Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Origin theories of Christopher Columbus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
NPOV/original research ?
editlike many pages devoted to historical controversies, this article does not read as fully in keeping with NPOV to me, and in several places veers into original research.
for example, sentences like "Another doubt remains to be settled: can we be sure that all of the documents cited concern the Christopher Columbus who was later to become Cristóbal Colón, admiral of the Ocean Sea in Spanish territory? The list of contemporary ambassadors and historians unanimous in the belief that Columbus was Genoese could suffice as proof, but there is something more..." sound like an argumentative essay in favor of one interpretation. I don't understand Wikipedia pages as being places where controversies get settled--that is "original research."
Many other parts of the piece *do* honor this distinction. I am not saying, and I don't believe NPOV or No Original Research require, that all the theories be stated as equal; it's clear that one theory is much more widely-believed than all the others, and the page should reflect that. but sentences like the one I quoted, and the use of evaluative words like "dismissed" and "fanciful" in phrases like "Ferdinand dismissed the fanciful story" make it sound like this page itself is meant to be the definitive assessment of the various claims, and that isn't NPOV and sounds too much like original research. It isn't up to Wikipedia to decide whether Ferdinand's claim was "fanciful," etc. this needs more quotation from third-party sources, less evaluation from the page authors, IMHO of course. Mr H3vnu83987 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Theories contrary
editWhy do we list all these theories if the Genoese theory is accepted? Would it not be better to add the evidence for each theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.94.9.14 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a fundamental lack of sufficient evidence for other theories, especially if compared to the established view. As far as i know, the only one historically accepted is the Genoese origins. Barjimoa (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
There is also a theory that Christopher Columbus may have come from the island of Chios in Greece. Chios was under Genoese control at the time, and thus part of the Republic of Genoa, Columbus said he came from the Republic of Genoa, not necessarily Genoa itself. The island of Chios was under the Genoese rule (1346 - 1566 AD),
Columbus kept his journal in Latin and Greek instead of the Italian of Genoa. He is known to have referred to himself as "Columbus de Terra Rubra" (Columbus of the Red Earth). Chios was known for the red soil in the south of the island where mastic trees grow, and the Genoese are known to have traded with these. Columbus also wrote about the gum-mastic called mastika which comes only from Chios.
There is also a village named Pirgi in the island of Chios where to this day many of its inhabitants carry the surname "Columbus."
Furthermore His signature (something not even the most extremist proponent of other theories can deny) is half Latin, half Greek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1388:4097:8019:100A:9F97:83B5:8CE7 (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
What are the words of the supposed Genoese gloss?
editWhat were the words of the "small handwritten Genoese gloss in a 1498 Italian (from Venice) edition of Pliny's Natural History? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
The Genoese Colombo was not the Navigator Colón
editThe news out of Azores University is that a 7 member jury unanimously awarded a PhD in Insular and Atlantic History (XV-XX Centuries) to Manuel da Silva Rosa on April 12, 2023 for a work titled CRISTOFORO COLOMBO versus CRISTÓBAL COLÓN - Cristoforo Colombo, the weaver from Genoa, was not Don Crsitóbal Colón, the navigator from Ibéria[1] and in his latest book, Portugal na História, Uma Identidade (Lisbon, 2023) Professor João Paulo Oliveira e Costa Department of History Chair at the University of Lisbon describes Rosa's work as scrupulous, "No estudo recente de Manuel Rosa, que, respeitando escrupulosamente as fontes, deixa clara a impossibilidade de Colón ter nascido no seio de uma família de tecelões genoveses.”.[2] Who can add this information to the article?
References
- ^ "Reconhecimento de Habilitações Provas Académicas". uac.pt (in European Portuguese). Universidade dos Açores. Retrieved 2023-04-26.
- ^ Oliveira e Costa, João Paulo (2022). Portugal na História - Uma Identidade. Temas e Debates. p. 402. ISBN 9789896446017.
Typo: In 1579, for the Cristoph Pantin's edition,
editChristophe Plantin ? 92.232.126.94 (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)