Talk:Christopher Columbus

October 2006 Peer Review

League of Copyeditors, January 2007 copyedited

COUNTERING SYSTEMIC BIAS

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with North America and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias please add this thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.80.175 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of Columbus that are not considered historical documents

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says that while many U.S. history textbooks include photos of Columbus, the six on the T-shirt would not be considered historical documents as they were made after Columbus's death.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

Factual data

In Portuguese, C. Columbus is called "Cristóvão Colombo" [and not "Christovam Colom" as the page presently says...] [EMG, 14 October 2009, USer: emorier] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emorier (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Crown the Castille Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can observe modern maps about 15th century: [1], [2], [3], [4].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I have indicated in his talk page [5] such changes of deleting Spanish are a fruit of WP:ORIGINAL and WP:SYNTHESIS, and they do not agree with the secondary sources, which use really the word Spanish. Trasamundo (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Rethinking Columbus

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

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

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

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

He started slavery? Please...

Remove link on stand

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

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

Started slavery in the Americas

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

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

Why is opinion stated as fact?

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

No matter what Christopher Columbus did Affect the whole world!

Much talk of banning Columbus day Pct 12th in the U.S. This because of his brining tghe woes of Europe on the indigious people in the America. yet, he must be remebred not obnly in the New World by by all the world. He was a great explorere and Sea capatain!(dated Morning, Monday on "Columbus Day" October 12th 2009,21stCent by Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC>)Edsonbrasil (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hispañola and funding of voyage

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

Dispute?

Which of the above sections represents the dispute referenced by the tag in the Legacy section? --seberle (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Colombus wasn't Italian, from Genoa. His mother tongue was Catalan

Recent studies confirm that he is from the Kingdom of Aragon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/6326698/Christopher-Columbus-writings-prove-he-was-Spanish-claims-study.html 92.3.149.145 (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)