Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Charles Merrill

I don't have time to rewrite this, but someone needs to using reliable sources. The article shouldn't make the claim that he is an historian, he is an associate professor of foreign languages [1] specialising in Catalan, Medieval, and Low German Literature, Catholicism and Literature and Mexican history, but the last doesn't make him an historian, he teaches in a foreign languages department [2] Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll modify that. Thanks for the heads up! The most reliable source I just found is an interview with him at the spanish newspaper La Vanguardia. On that interview he as presented as "Doctor in medieval literature". I'll use that interview to improve a bit our paragraph. --Jordiferrer (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Any reliable sources commenting on his ideas? I've no time right now to look. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

However, Morison did not show any of this proof.

However, Morison did not show any of this proof

The origins of the Genoese Christopher Columbus is recognized by historians since the late nineteenth century and especially since the publication in 1931 of all the archival material available in volume Christopher Columbus. Bad faith --Davide41 (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you do not have reliable sources, not write. --Davide41 (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Marriage is no big mystery

Under Catalan hypothesis, it is written: "Also, that he married a Portuguese noblewoman can be presented as evidence that his origin was of nobility rather than the Italian merchant class, since it was unheard of during his time for nobility to marry outside their class."

On pp. 37-39 of Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Samuel Eliot Morison demonstrates that Columbus's marriage to Filipa Perestrello e Moniz is no big mystery. http://books.google.it/books?id=H3ME_u-41PsC&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false Italus (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For Italus

My hair is straight. I changed "Genoese origin of Christopher Columbus". Misrepresentation and bad faith. They wrote their personal opinions without specifying any source. Wikipedia is not conversation (or personal opinions), but reliable sources. For the Spaniards is "mystery" because do not include sources ( Great Historians as Paolo Emilio Taviani, Samuel Eliot Morison or Washington Irving among others ) Bad faith. --Davide41 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

high social rank of Columbus’s wife

Will we continue to deny the research done in the last 20 years and hold on to hearsay from 100 years ago. Cristobal Colon's wife was the daughter a Portuguese Captain, who was owner/governor of a Portuguese island and whose grandfather was part of the governing committee for the City of Lisbon- all noblemen with coat of arms who were descendants of the noble Lombard, Count Filippo Langosco, governor of Pavia. Do you think this means she was not of high social rank? Furthermore she was 1 of 12 with the privilege of living at the Military Order of Santiago's residence in Lisbon. Do you think she was not of high social ranK? Furthermore her nephew was the Portuguese king's Lord Chamberlain and the Comendador Major of the Military order of Santiago. Does this imply she was not of high social rank to you? Her niece's husband was Marquis of Montemor and Supreme Military Leader of Portugal, does this means she was a nobody to you? Her brother-in-law was Captain of an Island in the Azores and was the King of Portugal's Bodyguard, does this prove to you that Filipa Moniz was an insignificant laborer peasant as was your Colombo wool-weaver? Her half-sister's cousin was the King's Mistress and High Comendadeira of the Military Order of Santiago. Her uncle was the elite Comendador of Panóias for the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago. Does this confirm for you that Morison and Davidson and Tavianni were correct about the high rank of Filipa Moniz in Portugal? Her father's sister-in-law raised the King's two daughters and also became High Comendadeira of the Military Order of Santiago. Will you continue affirming contrary to the evidence that Filipa Moniz was at the same social rank as your penniless wool-weaver Colombo? Filipa's niece, D. Inês de Noronha was the Portuguese Countess of Abrantes, her niece D. Catarina de Noronha was the Portuguese Countess of Penamacor and her niece D. Isabel de Noronha was the Marquesa of Montemor. Does this show you that your sources were wrong in their misguided assertions that Filipa Moniz was insignificant and unimportant in Portugal's society in 1478? Her Portuguese cousin was married to the Portuguese Viceroy of the real India. To top it off, being that Filipa Moniz was a member of the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago in 1475 as this document shows, and by the order's rules she required authorization from the King of Portugal to marry any one. Do you seriously think she would have been given authorization to marry a peasant foreigner who arrived shipwrecked with no resources or job in his new kingdom? A person that the genoese archives prove was nothing m ore than a penniless peasant always running away form his creditors? A person who could not even read and write his own Genoese language? The misguided ones are not those of us who today assert that the history was wrong but those who continue to insist that the history of the wool-weaver was correct. Can you say Fairytale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.250 (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to question their word ? Have you ever read the greats works of Taviani or Morison?

There is no doubt on its origins. Continue with the hallucinations. However, no document, no historical data, authorize or even partially justify the tales spun around the birth of Columbus. --Davide41 (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have read Taviani and Morison many times and I can point out for you, as I do in my books, all the inventions and lies they include in their works of fantasy. I point it out with documents, all very well investigated and shown to be what they are not what I wish them to be. And While Taviani was being paid by the Italian government to write his fairytale, I have spent my own funds amounting to nearly 100K in 20 years to bring the truth to the world. Those who selectively read only authors compatible to their own views learn only what they already know. Those who choose to read contradicting views may actually one day learn the truth. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The following historians have recognized that Columbus was Genoese: the Spanish Navarrete, Munoz, Duro, Asensio, Serrano y Sanz, Altolaguirre, Perez de Tudela, Morales Padron, Manuel Alvar, Ciroanescu, Rumeu de Armas, Muro Orejon, Martinez Hidalgo, Emiliano Jos, Demetrio Ramos, Consuelo Varela, Juan Gil, Ballesteros Gaibrois, and Milhou; the French D'Avezac, Roselly de Lorgues, Vignaud, Sumien, Charcot, Houben, de la Ronciere, Mahn Lot, Heers, Mollat, and Braudel; the English Robertson, Johnson, Markham, Brebner, and Bradford; the Belgians Pirenne and Verlinden; the Germans Humboldt, Peschel, Ruge, Streicher, Leithaus, and Breuer; the Swiss Burckhardt; the Russian Magidovic; the Rumanian Goldemberg; the North Americans Irving, Harrisee, Winsor, Dickey, Thacher, Nunn, Morison, Parry, and Boorstin; the Cubans Alvarez Pedroso, Ramirez Corria, Carpentier, and Nunez Jimenez; the Puerto Ricans Aurelio Tio and Alegria; the Colombians Arciniegas and Obregon; the Argentinians Molinari, Levillier,a nd de Gandia; the Uruguayans Laguarda Trias and Marta Sanguinetti; and the Japanese Aynashiya among others. All were paid? Continue with the hallucinations... --Davide41 (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Colombo Português- Novas Revelaçôes" and “COLÓN. La Historia Nunca Contada” prove:

- The Ship Santa Maria never sank off the coast of Haiti it was marooned on purpose.
- Columbus always knew he was not in India, he lied when he said he had reached India.
- Columbus Last Will of 1498 is a forgery created some 80 years after he died.
- Columbus’s wife was aunt to high nobles including the king’s Lord Chamberlain.
- The stop in Lisbon on his return voyage was done intentionally to see King John II.
- The true original coat of arms of Columbus is finally found and revealed is this book.
- Columbus's true identity was covered up by the court of Portugal and the court of Spain.
Just have a look at what historians and academics who read are saying:
Prof. Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão, PhD., former Dean of the University of Lisbon, Ex- President of the Portuguese Academy of History and author of The History of Portugal going on 15 volumes, who wrote the book’s Preface and recognize that the Manuel Rosa “has made a meticulous study of the life and deeds of Columbus and I agree with him 100%.”

Prof. James T. McDonough Jr., PhD., Professor at St. Joseph's University for 31 years, wrote: The more I read, the more convincing its massive accumulation of historical details became. I would say that the book provides the best answers to many previously unexplained problems in the Columbus puzzle. Despite a lifetime that has taught me to question all things, I found myself believing that the case against Columbus presented here is about as solid as Fawn Brodie’s claims that Jefferson sired slaves by his Black slave Sally.

Prof. Marcel Balla, PhD., a graduate of Boston University, says: You are making a great contribution to this history and I am learning a lot from your book. Your work is of great importance and deserves to be read carefully.

Prof. Trevor Hall, PhD., in History from Johns Hopkins University, 1993, writes: I am a professor of History who specializes in 15th and 16th century Portuguese contacts with West Africa. I do Portuguese paleography, and my research supports your conclusions that Columbus was a Portuguese spy for King Joao II (1481-1495).

Prof. Rui Duque, PhD. from Madeira wrote: I must say the book is extensive and very detailed...it is exceptional… I admire the exhaustive work about the kingdom of Portugal in the XV century, the policy of secrecy of the crown in regards to navigation and in regards to other kingdoms, the influence of the military orders, the detailed analyses of Columbus's Portuguese in-laws, etc....

Prof. D. Félix Martínez Llorente, PhD, from University of Valladolid affirmed: The book is an extensive and well-documented work on the still-enigmatic figure of Christopher Columbus, with evocative and notorious contributions that will, with absolute certainty, be talked about for a long time.

Prof. Antonio Vicente, PhD, History Professor at Lisbon University, said: For the first time ever a book was written about Columbus without starting from any preconceived certainties and every piece of the puzzle is explained point by point. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Columbus' native land, and concludes that "no one can cast the least shadow of doubt" on his being from Genoa. They are all fools?" No they are not fools. They have been fooled. There is a difference. Yes Cristoforo Colombo was a poor peasant wool-weaver from Genoa with no schooling, no resources, no elite post, money, ship or peerage. That is all contradictory to the man who married Filipa Moniz in Portugal in January of 1479. That man was a nobleman who attended Mass inside the elite Monastery of Portugal's Military Order of Santiago whose leader was King John II and that man was no wool-weaver. That man who eventually moved to Spain and led three ships across the Atlantic was a navigator trusted enough by King John II to discuss the Portuguese secrets of navigation and was an uncle to:

'- The Portuguese Marquis of Montemor, D. João de Bragança, the Supreme Military Leader of Portugal
- The Portuguese Count of Penamacor, D. Lopo de Albuquerque, King Afonso V's falconer and Chamberlain and Stepfather to Diego Mendez, the discoverer's secretary
- The Portuguese Count of Abrantes, D. Lopo de Almeida, brother of the Prior of Crato host of Colón in 1493 in Portugal
- The Portuguese Comendador-Major of the Order of Santiago, D. Pedro de Noronha, father of Martinho de Noronha who was King John II's messenger sent to get the Discoverer in Restelo in 1493

He was further, brother-in-law to:
- Pedro Correia da Cunha, bodyguard to King John II and Captain of Graciosa Island in the Azores
- Bartolomeu Perestrelo I, Captain of Porto Santo Island in Madeira

Do you honestly see your wool-weaver filling this suit?20:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You wrote a book? So?

Professor Taviani : collection of 2.500 volumes, one thousand academic essays and has written over 20 books on the life of Columbus. Is recognized as the authority on studies about Columbus and all his books had been already translated into English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Chinese [...] in all languages of the world.

Professor Morison ? One of the greatest historians of the twentieth century. An oracle.

You? You wrote a book. There have been historians who have spent a lifetime of study.

The greatest of all Spanish historians, that same Ballesteros, Professor of the University of Madrid and director of the monumental series of publications on the Historia de America y de los pueblos americanos, devotes eighty pages to the question of Columbus' native land, and concludes that "no one can cast the least shadow of doubt" on his being from Genoa. They are all fools? Already ... Are you the new Galileo. Do not report sources. If I had to write my sources, never finish more. --Davide41 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Will of Columbus.

In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, who inspired me with the idea, and afterwards made it perfectly clear to me, that I could navigate and go to the Indies from Spain, by traversing the ocean westwardly; which I communicated to the king, Don Ferdinand, and to the queen Dona Isabella, our sovereigns; and they were pleased to furnish me the necessary equipment of men and ships, and to make me their admiral over the said ocean, in all parts lying to the west of an imaginary line, drawn from pole to pole, a hundred leagues west of the Cape de Verd and Azore islands; also appointing me their viceroy and governor over all continents and islands that I might discover beyond the said line westwardly; with the right of being succeeded in the said offices by my eldest son and his heirs for ever; and a grant of the tenth part of all things found in the said jurisdiction; and of all rents and revenues arising from it; and the eighth of all the lands and every thing else, together with the salary corresponding to my rank of admiral, viceroy, and governor, and all other emoluments accruing thereto, as is more fully expressed in the title and agreement sanctioned by their highnesses.

And it pleased the Lord Almighty, that in the year one thousand four hundred and ninety-two, I should discover the continent of the Indies and many islands, among them Hispaniola, which the Indians called Ayte, and the Monicongos, Cipango. I then returned to Castile to their highnesses, who approved of my undertaking a second enterprise for farther discoveries and settlements; and the Lord gave me victory over the island of Hispaniola, which extends six hundred leagues, and I conquered it and made it tributary; and I discovered many islands inhabited by cannibals, and seven hundred to the west of Hispaniola, among which is Jamaica, which we call Santiago; and three hundred and thirty-three leagues of continent from south to west, besides a hundred and seven to the north, which I discovered in my first voyage, together with many islands, as may more clearly be seen by my letters, memorials, and maritime charts. And as we hope in God that before long a good and great revenue will be derived from the above islands and continent, of which, for the reasons aforesaid, belong to me the tenth and the eighth, with the salaries and emoluments specified above; and considering that we are mortal, and that it is proper for every one to settle his affairs, and to leave declared to his heirs and successors the property he possesses or may have a right to: Wherefore I have concluded to create an entailed estate (mayorazgo) out of the said eighth of the lands, places, and revenues, in the manner which I now proceed to state.

In the first place, I am to be succeeded by Don Diego, my son, who in case of death without children is to be succeeded by my other son Ferdinand; and should God dispose of him also without leaving children, and without my having any other son, then my brother Don Bartholomew is to succeed; and after him his eldest son; and if God should dispose of him without heirs, he shall be succeeded by his sons from one to another for ever; or, in the failure of a son, to be succeeded by Don Ferdinand, after the same manner, from son to son successively; or in their place by my brothers Bartholomew and Diego. And should it please the Lord that the estate, after having continued for some time in the line of any of the above successors, should stand in need of an immediate and lawful male heir, the succession shall then devolve to the nearest relation, being a man of legitimate birth, and bearing the name of Columbus derived from his father and his ancestors. This entailed estate shall in nowise be inherited by a woman, except in case that no male is to be found, either in this or any other quarter of the world, of my real lineage, whose name, as well as that of his ancestors, shall have always been Columbus. In such an event (which may God forefend), then the female of legitimate birth, most nearly related to the preceding possessor of the estate, shall succeed to it; and this is to be under the conditions herein stipulated at foot, which must be understood to extend as well to Don Diego, my son, as to the aforesaid and their heirs, every one of them, to be fulfilled by them; and failing to do so, they are to be deprived of the succession, for not having complied with what shall herein be expressed; and the estate to pass to the person most nearly related to the one who held the right: and the person thus succeeding shall in like manner forfeit the estate, should he also fail to comply with said conditions; and another person, the nearest of my lineage, shall succeed, provided he abide by them, so that they may be observed for ever in the form prescribed. This forfeiture is not to be incurred for trifling matters, originating in lawsuits, but in important cases, when the glory of God, or my own, or that of my family, may be concerned, which supposes a perfect fulfillment of all the things hereby ordained; all which I recommend to the courts of justice. And I supplicate his Holiness, who now is, and those that may succeed in the holy church, that if it should happen that this my will and testament has need of his holy order and command for its fulfillment, that such order be issued in virtue of obedience, and under penalty of excommunication, and that it shall not be in any wise disfigured. And I also pray the king and queen, our sovereigns, and their eldest-born, Prince Don Juan, our lord, and their successors, for the sake of the services I have done them, and because it is just, that it may please them not to permit this my will and constitution of my entailed estate to be any way altered, but to leave it in the form and manner which I have ordained, for ever, for the greater glory of the Almighty, and that it may be the root and basis of my lineage, and a memento of the services I have rendered their highnesses; that, being born in Genoa, I came over to serve them in Castile, and discovered to the west of Terra Firma, the Indies and islands before mentioned. I accordingly pray their highnesses to order that this my privilege and testament be held valid, avid be executed summarily and without any opposition or demur, according to the letter. I also pray the grandees of the realm and the lords of the council, and all others having administration of justice, to be pleased not to suffer this my will and testament to be of no avail, but to cause it to be fulfilled as by me ordained; it being just that a noble, who has served the king and queen, and the kingdom, should be respected in the disposition of his estate by will, testament, institution of entail, or inheritance, and that the same be not infringed either in whole or in part. [...]

This document is authentic. This is a fact. Fantasy is fantasy. The reality is reality.

This discussion is pointless. The origin of Columbus was Genoese. More than a hundred documents. All well documented. Your fantasies on blogs ... but not on an encyclopedia. Everything is well documented. There are lots of documents. This is a sterile debate. --Davide41 (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If the discussion about the origin of Cristopher Colombus is pointless, what is the point of an article called Origin theories on Christopher Colombus? Just to teach the illiterate that any other alternative theory to the officially supported in the States is rubbish?

By the way, many scholars can also be wrong. To begin with, it's academically much safer to agree with a dominant theory. Heathmoor (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

'Nuncibay Francisco Medina, author of Genealogía de la Casa de Portugal (Genealogy of the House of Portugal) wrote in 1616 "...por adular á ciertos grandes que no miraban con buenos ojos el favor del Descubridor en la Corte, se escribieron algunos tratadillos dando prisa á llamarle genovés. Cuando el Emperador fué á coronarse á Italia, dió motupropio una Provisión dirigida al almirante don Luis, para que hiciese recoger todos aquellos tratadillos que hablaban del valeroso Almirante y los quemase" Translation: ... in order to calm some high nobles who did not look favorably on the Discoverer (Colón) and is favor with the Court, some announcements that he was Genoese were written hurriedly. When the Emperor was to be crowned in Italy, he gave motupropio an order addressed to Admiral Don Luis (Colón), to attempt to collect all those papers that spoke [untrue] of the courageous admiral and burn them. (Bibliotheca americana et philippina, Volume 4, Maggs Bros, 1925.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

the 1498 mayorazgo is Forged

I don’t expect you to get your facts straight since the people you are quoting from did not get them straight either. I know you can’t read Portuguese or even Spanish but here is the actual document you call the mayorazgo. It starts with the words TRESLADO de ... which means COPY of ... then, this is important so put on your logic glasses and look at the last page. It is signed not with the name of the transcriber, normal practice for the day, but signed with a forged signature of Cristóbal Colón. The signature is Forged, and the whole document is forged, understand? This document was presented to the court in 1586 by an Italian forgerer Balthazar Colombo from who pretended to prove he was a relative of Cristóbal Colón and failed.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC) If you look carefully you will even see that the date was 1598 and someone wrote a 4 over the 5. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Disturbing the Evidence

I find it disturbing that in an article that purports to cover different origin theories only allows evidence to be presented if that evidence supports the "genoese theory". There is plenty of evidence that can be used to support other theories. The following are facts that can be added to the Portuguese theory section:

- In the first and only reference made to the Navigator's nationality by Queen Isabel's court they call him "portogues" twice in 1487. (El "Portugues" Cristobal Colon en Castilla, Rumeu de Armas, Ediciones Cultura Hispanica,1982, pages=10–11)
- The Navigator never wrote in Genoese to anyone not even when he wrote to Genoa. But he did write in Portuguese flavored Castillian.
- In March 1493, in his letter to the Catholic Kings, Columbus referred to Portugal as mi terra my homeland saying "remember that I left wife and children and came from my homeland to serve Your Highness."
- Paolo de Toscanelli infers that Columbus is a Portuguese.
- The place names used by the Navigator in the New World were in their majority taken from Portuguese locations including Cabo Talhado, Cabo Agulhas and Natal used by Bartolomeu Dias in 1488.
- The Navigator already possessed a coat of arms in Portugal which no wool-weaver from Italy possessed.
- He communicated with is brothers, Bartolome and Diego, in Portuguese flavored Castilian and those two brothers wrote back in the same language.
- 20 years before his epic voyage, the Navigator was already uncle to one Marquis and two Counts in Portugal and was uncle to the King's Lord Chamberlain, Pedro de Noronha.
- Violante Nogueira, aunt of Columbus's wife, raised King Duarte's daughters which included Queen Joana of Castile.
- Columbus's wife was cousin to King John II's Mistress, Ana de Mendonça.
- Columbus's brother-in-law, Pedro Correia Lacerda da Cunha, was King John II's bodyguard.
- Columbus's wife, Filipa Moniz, was a member of the Military Order of Santiago and so privileged that she was only one of twelve "comendadoras" to live at the Monastery of Todos-os-Santos in Lisbon.
- As a "comendadora" Filipa Moniz's marriage required authorization from the Master of Santiago. Santiago's Master was King John II.
- Being allowed to marry a lady of such high nobility 20 years prior to his epic voyage denies that the discoverer was the wool-weaving peasant so often indicated in the history books.
I find the continual aversion to include these facts in the article a disturbing attempt to censor facts and someone should reconsider adding it back.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pruning

This Genoese section suffered from massive overuse of blockquotes, many of which were presented without much contexst or individual citations, and which often covered the same ground. It also sounded less like a description of experts' arguments on Columbus' origins than an argument in itself. I decided to be bold and trimmed or removed and paraphrased most of the quotes, re-added material that was (accidentally?) deleted, and otherwise tried to make it read in a more encyclopedic manner. Ergative rlt (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

For " Colon-el-Nuevo "

Columbus was born in Genoa.

I calculated the number of historians:

Spain: 35 ( Martinez Hidalgo, Emiliano Jos, Gaibrois, Ramos [...] )

Ligurian, Genoese, foreigner these are the terms repeatedly used by Manzano Manzano, Rector of Seville University.

Italy: 41 ( Taviani, Granzotto, Anna Maria Salone, [...] )

France: 36 ( Mahn Lot, Heers, Mollat, Braudel [...] )

Report 100 to 1.

Columbus Portuguese? The Portuguese Manuel Rosa ( amateur ). End.

At the time of the discoveries, everyone considered him Italian, Genoese, a foreigner in Spain. Judging from contemporary writings, nobody even thought it was worth discussing the subject. There are at least twenty such publications in the 16th century and nine in the 17th century. In addition, there were sixty-two by writers. Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese. Three contemporary Genoese chroniclers claim him as a compatriot. These are the facts.

Davide41, you call these facts? I want you to show which contemporary Portuguese writers called the discoverer "Genoese". Give us names please.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Further confirmation comes from the nine folio volumes of the Raccolta Colombiana, published by the Italian government in 1892, and the folio volume of the city of Genoa, published in 1931, both containing such an abundance of documents that there can no longer be any disputing them. No document, no historical data, authorize or even partially justify the tales spun around the birth of Columbus.

Err is human, but to persist is diabolical. There is no excuse.

Columbus Portuguese is Fantasy. The book (of Rosa) is Fantasy. Speculation. Report 100 to 1. --Davide41 (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from a newcomer

I came here seeking facts. Instead I found an imbalanced dispute between two individuals, neither of whom seem to be recognised International authorities on their subject. EITHER you get your heads together and agree to present all cases equitably, each in its own right and without sniping at the other (ie NPOV) OR you agree a neutral arbiter with the requisite status and accept their balance. One of the objects of Wikipedia is that we're not forced to kowtow to orthodoxy - it's the fifth pillar of Wikipedia, which allows us to mention alternative theories whilst presenting one as orthodox. As far as I can see you both breach all five.

Colon-el-Nuevo, at first sight you infringe Original Research, nor do you identify yourself as the author of a particular work. However, writing from within Portugal where I have attempted to make some specific enquiries about the origins of Columbus' study of d'Ailly as his chief inspiration for the presumption the world is spherical (a source shared through Cusanus by Kepler and Copernicus), the possibility you express as a fact is widely shared here, so this is effectively an unresolved cutting-edge question, not a definitive position either way, but certainly not arrant nonsense either - the US may well be out-of-date as you suggest. There is, however, a middle path. Certain sources suggest Columbus' participation in the 1477 Genoan mission to Britain ended when the French sunk his ship off Cape St Vincent, which then renders his unevidenced visit to Bristol and Northern Europe fiction, and leaves a two-year gap in his career before he resurfaces in Lisbon. He could only then have landed from the wreck at the Order of Christ's School of Navigation at Sagres, placing him under Portuguese Royal protection: it also answers the question of where he learned about d'Ailly's Alfonsine cosmology from. (Citation: Professor Laura Smoller: The Alfonsine Tables and the End of the World in ISBN 90-04-10610-3) This also establishes a link to the Order of Santiago through Alfonso X, the son of Frederic III who consolidated the Order. It is not therefore impossible that a competent Genoese seafarer could have obtained a degree of Royal approval, given the School of Navigation's eminently pragmatic orientation. I emphasise that this is OR in itself, and very hypothetical, but is supported by a solid documentary background.

Orthodox thinkers, your case is made in the main article on Columbus, let it suffice unless orthodoxy changes. A sub-Article which raises questions is probably justified in the terms in which it is established: Colon-el-Neuvo makes a good point in arguing that you are off topic here. Can you make another suggestion for where Columbus learned about d'Ailly from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.63.24.114 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted a long post from Colon-el-Nuevo which was simply a repetition of his own research, for two reasons -- original research is not allowed on talk pages either, and this page is not a forum to discuss the issue. Perhaps I should have reverted part of the above post, particularly the question at the end, although an answer to that with a specific reference that can be verified would of course be acceptable, which is why I left the question. I know there's more OR there and above, but this particular editor continually tries to use this page as a forum to promote his own research and that shouldn't be allowed to continue. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm former editor Jel, English and writing from Portugal on a flying visit. I am NOT Colon-el-Nuevo, who is probably Portuguese. I am a historian/researcher, working with Professor Laura Smoller, the world's leading expert on d'Ailly's cosmology, which was Columbus' principal inspiration. My own research is sufficiently respected to have the Prado and the world's leading expert on van Eyck coming to see me concerning a discovery I have made in this area, which Laura agrees with.

C-e-N is a new editor and has clearly not understood the peculiar form of peer review used here. It is in fact WP which is at fault by not conforming to any known academic norm in publication: I find his arguments fairly represent a set of advanced studies widely accepted in Portugal, and that he is NOT using the page simply to promote his own research as you state. Have you or any of the other posters in favour of Orthodoxy bothered to visit Portugal or can you quote current Portuguese historians who can support your contention?

I asked you privately to exercise a degree of moderation while this is sorted out. As an editor and researcher in history I well understand the OR question, I made it in my comment above: the answer was to find someone who is qualified to adjudicate, not to plunge in to a subject you know nothing about on the subjective grounds you have given. You are also, I think, an adjudicator: you must therefore surely know that if you don't actually know about the subject yourself, you should not adjudicate. I do not feel sufficiently qualified to do so myself, not least because my own opinion expressed above is raw, unformed and undebated: it is in itself OR. If you were qualified to adjudicate, you would have answered my question, not threatened to delete it.

Under these circumstances, I consider that your acts have been disproportionate and not in WP's best interests. You did, for instance, threaten me, a newcomer to the debate attempting to call you all to order and providing a degree of justification for my case, with having a perfectly justified question deleted because this page is not a forum to discuss the issue, a fit of picque conditioned by your irritation at what you consider to be C-e-N's misbehaviour. I quite agree that it is not the right forum, but if you're not prepared to discuss it privately as I requested, then you must accept that it is discussed publicly as you have started to do. I also consider that C-e-L is far from alone in his opinions: orthodoxy can be wrong and this is a meme which has that in mind. A further argument in his favour is that he is posting original documentation in support of his case.

As even God has repented of his erasures (Noah), I therefore call upon you to take a deep breath, refocus and become a fair judge. You need to find someone who knows what he is talking about. If you are unable to do so, as the link between d'Ailly and Phillip II is in my domain, then I am more than willing to read C-e-L's work and act as a peer reviewer here, so it ceases to be OR, as long as he is able to provide a fair copy in English - I do not read Portuguese. It would also help if he could supply peer reviewers of his own work. He too has not as yet attempted to contact me: I am unwilling to publish my email in clear here, but my [LJ blog] is in the public domain and is echoed to me privately, we can discuss this there. I apologise to the other readers about the public nature of this discussion, which was not of my making, and will recommend that this page be heavily edited once the case is resolved.

The alternative will require me deontologically to refer this case to a higher panel than yourself, as you are not acting within the bounds on NPOV and the Five Pillars. Should you decide to take this option, kindly indicate to whom you are accountable.

Wow. I'm accountable to the Wikipedia community, as are you. No one else. It doesn't matter what you do, you can't make his material stop being WP:OR by reviewing it, and you must know that you are not using 'peer review' in the usual way. Posting original documentation doesn't help either, see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, we can't use primary sources in the way you seem to be suggesting. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of legal fact, I'm not accountable to the Wikipedia community: International Law trumps you and any so-called compliance you may wish to impute to me, as I am, I would remind you, FORMER editor Jel. However, that is irrelevant, you have become publicly insulting to me as well after I testified that your viewpoint does not meet the apparent facts. As you have refused to respect the initial stages of a dispute procedure, friendly resolution, I have referred your behaviour to Wikiquette.

Your attitude is exactly that which caused Larry Sanger to quit, an administrator believing he knows it all. You have not replied to my question whether you have actually investigated whether or not there is a school of thought in Portugal of whom C-e-L is representative - there is, indeed if you investigate the IP address against my previous posting I was in Portugal at the time I posted it. It may be questioned how extensive it is, but my simple testimony is that this was the primary evidence I found in a limited number of experienced people I asked, and as such bears more weight than "I'm talking out of my hat". A better approach would be to ask a Portuguese historian - the Point St Vincent library suggested Jose Saraiva. You have not demonstrated the basic knowledge one might expect of an expert on Columbus, detailing where he learned to match Kepler when his education in Genoa would have been at best basic, and you have not accepted a single thing I have said about a different viewpoint being possible. In fact, you have disrespected the injunction at the head of this page, "Assume good faith". Are you in any way a historian? You are quite welcome to check with Professor Smoller whether an Englishman is working on d'Ailly with her, so kindly demonstrate whether you have any qualifications whatsoever to become involved on this page: if it is only that you are a mucker-mucker admin, then you have not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.165.143 (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting. Complaint discussed and rejected (while I was asleep) at WP:WQA. For anyone else here who might wonder, I will point out that you do not qualifications in history to edit articles. And legally or not, we are all accountable to the Wikipedia community when we edit. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Again I praise the fairness and open-mindeness of former editor Jel in attempting to provide the WP readers with a fair and balanced article on Columbus, something that is severely lacking. As for Dougweller, I hold no hope that he will EVER let anything but the old tale of Columbus reside on WP pages. He has not bothered to check any references I have provided he simply ignores it as the ramblings of "fringe research" when in fact it is a careful 20 year study of all the evidence we currently have on Columbus. Everything I present is found in the documents for those who want to look at them. I have the backing of many historians (those who have read of course) including world renown Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão who wrote the Preface to my two latests books. I like to equate this Tale of a Wool-Weaver Columbus to the Galileo incident because as much as the old tale of the wool-weaver makes sense to some, it is clearly contrary to all the facts and all of the customs of his day and the proof I present denies the 500-year-old tale. If you look through the archived discussions off these talk pages you will see how long I have been in this battle. Even the pages I have created on Columbus's wife, Filipa Moniz containing the uncontested facts of her genealogy, has been continuously deleted from WP because it becomes clear from her lineage that any wool-weaver tale is just that a big invention. All I have been trying to do is promote the facts which I also believe was WP's goal. But it is just a matter of time until all this joke of a history gets rewritten as it is already being done in many countries. Keep in mind the circle Prester John > Templar Knights > Order of Christ > Prester John and also remember one important thing. Only in Portugal was theTemplar Order allowed to exist with its name changed to the Order of Christ and that in 1420 the Templar Master was none other than Henry ther Navigator and that the first European to visit Prester John was a portuguese spy around 1490. Columbus was not working alone he was part of a big project and had an entourage in Seville that aided him, including the Duke of Medina Sidonia who purchased the Monastery of Las Cuevas in 1490 so it could serve as the headquarters of Columbus's mission in Spain. Visit Las Cuevas and you will find nothing less than the symbols used by today's Freemansons, The tomb of the Bishop who founded Las Cuevas is a Freemason-like monument - which includes the two pillars with the sun and moon- and the same symbols are painted on Columbus's portrait by Alejo Fernandez and we all know Columbus signed all his letters with a secret Templar signature. A lot has yet to be written on this subject and I am certain others, more qualified than I, will pursue this Templar-Mason angle. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To former editor Jel, one other thing that you should keep in mind is that the Portuguese Order of Santiago was separated from the Spanish Order and was its own order led by King John II from 1470 until 1495 and then by John II's son. John II as master HAD to authorize Columbus's marriage to Filipa Moniz, who was herself a Member of the Order of Santiago and she resided in this Order's elite comenda of Todos-os-Santos in Lisbon (today the French Embassy) where Columbus also used to attend Mass. No peasant wool weaver would be attending Mass inside a complex of the Order of Santiago which was reserved for the elite Knights of the day. Top understand this search for "Largo de Santos, Lisbon" in Google Maps go to street view and look for the pink wall with the French flag on top of it. It is 4 stories high the people living inside this complex were very well protected. Any tale of a wool weaver getting inside there to go court a noble lady who lived in there is rubbish. The men who entered there were nobleman.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Just by using your brain, there is no fact (more than some false documents) that supports the genovese theory.

• is there any city/island/river/mountain called after italian places or after portugues places?
• how can it be that he never wrote in some italian/genovese when talking with the italian banks or with his family?
• how is it that a simple wool weaver could marry a noble woman and get audience with the king of Italy and with the king of Spain?
• why do you name plants/animals and describe them using castillian/portuguese species (and not the italian ones)?
• how can you excel in Atlantic ships/navigation as an Almirant coming from a wool weaver family?
  

For centuries where a lot of historians that supported wrong versions. Do you believe them or do you put facts against facts and use deduction? Do you seriously believe that there where only 300 spartans like the ancient historians? Do you seriously believe in the Bible fairytales? BTW. I am not an historian. I read/write/speak swedish, english, spanish and portuguese and have a PhD in Physics.
I don't give a **** for national feelings. It doesn't matter the country, it matters to write the truth.
I honestly think that Colon-el-Nuevo is following the right track.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.132.16 (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To the above Unsigned: I have always tried to present information that is accurate, documented and verifiable. All you need to do is ask for the proof, I have gathered it over 20 years now: Here is a list of names used by Columbus in the New World that are at the same time names on the Portuguese Islands of Madeira and Porto Santo: Santa Cruz, Rio das Canas, Rio do Sol, Cabo da Galé, Porto Sancto e Porto Sacro, Cabo do Namorado, Ponta de Ferro, Cabo de Cruz, Rio Seco, Cabo Campainha, Madalena, Porto dos Jardins, Cabo do Farol, Boca do Dragão, Beata, Canal de Vacas, Ponta do Areal, Cabo de Lapa, Vale do Paraíso, -- Names used from the Portuguese Islands of the Azores: As Formigas, Ilha Santa Maria, Ilha Horta -- Names used from Portuguese Mainland: Cuba, Ponta de Caxinas, Monserrate, Santa Maria de Belém* e Rio de Belém,Guadalupe, Rio da Lua, Cabo de Estrela, Trásmontana, Nossa Senhora das Neves. -- Names from Portuguese places named by portuguese in Western África: Porto dos Fidalgos,Cabo Formoso, Cabo de Palmas, Porto Almadías, Cabo de Pena, Porto de Natal, Rio de Ouro, Ponta Roxa, Cabo Talhado, Cabo Lindo, Rio de Santo Domingo, Ponta da Praia, Golfo da Baleia, Cabo Boto, Porto Formoso, As Barbas e Ilhéus Barbas, Ponta da Agulha e Ilha Agulha, Cabo Rico, Cabo do Monte, Santa Catarina, Fortaleza de Esperança, Ilha S. Tomé e Porto do Mar de Sancto Tomás,Porto do Príncipe, Ilha Santiago, Golfo de S. Brás, Ilha de Cabra, Porto Grande, Cabo da Lagoa, Bahia das Alagoas, Cabo de S. Miguel, Porto da Conceicão, Cabo Santo, Cabo Sacro, A Assunção, Ilha Bohio, Ponta Rama, Monte Cristalino, Ilha Tórtola, Ilha de Graça, O Galo, Vega Real, Cabo do Bezerro, Ilhéu Navasa, Porto das Cabanas, Porto Mata,

• «Santa Maria de Belém», in Lisboa, was the name of the Chapel dedicated by prince Henry the Navigator, to the navigators of the Tempar Order of Christ in Restelo where Columbus anchored on the return voyage from the New World. A few years later this chapel was replaced by King Manuel I with the Monastery of Jeronimos still there today. On the Island of Tortuga next to Haiti there is today a name Punta Portugal, that I don't know was named by Columbus or not. It is not in his diary.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is False somebody please remove this

In the language section someone wrote "Columbus wrote almost exclusively in Spanish which it is suggested he learned in Portugal as there was no written form of Genoese" This is untrue. Genoese was a written language. Furthermore a "a small handwritten Genoese gloss" in broken Italian (some 20 words were at least 10 are Spanish-Portuguese) does not show he wrote Italian. The language section needs a total rewrite. There is no way that a person "while still in Genoa, Columbus may have learned notions of Portuguese-influenced Spanish from travelers" by casual contact and yet in 25 years not be able to pick up his mother tongue of Genoese. "Latin, on the other hand, was the language of scholarship, and here Columbus excelled" which completely denies that he spent the first half of his life as a poor, penniless peasant working behind a wool weaving machine but instead in the courts and schools.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If the Genoese had no written language as the "inventors" of Columbus history have written than how do you explain this: "There is, however, an uninterrupted literary tradition of Ligurian poets and writers that goes from the 13th century to our days, such as Luchetto (the Genoese Anonym), Martin Piaggio and Gian Giacomo Cavalli." And here in the Italian Wikipedia's Lingua ligure page is a text in Genoese from the 13th Cerntury «Tanti sun li Zenoeixi, e per lo mondo si desteixi, che und'eli van o stan un'aotra Zenoa ge fan »(Rima dell'Anonimo Genovese, XIII sec. ). "The fourteenth century, however, sees above all a remarkable flowering of prose texts (mostly anonymous, but also by authors such as Jerome and Antonio de Regibus Bavarians), or original works translated from Latin, from French, Tuscan and Catalan which Genoa proposed as a center of reception and transmission for a kind of moralizing literature, a character narrative, chronicles and doctrinal, touching its vertices in the Passion of Christ... This trend continued in the fifteenth century eschatological enriched content in the histories of compliment from the world and Avegno de Antechriste, but meanwhile the use of the Genoese as a chancery language involves the transcription of political speeches and other prose. Poetry in the vernacular in which stigmatizes the discord, but also celebrates with Andreoli Giustiniani, the most recent victories abroad."Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bastaaaaaaaaaa!! C'hai completamente rotto co' 'sta storia assurda che Colombo era Portoghese!!!!!!! Bastaaaaaa!!!! Vai a propagandare 'ste fandonie da un'altra parte!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC) [TRANSLATION for those who don't understand Genoese: Enouuuuugh!! It's completely unsound this absurd story that Columbus was Portuguese !!!!!! Go to propagate this nonsense somewhere else!! Enouuuugh!!!]Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Attilios, I can already sense your desperation. Your fantasy of a Genoese Colombo is beginning to unravel fast. This farse of history will soon be put to an end. All that was required as a Portuguese speaking historian to see through it all.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

Antillios, Colombo was not Portuguese. Colombo was 100% Genoese. A poor wool weaver who could not even pay 2,5 ducats to his creditors. BUT Colombo wool-weaver was NOT Colón the discoverer. Colón the discoverer was a noble knight with a coat of arms, who after the first voyage was further elevated to "Knight of the Golden Spur" and very PORTUGUESE in his writings, actions, marriage and loyalty.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Columbus As Byzantine Nobel

The line in the article, "Columbus's Greek background is not accepted by non-Greek historians" should be removed. This is cited as from the book 'Greek Americans: Struggle and Success' (Second Edition) by Charles C. Moskos. I own this book. This is from the introduction of the book, and was written in 1980. Further, nowhere in the book is there any reference whatsoever to back up this claim that only Greek historians have given credence to the theory. If Columbus was a Medieval Greek or not is not the point. The sentence mentioned above defames the theory unfairly and out of proportion with the other theories presented. A simple Google search of the theory will reveal numerous considerations of it from non-Greek and non-Cypriot sources. Not to mention the fact that not all Greek historians agree with the theory; the sentence in question is taken word-for-word from the book and is taken somewhat out of context. It's citation in the article would make it seem all "Greek historians" are ethnocentric flakes. Again, it's tone is defamatory and decidedly non encyclopedic - and certainty nonacademic, as it frames the theory as being politically motivated before it can even be carefully considered.

It's my opinion that it's one of the strongest theories; very logical. --Nikoz78 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've change the sentence in question, if for no other reason than it read as if the idea has become mainstream among Greek historians, which as you say is unsupported by the citation. ClovisPt (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Davide41

It appears that editor Davide41 is only interested in repeating what authors have written since the 1500s until today. Repetition, in my opinion, is not necessary. I have edited the beginning of the article to what I feel is a cleaner introduction.CuriousColonal (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Repetition, in my opinion [Sources series not opinions], is not necessary - CuriousColonal

Source:

• Samuel Eliot Morison, professor of history at Harvard University and, subsequently, professor of American history to the University of Oxford and, without doubt, one of the greatest connoisseurs of life of Christopher Columbus.

• Paolo Emilio Taviani, the greatest scholar of Christopher Columbus ( 2.500 volumes and 1.000 scholarly essays ).

You ? Columbus 100% Portuguese by Manuel Rosa ? Who is he?

There are at least twenty such publications in the 16th century and nine in the 17th century. In addition, there were sixty-two by Italian writers. Of this last group, only fourteen are by Ligurians, the other authors being Lombards, Venetians, Tuscans, Neapolitans, Sicilians and one Maltese. Regional rivalries were still alive in the 16th century, so that the forty-eight confirmations of Columbus' Genoese origin, by non Ligurian writers, take on virtually the same significance as those of the twenty-nine non-Italians. These are historically verified facts. --Davide41 (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We got bored of Portuguese "scholars" putting forward such absurd stories! No serious scholar in the world believes in such fables. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Reminder on logging in

This is a reminder to all editors here: if you have an account, please log in when you edit. Not logging in as a way to avoid scrutiny or to get around the reverting policy is unacceptable and may result in either you being blocked from editing, or this page being temporarily semi-protected. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese hypothesis

I recently made a series of edits to the "Portuguese hypothesis" section. This was mostly because the section was a mess; my editing shouldn't be taken as a sign that I endorse the inclusion of particular works in the section. Actually, it seems as if none of the three "pro-Portuguese" authors or their books is shown to meet our standards of notability. As the section still has problems I may make some more cleaning-type edits. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice job.

The claim for a Portuguese Columbus emerges every now and then from that country's dilettante historians, however, no document, no historical data, authorize or even partially justify the tales spun around the birth of Columbus. All of the serious scholars, some of whom are deservedly well known and widely quoted abroad, use unequivocal documents. Regards. --Davide41 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Rosa explains Columbus’ Polish roots. Author and scholar Dr. Manuel Rosa believes the man known as Christopher Columbus was indeed the son of a Polish King Vladislav III and a Portuguese noble lady. http://ampoleagle.com/rosa-explains-columbus-polish-roots-p4356-1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.202.252 (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

PORTOGUES

I would like to request that we enter into the Portuguese section the first and only reference ever made to Columbus's nationality at Isabella's court. Prof. Antonio Rumeu de Armas presented a document from the court of Queen Isabella dated October 18, 1487 where Columbus is paid 30 Gold Coins and is called Portuguese twice. (Antonio Rumeu de Armas, El «Portugués» Cristóbal Colon en Castilla. Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Instituto De Cooperación Iberoamericana, Madrid 1982, p. 29.) I would also like to ask that Columbus's own words be entered into the article taken from his letter to Isabella and Fernando, written March 4, 1493, Columbus writes "remember Your Highnesses that I left wife, children and came from my homeland to serve you". This letter can be seen in the book Congreso de Historia del Descubrimiento (1492-1556), Real Academia de la Historia (Spain) 1992. Pg. 99. I am simply asking to include something that is a factual source just like it is done in other theories.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

<STOP - Origin theories of Christopher Columbus>

"15:43, 17 December 2010 Davide41 (talk | contribs) (47,774 bytes) (En un hombre como Cristóbal Colón, con tres patrias. Por el nacimiento era de Génova; por primera adopción, de Portugal (sin reconocimiento oficial), " el Portuguese ". pp. 50-55 = Bad Faith. End.)" - Apparently to you it is irrelevant that there is a controversy over Cristóbal Colón's birthplace. It is also irrelevant whether or not anyone ever affirmed that he was not from Genoa. This is obvious. However, I must ask. Why do we need a page on "Origin theories of Christopher Columbus" if we are NOT allowed to add information relative to those origin theories? Is the page called "GENOESE Origin theories of Christopher Columbus"? it is not. Then why do you insist that only sources that say "Columbus + Genoa" are relevant???I will yield to your request to "STOP" making changes on this origins page once you show me ONE (1) document from the discoverer saying he was from Genoa. Not documents from third parties who wrote hearsay. Not references from 1000 historians who repeated that hearsay. But 1 single time when Columbus wrote that he was Genoese, i will stop. Until then I will continue to edit and add the sources that are important to this article. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph contains this statement: "Much of this evidence derives from data concerning Columbus' immediate family connections in Genoa and opinions voiced by contemporaries concerning his Genoese origins, which but few really dispute." ---This of course is not correct. An indisputable Genoese connection has never been made. It has been "accepted" as the most likely, however from the beginning there has always been a controversy over his nationality. Even during the court case of 1526 witnesses were questioned about the nationality. His son Fernando would later write that there was uncertainty about where he was from. And in 1601 Herrera writes: «qual sea la mas cierta descendencia [de Colón] en el Consejo supremo de las Indias, adonde se litiga se determinará» (what is the most certain descent [of Colón] in the Supreme Council of the Indies, where he litigates is determined). There has always been a controversy from 1484 until today. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

" This of course is not correct " - Colon-el-Nuevo

Source ? An Information Technology analyst at the help desk of the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, North Carolina (Sic)

Historians

In addition to Ballesteros Beretta and Manzano, the following historians have recognized that Columbus was Genoese: the Spanish Navarrete, Munoz, Duro, Asensio, Serrano y Sanz, Altolaguirre, Perez de Tudela, Morales Padron, Manuel Alvar, Ciroanescu, Rumeu de Armas, Muro Orejon, Martinez Hidalgo, Emiliano Jos, Demetrio Ramos, Consuelo Varela, Juan Gil, Ballesteros Gaibrois, and Milhou; the French D'Avezac, Roselly de Lorgues, Vignaud, Sumien, Charcot, Houben, de la Ronciere, Mahn Lot, Heers, Mollat, and Braudel; the English Robertson, Johnson, Markham, Brebner, and Bradford; the Belgians Pirenne and Verlinden; the Germans Humboldt, Peschel, Ruge, Streicher, Leithaus, and Breuer; the Swiss Burckhardt; the Russian Magidovic; the Rumanian Goldemberg; the North Americans Irving, Harrisee, Winsor, Dickey, Thacher, Nunn, Morison, Parry, and Boorstin; the Cubans Alvarez Pedroso, Ramirez Corria, Carpentier, and Nunez Jimenez; the Puerto Ricans Aurelio Tio and Alegria; the Colombians Arciniegas and Obregon; the Argentinians Molinari, Levillier,a nd de Gandia; the Uruguayans Laguarda Trias and Marta Sanguinetti; and the Japanese Aynashiya among others. Outside of specialized studies, many authoritative figures in science and in letters have had the occasion to express their convictions regarding a Genoese Columbus: Leibniz, Voltaire, Nietzsche, Paul Claudel, Churchill.

Milton Meltzer, Paolo Emilio Taviani [ the authority on studies about Columbus ], Esmond Wright, Edward Everett Hale, Martin Dugard, David Boyle, José-Juan López-Portillo, Valerie I.J. Flint, Etc. Etc.

Sacred Monsters

• Samuel Eliot Morison, professor of history at Harvard University and, subsequently, professor of American history to the University of Oxford and, without doubt, one of the greatest connoisseurs of life of Christopher Columbus.
• Paolo Emilio Taviani, the greatest scholar of Christopher Columbus ( 2.500 volumes and 1.000 scholarly essays ).
• The greatest of all Spanish historians, that same Ballesteros, Professor of the University of Madrid and director of the monumental series of publications on the Historia de America y de los pueblos americanos, devotes eighty pages to the question of Columbus' native land, and concludes that "no one can cast the least shadow of doubt" on his being from Genoa. --Davide41 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

At the time of the discoveries, everyone considered him Italian, Genoese, a foreigner in Spain. Judging from contemporary writings, nobody even thought it was worth discussing the subject.

Historians and geographers from many nations Spain, Portugal, Germany, England, the Netherlands, Switzerland, France and Turkey all speak of the Genoese Columbus, who discovered the Americas. Nor did their books and atlases gather dust in libraries. Some went through several editions. The reports contained and repeated in them were never denied. These are historically verified facts. --Davide41 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Genoese birth and cultural background of Christopher Columbus, is guaranteed by many documents, by testimony, and by positive and indisputable proof, examples of which are reported below. The letter from Columbus to the patrons of the Banco de San Giorgio in Genoa, the text of two letters addressed to Nicolo Oderico, ambassador of the Republic of Genoa to the Court of Spain. Even more important and definitive are the public and notarial acts - original copies of which are conserved in the archives of Genoa and Savona - regarding Columbus's father, Columbus himself, his grandfather, and his relatives. There are many such documents - more than a hundred -. Many contemporary European writers: 106; the testament in Seville of Ferdinand Columbus; in his The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus, in chapter five, writes: "And because it was not far from Lisbon," says Ferdinand, "where he knew there were many Genoese, his countrymen, he went away thither as fast as he could". Dr. Aldo Agosto has collected, one hundred and ten notarial documents. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in eye, but considerest not the beam ? 100\1 or 1\100 ?! One word: bad faith. Signed: 35 years of teaching. --Davide41 (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt that consensus among historians is for the genoese origins. The article should clearly state that this is the most commonly accepted theory and that the others do not have general acceptance.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Davide41, you are out of control. Why could Columbus not be from another nation? The letters written to Italy (if they are not forgeries) prove the guy could not write a word in Italian!! Have you ever heard of an Italian writing home to his Italian friends but in Spanish? How illogical is that? Rosa's argument that the Colombo peasant could never have married a noble is correct with social practices in place at the time. That's 2 strikes against Genoa and in favor of Rosa: (1) an Italian who cannot write Italian. and (2) a peasant marrying a noble. Then, if the mayorazgo is a forgery, as Rosa claims to have proved, one big pillar of the accepted history falls. It is irrelevant of Rosa is an IT or a Rocket Scientist, irrelevant. There have been many worldwide accepted "truths" that were proven t be myths: flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, weapons of mass destruction,.. to name a few. There are thousands of articles on zRosa's theory, even Russian TV and Saturday Night Live spoke of it. If Rosa is proven to be right, what then? What changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.158.74 (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Rosa is not a historian; works for the Information Technology support help desk at the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center. I'm a historian

• Two unquestionably authentic documents are the basis for assuming that his birth-date is between 25 August and 31 October 1451. In one dated 31 October 1470, Columbus declares himself "major annis decemnovem" ("nineteen years old"); in the other, dated 25 August 1479, he says he is "annorum vigintiseptem vel circa" ("about twenty-seven"). Between 25 August and 31 October 1451, Domenico Colombo, Christopher's father, was warder of the Porta dell'Olivella, Genoa's eastern gate, and therefore lived near the gate itself. So it was there that Christopher would have been born. It is historically certain that Columbus was of Ligurian stock.

Bla, Bla, Bla. Dilettantes (rather dilettante) is probably the same person. --Davide41 (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Davide41, YOU are a historian? Are you really? Or are you a parrot repeating what your history teacher taught you? Are you one of those to blame for the carrying on of the fantasy history of Columbus? Maybe you can help me understand where what is wrong with the Portuguese theory. Tell me please the answer to the following two questions: 1- What makes the "mayorzago of 1498" authentic? 2- Who was the Portuguese Pedro Nunes arrested in 1488 and why was he arrested? --- Tell us Mr. Historian Davide41, lets see if you are truly up to the job of argumenting the history of Columbus or if you are just another blind follower.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think he has done a pretty good job of showing that a majority of historians consider the genoese origins of Columbus to be a no-brainer. This is what is important - not our own personal theories. Wikipedia is a blind follower of the majority opinion - that is the job of an encyclopedia. If you have doubts about this read the article about WP:TRUTH and about what wikipedia is WP:NOT.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, I read "Wikipedia:The Truth" for the first time today and for the first time I realize what I am up against in this site. It is now obvious to me that it is futile for me to continue trying to bring any sources here that support a contrary argument. It seems to me that the only "smart" conclusion I can come to is that I must "stand down." Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Wikipedia is here to informa readers about the current state of scholarly knowledge - not to tell the truth or promote new theories. If that is what you feel is more important then this project is not right for you, there are many other places on the internet where you can argue in favor of Rosa's theories.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Deserves an answer ? No. The facts speak. Dilettante; rather an Information Technology analyst at the help desk of the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, North Carolina. Write an alternate history book, but please stop to harass that article with such meaningless theories. --Davide41 (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Davide41, You can add all the links you want to "historians" like YOU who "agree" that Cristóbal Colón was a Columbus/Colombo from Italy based on HEARSAY from century to century. I have numbers also. I have 477 witnesses that Cristóbal Colón was NOT a Colombo. 477 DNA tests of Italian Colombo families and NOT ONE, not 1, matched Cristóbal Colón's DNA. So if the debate is between consecrated "historians" peddling HEARSAY or dilettantes who resort to 21st century SCIENCE. I will stick with the forensic science before I believe the likes of you who has done nothing more than parrot what others said. 477 DNA tests to prove that Cristóbal Colón was a Cristoforo Colombo. Not ONE match!!! The Genoese Theory Failed.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

DNA tests of Columbus? Published where? Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

477 Colombo/Colon/Colom families tested for DNA matches. Not 1 Match. Exactly where you would expect to find a match. Not one was found. DNA proves The End of the Colombo wool-waever story. Now lets find the real nobleman who married in Portugal.

• http://business.highbeam.com/436103/article-1G1-152775028/colombus-descendants-sought-europe-through-477-dna
• http://serlibres.mforos.com/1111898/5767978-estudian-477-muestras-adn-para-fijar-origenes-de-cristobal-colon/
• http://portalinfomed.sld.cu/socbio/infonews_render_full/16878

In 1 test they match 3 individuals by their DNA (Father, Son and Brother). One test they get a match to say conclusively that Colón is buried in Seville. In 47 tests they FAIL to match one COLOMBO from Liguria, in 477 tests they FAIL to match one Colombo/Colon/Colom from Italy, France or Spain. Colombo/Columbus the "Tall Tale" of the wool-weaver from Quinto FAILS the test of science, only HEARSAY supported by mindless repetition for 500 years. It was Not the Truth. The Untold Story is out!Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, analyst. Go ! End. --Davide41 (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the old story that failed to reach a conclusion. "needs new techniques to reach a definite conclusion. The director of the Genetic Identification Laboratory at the University of Granada, Jose Antonio Lorente, who is leading the research project, said that results obtained to date "do not allow us to distinguish, at this stage of the process, the admiral's place of origin.".The study says they couldn't make a match because of inadequate techniques, not because there were no matches. ". "Right now, we haven't developed sufficient markers that can be applied to DNA that comes from bones," says Lorente. "We're working on improving it every day, but we can't say when we'll have results." They were unable to say yes or no. You clearly don't understand the research or if you do, you are mis-representing it. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, I think it is you who is misunderstanding the research. 1 test of DNA with Fernando Colón (son), Diego Colón (brother) and Cristóbal Colón (discoverer) came up with a DNA match. Got it so far. 1 test proved they were all related to the point of Dr. Lorente claiming that "the bones of Columbus are in Seville" was this result "because of inadequate techniques"??? Really? No, it was a match, therefore they had no doubt that the three persons were one family. Then in 477 tests NOT ONE match showed up. If they had found a match, then there would be an answer today. There was NO MATCH because there was no match. It is very simple... not the same family. No matter how "fragmented" the DNA is, in those fragments you would find a match had they been the same family. Got it? Same family same DNA therefore you would have seen matches in every fragment. What prof. Lorente said was that he CANNOT tell the "admiral's place of origin." Another words the DNA can not yet be matched to a "place" or region he said nothing about matching "to a family". The family DNA of the Colombo family was not a match. Therefore other families are needed to find a match. The 477 Colombo test failed. the 1 Colón test succeeded. The reason one succeeded and 477 failed is very simple NOT the SAME DNA. And now the place of origin is unclear. unfounded and unresolved not because of the Colón's DNA was fragmented but because in those fragments nothing matched to the Colombos. Had they been the same family you would have found a match and this discussion we are having, would not be taking place. The Colombo DNA failed to match and that is the first scientific nail in the Colombo wool-weaver's coffin. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(...) " The glorious myth of Columbus has prompted some minds to hallucinate and some dilettantes to try to appropriate the myth for themselves. " --Davide41 (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Davide41, You have never written any truer words than these "The glorious myth of Columbus"! Myth yes, Columbus/Colombo/Pigeon are all part of the glorious myth of a peasant illiterate Italian wool-weaver marrying a noble Portuguese lady and becoming a noble scholar in a "flash of a historians magic pen". The "glorious myth of Columbus" wool-weaver is over. The guy who discovered America was a nobleman with a coat of arms, with connection in Portugal and very trusted by the King of Portugal who married him to one of the members of his Military Order of Santiago. This man named COLÓN and NEVER Colombo/Columbus was a scholar and a high courtesan and was NOT the mythical wool-weaver you keep peddling. Stop peddling myths, we've had enough of the wool being pulled over our eyes, 500 years is enough. End.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

" A hopeless case ". End. --Davide41 (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Rosa explains Columbus’ Polish roots

AE: Is there anything else you'd like to add? story link ROSA: “This research brings many new facts to light. After reading this book you will no longer accept, among other things, that Columbus was a peasant, that he did not know how to navigate, that his true name was Christopher Columbus, that he discovered America, that he was lost, or that he was illiterate until age 25 then taught himself how to read and write, among many other things we have been taught by our teacher that are simply not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.202.252 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Rosa is seen as a leading expert on the subject of Columbus’s relations with the Portuguese crown. He is the only investigator to present new Portuguese documentation related to Columbus in 500 years. http://argentina.world-countries.net/archives/306 Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• " Rosa is seen as a leading expert " (Sic)
• Manuli Rosa an expert on Columbus (Sic)

• Rosa is not a historian; works for the Information Technology support help desk at the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Clearly you believe that a person can only be one thing in their life and don't understand that because someone chooses to work at one profession to pay their bills does not mean they are not able to hold other professions. Maybe in Italy where you think you are a "historian" it is like that but in the USA we are free to live up to our potential independently of our daily jobs. Mr. Rosa is a scholar and maybe you maybe you should ask him how he became fluent in Portuguese, Spanish, English, Italian, French and Russian if he is a simple IT support employee. Do you think he is just a computer tinkerer?

Paolo Emilio Taviani

• He has written a dozen books on Columbus
• A library of 2500 books [ Columbus ]
• 1.000 scholarly essays

" Paolo Taviani, not only Europe's leading authority on Columbus [...] " ( The log of Christopher Columbus - Robert Henderson Fusion )

" Europe's renowned Columbus expert, Paolo Emilio Taviani " [...] " ( Rapport: Volume 16,Edizioni 3-17 ) --Davide41 (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It is historically certain that Columbus was of Ligurian stock. Not until the 18th and 19th centuries, did anyone begin disputing Columbus' Genoese origins. At the time of the discoveries, everyone considered him Italian, Genoese [ Contemporary European writers: 106 ]. Still more significant is the testimony of ambassadors of the period : Pedro de Ayala, Nicolo Oderico, Angelo Trevisan and Gaspare Contarini. Scholars from all over the world agree that Columbus was Genoese. The fact was fully accepted by Harrisse, the illustrious late 19th-century American historian. Even Vignaud - a relentless detractor of Columbus - does not question his Genoese birth. The position of Caddeo, an energetic and wholehearted supporter of Columbus' Italian and Genoese origins, is adopted by the Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari, who wrote a succinct and impressive biography in the 1930s. Samuel Eliot Morison, the greatest of contemporary American biographers, writes: "The story starts in Genoa with Discoverer's parents." In short, we can say that the question of the Discoverer's homeland has been positively resolved. He is Genoese. There is no mystery about the birth, family or race of Christopher Columbus. --Davide41 (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"There is no mystery about the birth, family or race of Christopher Columbus." Yes. This is true. There is no mystery about wool-weaver laborer and bankrupt Cristoforo Colombo from Quinto called "lanerio de Janua" weaver of Genoa in all the Raccolta Documents. The person the mystery is Don Cristóbal Colón a scholar, nobleman, navigator, knight with a coat of arms and uncle to noble Portuguese courtesans already in 1479 and a trusted subject of King John II of Portugal. If the other confused the two person for not knowing any better does not make them the same person. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Columbus Portuguese ? Manuel Rosa analyst it ( The historian an expert on Columbus [ sic ] )

• Columbus Portuguese is fantasy. End. --Davide41 (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/8166041/Christopher-Columbus-was-son-of-Polish-king.html

"I have made a request to the Cathedral in Krakov to examine remains from the tomb of Vladislav II, who could turn out to be the grandfather of Columbus. It would prove the truth of my theory," said Mr Rosa.

( " Maybe in Italy where you think you are a "historian" " ) Go, Mr Rosa ! --Davide41 (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

End of an Era of Lies

José Antonio Carbonell Pla (comment book) :

"Con gran profusión de datos, y gracias a un profundo estudio de textos originales... Creo que, en efecto, la obra logra cambiar la perspectiva histórica existente sobre la figura colombina, gracias al rigor científico de las deducciones y sus fundados criterios. Por eso tengo la impresión de que no es relevante que este libro cuente la historia vista desde el ángulo portugués, dada la nacionalidad del autor. En absoluto significa esto que sus tesis sean menos valiosas. Aspectos poco conocidos de la realidad histórica del momento en la península ibérica afloran con un lenguaje llano que huye del artificio y se sustenta en la solidez de la documentación... la caída de la historia oficial del descubrimiento de América, con la puesta en cuarentena de la tradicionalmente aceptada cuna genovesa del navegante…hacen de este ensayo un trabajo a tener en cuenta por quienes deseen acceder a un conocimiento más cercano y bien documentado de la verdadera figura del hombre que abrió los ojos de la vieja Europa a un nuevo mundo.
... Translation: (With a wealth of data, thanks to an in-depth study of original texts... I think that indeed the book succeeds in changing the existing historical perspective on the figure of Columbus, thanks to the scientific rigor of the deductions and criteria on which they are founded. Therefore, in my view, it is immaterial that this book tells the story seen from the Portuguese angle, given the nationality of the author... Little known aspects of the historical reality of those times in the Iberian Peninsula appear in plain language free from artifice and based on the strength of the documents... the fall of the official history of the discovery of America, an end to the traditionally accepted Genoese birthplace of the navigator... turn this essay into a work that should be considered by those who seek access to the to well-documented knowledge about the real life of the man who opened the eyes of the old Europe to a new world ). the Truth revealed at Last thanks to an IT guy! Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not an actual scholarly review- but just a guy on the internet. Not a reliable source of anything.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7