, Lisboa, Quetzal, 1991. SÃO PAYO, Luís de Mello Vaz de. «Carta aberta a um “curioso” de Genealogia», Armas e Troféus, IX Série, T. I, 1999, pp. 181-248.

SÃO PAYO, Luís de Mello Vaz de. «Carta aberta a um agente secreto», Armas e Troféus, VII Série, T. I, 1996, pp. 5-53. SÃO PAYO, Luís de Mello Vaz de. «Primeira Carta Aberta a Mascarenhas Barreto», Armas e Troféus, VI Série, T. VI, 1994, pp. 5-52.

… but the most extensive review of all those stories is:

Luís Mendonça de Albuquerque, Dúvidas e Certezas na História dos Descobrimentos Portugueses [Doubts and Certainties in History of the Portuguese Discoveries], 2 vols., Lisbon, Círculo de Leitores, imp. 1991, especially vol. I, chap. X, «Lá vem Cristóvão Colombo, que tem muito que contar... [Here it comes Christopher Columbus, that has a lot to tell…]», pp. 105-175.

The book of Rosa and Steelle, working with the same premises of Barreto, Silva, Naia, Junior, Ribeiro, etc., resorting to kabalistic and exoteric explanations (myths surrounding the Templars, Masonic rites and symbology, etc.), must be dealt with the most care until the «peers» review.

This kind of information cannot be found in Portuguese Wikipedia because of repeated vandalism. Further information on Columbus mythology is being collected in Pseudo-História Colombina[[11]].

My apologies for my language problems--Jjesuswiki 16:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

For Luís de Albuquerque biography, scientific institutions and bibliography see Instituto Camões site [[12]]. --Jjesuswiki 17:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article provides very little information about the end result of Colombus' campaign in the Americas, which was one of the largest genocides ever to happen in human history. Therefore, I added the neutrality tag to alert any readers.

Peace. Obsessivelanguagelearner 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

CC campaign is one of the least violent and destructive when you compare it with what have down people like Hernan Cortez (mexico genocide)or the pilgrims fathers in USA (indians genocide, one of the worst for sure).

Unclear Sentence

Columbus was later arrested in 1500 and supplanted from these posts, which led to Columbus's son taking legal action to enforce his father's contract, who was also arrested

The present sentence construction means:

• C was arrested
• C's son took legal action to enforce C's contract
• C's contract was also arrested.

I will rephrase the sentence to properly place the "who was also arrested" clause, so that it doesn't (structurally) refer to "his contract". I'll be acting under the assumption that "who" refers to "his son". Mip | Talk 09:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

this whole bit is a mess. There is a section called "3rd voyage & arrest" but the actual arrest is dealt with 2 sections later in "Governorship". The son might be his son Ferdinand (1488-1539) (generally the more supportive), not otherwise mentioned (& who deserves his own article). Or because of age the other son Diego, ten years older is perhaps more likely? Both were royal pages.

Johnbod 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have sorted this out, but removed the reference to an arrest of a son (if that is what was meant) as i can see nothing about this in the fairly long account I ref in the article

Johnbod 17:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Columbus divisive because of genocide?

In his edit summary Batman2005 asks, show me sources that say that because of "genocide" that columbus is a divisive figure. I'm not sure whether he requests citation for the "genocide" part or the "divisive" part, but it's easy to find

• articles on Columbus Day protests over multiple years: [13], [14], [15]
• articles discussing Columbus' launching of genocide: [16]
• opinions by Native American organizations deploring Columbus: [17], [18]
• opinions by Italian American organizations supporting Columbus: [19]
• Christopher Columbus: Mariner by Samuel Eliot Morison, generally admiring of Columbus but explicitly acknowledging subsequent genocide, as cited in...
• A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, generally not admiring of Columbus.

Is that enough? Joshua Davis 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

YupJohnbod 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You forgot the Soprano's episode where Columbus Day protests divide everyone, including the Italians. If it's on the Soprano's, it ain't exactly obscure info. (How's that for a new Wikipedia gauge?) Bobanny 06:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Lluis de Santangel

Why doesn´t the article mention the valencian banker Lluis de Santangel? He was pivotal in financing Columbus´s voyages. In fact, Columbus himself wrote letters to Santangel and Ferdinand. Violenciafriki 21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

CRISTÒFOL COLOM WAS CATALAN - It's ashaming that the article does not mention it. Just two references at the bottom!!!

Why do you actually hide that Cristòfol Colom was Catalan? Colom It's a very well known Catalan surname. And it has been more than proved (http://www.histocat.cat/htm/secc_inv_11.htm, and many other sources). The fact he came from Italy doesn't mean he was Italian. At the late XVth century almost a half of the Italian Peninsula belonged to the Kingdom of Aragon, that then would create Spain among with the Kingdom of Castile. For example, Naples belonged to Aragon (and thus, to Catalonia, because the Aragonese crown was a confederation of four kingdoms: the Kingdom of Aragon, Catalonia (represented by its counts), the Kingdom of València and Kingdom of Mallorca). Naples was FULL of Catalan traders (when I say catalan traders I mean basically traders from Barcleona, but also from other parts of the Aragonese Empire: we must not forget that the settlers of the Balearic Islands (Kingdom of Mallorca and the settlers of València were also catalan). And not only Naples, but also Geneva, and most Italian and mediterranian cities were full of catalan traders. Oh and please, some smart "anglo", put the accent in the "Kingdom of València" article. We know you don't have accents in your language, but we, the catalans, do). And Cristòfol Colom was just a member of one of those powerful Catalan families that settled in Italy. It's not so hard to understand: the Aragonese Empire was the one of the most powerful empires of its times: it completely ruled the mediterranian: ALL the great islands of the mediterranean belonged to the Aragonese Empire. And the people from the mainlands of that empire (mainly Catalonia) settled all over its territories. We can find Catalans in Greece, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, etc. Cristòfol Colom was just a member of one of those families. He was catalan, and after the union of Aragon and Castile his name was OBVIOUSLY castilianizated, because like everyone knows, the castilians never liked the catalans, and they have always tryed to erase anything that smells to catalan (there are STRONG EVIDENCES that Miguel de Cervantes was catalan too). All in all, you can find the catalan influence of Colom all over the Americas. For example, what is the name of one of the first islands that he discovered in the Caribbean sea? Montserrat!!! Montserrat is the spiritual mountain of Catalonia (if you click the first link for Montserrat it redirects you to the island; now it's a part of the British Commonwealth; typically with the "anglos": they don't even know that Montserrat existed before they had that island, and when you search it at the wikipedia it direclty redirects you to the island, when it should redirect you to the mountain or at least to a desambiguation page). Why in th world an italian or an ignorant bereber from the deep spain would call an island Montserrat? I can understand Cristòfol Colom called that island "La Española", well, he was being paid by the kings of spain (or more correctly, by a jew banquer. That shows the great nobility of the spanish kings; threatening a poor jew to pay their business); so as I say I can understand the thing about "La Española". But MONTSERRAT? MONTSERRAT? Montserrat is the spiritual mountain of catalonia, it's like saying Mount Fuji of Japan, Snowdon for Wales, etc. [[This may seem a very simple evidence but there are many more evidences in the link I have provided, and also if you search the Internet.

The fact he is called Cristóbal Colón in Spanish just shows the ignorance of the spaniards, who cannot pronnounce the final 'm' of the catalan surnames. They don't say 'Kulóm', they say 'Kolón', this does not just happens with this surname, it happens with many other surnames and words. And it's a fact that the castilians always translate everything that seems important to castilian and try to make the things that don't belong to them like if they were of their property.

The fact that CRISTÒFOL COLOM was Spanish or maybe Italian is just a LIE. The fucking LIE of the Millenia! Italian? What is ITALIAN? Italy didn't exist by those times, he was from Geneva, or whatever, and he belonged to a very known and documented catalan family of traders. And spanish? Obviously if he was catalan the damn castilians said he was spanish, but what do you want? You have three options: Italian, Spanish or Catalan? It's pretty obvious that he was not ITALIAN because ITALIA was NOTHING by those times. And a guy from Geneva with a catalan surname and who is known to belong to an important catalan family = HE WAS CATALAN. And Spanish? It's perfectly understoodable that spaniards made it up to do like if he was spanish, because the fact a pure catalan discovered the new world and initiated a new era was too much for them. Catalans... uh... those strange people who speak different than we,... we don't understand them, and they are always moaning ... uh uh... uhuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh uuuuuuuuuuuuuh uUUUUUUUUUH CATALAN RATS!!!111111

I think it's just ASHAMING that the word "Catalan" is just mentioned TWO times in the article. And both times with small letter at the end of the article, just as references. It's just stupid. What the hell is this? And wikipedia wants to be serious? Come on!

All in all, don't take this post as something offensive, but the great ignorance shown in the wikipedia sometimes totally overwhelms me. That simple vision of the "anglos" is too much for me. I don't want to generalizate but it is so. I think it's the "anglo" world where you live that makes you get that conception of the world. But don't worry, monoligual people: here there are legions of polygloth people from all over the world ready to explain the truth about the things.

Onofre Bouvila 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You will see there is a separate article called Origin theories of Christopher Columbus - referenced at the start of the life. Oddly enough there are other theories too! I'm putting this section into correct date order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 00:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Johnbod 00:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Onofre, you are very funny. You are just trying to convince us that he was catalan and not from Geneva or from any other part of the world. It is also very funny how you want to convince us that there are STRONG EVIDENCES that Cervantes was also Catalan. There are also strong evidences that he was from Seville but you just want to impose your view. People like you are a cancer for Wikipedia. You impose your political and nationalistic views before the cultural and objective truth. Come on, stop bringing nationalistic shit into Wikipedia.

It is hillarious reading you how you try to lecture us when you say that people from the rest of Spain (remember that people from the rest of Spain are Spaniards as you are) are ignorant and Catalans are the most intelligent people in the world. Come on, it is like always, there are many Catalans like you who try to let others know that Spaniards are ignorant because most of them can't pronounce the final "m" in Colom. Are most Catalans ignorant when they pronounce "Madrit" or "solidaridat" wrongly?. I would recommend you to read and learn more about Columbus' life instead of trying to lecture and convince us in a nationalistic way. You don't care about the figure of Columbus or about the scientific truth. You just want him to be Catalan because he was famous. I would like to see you fighting for those Andalusians working hard to make your region rich instead of considering them as "ignorant". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruedasox (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Genocide?

Isn't it POV to use the word "genocide" in the introduction? I am not saying that Columbus' treatment of the Native Americans did not constitute genocide, just that it isn't really the place of a Wikipedia article to make such a judgement. If no one disagrees, I will rewrite this section. Walton monarchist89 13:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The intro as it's written does not say that Columbus committed genocide; it basically says, "Columbus is divisive because he launched the European settlement of the Americas, which was genocidal." This is easily documentable (see "Columbus divisive because of genocide?" on this talk page; maybe move some refs into article). The subtlety here is the degree to which Columbus is personally responsible for the genocide. If you think the wording of the intro is too subtle/misleading, then reword it. But I think the word genocide should remain, as it is a crucial facet of the European settlement of the Americas and of the modern view of Columbus. Joshua Davis 14:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say rewrite the section. A history of Columbus is not the place to make a controversial political statement on treatment of Native Americans in general. It is understood that microbes largely wiped out Indian populations much more than human intervention. 66.75.8.138 19:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the settlers had something to do with the decline in native populations, but that's not the point because, well, they haven't been wiped out. Cultural genocide makes it an issue that's about more than just "who killed the Indians?" Anyway, the point I want to make is that the genocide thing should be included not because Wikipedia supports that argument, but because that argument is significant in itself in regards to this subject, whatever we think of its merits, and should therefore be represented, IMO, in a prominant place in the article.Bobanny 06:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument is stated as fact, and in the intro. I would suggest its mention later with a tab to another article.66.75.8.138 17:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. That there is a significant dispute is incontrovertible and documentable. It deserves prominent mention in this article, and even in the intro. (I'll restrain myself from commenting on the actual material of the dispute here.) Joshua Davis 14:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed genocide to cultural genocide. It's linked to an article that's in rough shape, but which includes the UN's take, which is unambiguous in how it's a problem faced by First Nations under colonialism. Bobanny 21:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the "genocide" entry is a recent addition from the past 2 weeks and hasn't been part of the history of the article. I also notice that no effort was made to get concensus for its inclusion. I'm putting back the original language.Bbagot 16:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Nicolaus Bobadilla

hello to anyone who edits this page, I am not an expert on Colombus, so I do not wish to make a change myself, but I think I have spotted an error in the article. In the section about the fourth voyage it claims that the life of NICOLAUS Bobadilla was lost. I think that Nicolaus Bobadilla was a jesuit who died in Italy. It is more likely that lost life was that of FRANCISCO DE Bobadilla, who was a governor in the Americas at that time. Can anyone confirm this, and make the change if I am correct? Paul thompson888 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As an Italian-American

As an Italian-American, I do not want to look at Christopher Colombus in a bad light. I prefer to view the positives of what he accomplished in his life. He was the first Mediterranean explorer who discovered America. He founded the lands were the Spanish and Portuguese spread their influence. So basically, he founded Latin America. Whether he was Italian, Spanish, or Portuguese doesn't matter to me. All that needs to be known is that he was Latin. To see him in a bad light to me is anti-Latin and racist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.211.95.207 (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, as an encyclopedia we have to cover all aspects, bad and good, of the topics we cover. We have a special term for this: Neutral point of view. This means that we cover what other sources have written about the topic, both bad and good, without bias. This is better in the end anyway. Columbus was a human being with flaws like anyone else. In his lifetime he achieved both great things and bad things. It is better to honor him as he was, both flawed and heroic, than to present a false picture. Hopefully we can also put his deeds in context. Like many historical figures, he was a man of his times, and did things that were acceptable then that we no longer agree with. It's important to understand the actions of people in the past in the context of their own society and its norms.--Srleffler 05:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The article aside, what of Italian-Americans like me who deride Columbus? Are we self-loathing? Give me a break.

Vandal edits followed by an attempt to assert a fact December 31, 2006.

Christopher Columbus got a lot of edits today. I happened to catch one of the first earlier this morning when an anonymous IP inserted something to the effect, CC had "a big Colon" thinking no one would notice it, followed by the Serb theory comments with a book that is out of print. Then another IP inserted that Columbus was from Cuba or one of the other "New World" islands he discovered followed by the Serb theory. Kind of amazing to vandalize a page and then expect someone to take your other contribution seriously (albeit one with a book out of print). One source or theory does not equate fact. Please note that this IP was about the fourth or fifh IP to insert the Serb theory. And, while this final IP did not vandalize the page, it was amazing to see more than one anonymous IP try to assert the same fact. What made the final IP the worst offender was the fact it was warned multiple times not to make this edit. Then the offending IP reversed edits of proven editors. Pretty heady for an IP that only appeared today and has no track record with Wikipedia. Ronbo76 07:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Artistotle was not a key "Classical" figure of "Church doctrine"

The article states that aristotle was a "key Classical" figure of "Church doctrine", which is laughable. What "Church" is that supposed to refer to, exactly? It's also foolish that classical and church are capitalized. Unfortunately I cannot edit the text since editing has been locked, evidently.

"The Church" would be the Catholic Church. As for laughable, all I've ever seen on the subject (unfortunately third-hand) have uniformly claimed that Aristotle was extremely respected during the Late Middle Ages and that his ideas strongly influenced the Christian view of the world at the time of Columbus. They aren't direct sources, but they're a whole lot more reliable than you are. (Issac Asimov's "Kingdom of the Sun" comes to mind.)

Incidentally, classical and church being capitalized are good ideas. They are referring to the Classical Period of European History; a proper noun, understandable to people who have ever studied history, and to the Catholic Church; also understandable to anyone who had the faintest notion of the context of the whole discussion.

Incidentally, I might add that the article being locked when you tried to edit it was a good thing, but that any edits you would have made would have been almost immediately reverted as being fantastically uneducated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.2.106.74 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

glaring omissions

the wiki is highly disturbing in its omissions.

"In addition to the ships, 500 lives (including Francisco de Bobadilla's) and an immense cargo of gold were surrendered to the sea."

oh really? there's been only a SINGLE previous mention of gold in the article, and nowhere does the wiki describe how exactly columbus obtained that gold. did he simply bring some men to look for gold in rivers and caves? did the native people hand it over to him in a friendly matter? totally ridiculous, considering the political implications of leaving out the facts in the matter.

"In Panama, he learned from the natives of gold and a strait to another ocean. After much exploration, he established a garrison at the mouth of Rio Belen in January 1503. On April 6, one of the ships became stranded in the river. At the same time, the garrison was attacked, and the other ships were damaged."

so columbus set up a garrison. why doesn't the wiki explain anywhere why he needed a garrison, or describe what activities the garrison was engaged in? or, for example, why the garrison was being attacked.

even a 5-year old would notice the oddity of this wiki. 71.232.78.168 21:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Whitewash

I agree with several of the comments above (including the most recent). This is an astoundingly biased account of Columbus, his actions, and the controversy about those actions.

It was a lively and contentious article with quite a bit of information on both sides of the "hero"/"villain" controversy not long ago.

Who whitewashed it? Who has eliminated virtually all references to the murder, enslavement, and rape that happened under the direct supervision of Columbus, as attested in his own journal and in contemporary journals and accounts? Beyond the issue of what his actions led to - there are the immediate effects of enslaving large native populations, implementing genocidal policies, and perpetuating a worldview that claimed all of the earth for european nation-states and individuals.

As it stands, this wiki article is an embarrassment to the principles of non-biased open-source information. Even critical reference sources have been removed such as "Columbus and Other Cannibals".

Juggleandhope 22:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of these statements. I only wish I had the time to gather expert sources on Columbus' rape and pillage, which doubtless exist (although I'm sure even that would be quickly erased, leading to a need for a member of wikipedia's advocacy groups). It's embarrassing that the article isn't, at a bare minimum, hotly contested. Thank you for at least pointing it out. Matthew 05:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't have any difficulty supporting such negatives if they are based on his firsthand accounts and they are sourced. It would also be helpful to be very specific as to when and where this occurred. Unsourced information of that nature though, won't survive the natural editing process. Bbagot 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Monstserrate - spelling?

I was tempted to change the spelling of Monstserrate as a simple minor edit, but googling it brings up enough other instances of that spelling to warrant a bit of research. Also, what then would be the correct Spanish spelling:

Monserrat

Monserrate

Montserrat

Montserrate

In any case, I once spoke Spanish quite fluently, and my experience tells me that there are too many contiguous consonants in MonSTSerrate. Can anyone help me out here? Thanks.

Lanternshine 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow...

We have some work to do on this article. Anybody else ever read Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me? I'm going to have to go look up Loewen's sources to give this article a major overhaul. Where's the rape? Where's the murder? This article is better than what I was told in elementary school but not too much better... serious omissions. Colby 03:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read it too. I was disbelieving at first, but the local library had an English translation of Columbus' journals, and I was able to verify details in Lies for myself. This article reflects the common US understanding, but that has some serious omissions. This should be fun to work on!Trishm 23:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

8 Million Pre Columbus population down to 3 thousand by 1531?

I put a citation needed for this addition into the article. For one thing it is unclear what area those numbers are referring to. The Bahamas? It seems to be quite suspect. Bbagot 17:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing this information from the article. If anyone has a source that confirms this bizarre sounding claim, feel free to elaborate Bbagot 19:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lies

I was reading the article and laughing. You can find: - "The anniversary of the 1492 voyage (vd. Columbus Day) is observed throughout the Americas and in Spain and Italy." In Italy nobody celebrates the anniversary. The Columbus Day in Italy s never existed. He is considered a simple explorer, like Italian Caboto, Verazzano and others. Italian-Americans, the Italians who live in the US and in Latin America, celebrate the Columbus day. About Columbus he was not Catalano, Portugues, etc. The most ancient info and pictures of Christopher Columbus can only be found in the churchs and museums of Italy, not Spain/Portugal. They are original papers. But many scholars do not speak italian, so they do prefer to base their own research on false news, second-hand papers and wrong translations. The world's leading historian, the most expert in this topic was an Italian scholar, Professor Emilio Taviani, who wrote over 100 publications about C.Columbus and they are still used in some European and American Universities; and Professor Aldo Agosto s collection. Professor Agosto, in 2006, during a meeting with many Spanish scholars in Valladolid, Spain, has showed his 110 ancient papers about Columbus. The Italian researcher showed the genealogy or family tree, proving that Columbus was born in Genoa, Italy in 1451. We know everything about him, and you can find Columbus ancient home in Genoa. It still exists. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Genova-casa_di_Colombo-DSCF7114.JPG/200px-Genova-casa_di_Colombo-DSCF7114.JPG --Jack 17:21, 11 Feb 2007 (CEST)

So fix it? This is a wiki.... JoeSmack ^Talk 15:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Not So Subtle Jab at Critics

Why is it that the only criticisms of Columbus in the article are by two people who are both controversial and highly unpopular with a large portion of the American public?

Certainly there are people other then Ward Churchill and Hugo Chavez who are critical of the actions of Columbus in the Americas. And by using just these two as critics, the author is making a definite attempt at a political statement against what he is inferring is politically correct revisionism.

--iagorune 05:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This Page Should Be Unprotected

I know that the voyages of Columbus are highly controversial and tend to fall into arguments.

However the current "Gee Whiz" simplistic article not only completely skips over major historical events during the voyages, such as the slaughter of the men Columbus left behind in Haiti or the time Columbus spent as a castaway, but also presents such a unrealistic, clean cut portrayal of the man that there is no sense of the real Columbus at all.

There is a brief mention of “atrocity” almost as a throw away line, but no discussion of the actual edicts Columbus gave to the natives forcing them to search for gold, or of the trial Columbus faced before the Spanish court that stripped him of his powers after determining that he had abused his authority.

I’m not saying that the article should be nothing but a hit piece concentrating on the bad things Columbus did, but if the article has any hope of being an accurate entry then it needs to be more then the uncomplicated, juvenile narrative that is currently sitting there. --iagorune 05:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that these points belong in the present article. As it is, both the article and the talk page are too long. Material related to the subject's life before the Enterprise of the Indies should go to the Origins article, and an article should be made for his failings as a colonial administrator, including the accusation of murdering Spanish noblemen. Maybe if this article is carefully trimmed, there can be room for other material, but it's a question of properly linking and distributing material among various articles. Jim.henderson 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

8,000,000 in Guanahani

Is this population estimate included in the official report of the first voyage, or was someone else doing the estimating in 1492? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Frenching

No mention of Columbus approaching France for sposorship? Trekphiler 03:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

France was Bartolomeo's assignment, so doesn't much belong here. However, it isn't in his biography article, either. Jim.henderson 04:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)