Talk:Christopher Columbus

Wrong reliable Sources

Kirkpatrick Sale is not a reliable source. He is simply "a source," like Morison, that you like because it fits your biased view. If Kirkpatrick Sale was a reliable source he would have stated that there is NO royal confirmation of the Last Will of 1498. Because there isn't. Kirkpatrick Sale never saw it and neither did anybody else. Even Navarrete said such royal confirmation doesn't exist: "carecemos de la satisfaccion de haber encontrado en los archivos que hemos reconocido y citamos siempre, un original de letra del Almirante ó firmado por él, ó una copia legalizada en toda forma como lo está la facultad Real que antecede para instituir el mayorazgo y el codicilo otorgado en 19 de Mayo de 1506" Navarrete Page 275, Tomo II.
Translated here for you and Kirkpatrick Sale. "We lack the satisfaction of having encountered in the archives that we have examined and always cite, an original in the Admiral's handwriting or signed by him, or a copy notarized in all form as is the Royal faculty that preceded to institute an inheritance and the codicil done on 19 of May of 1506.

I fail to see how a source that is wrong can be a "reliable source" at the same time. All the statements I have made have been verifiable by the documents and the facts of history and are a result of 18 years of investigation. I am not pushing a viewpoint I am pushing facts so that readers can decide for themselves. While at the same time the article is pushing hearsay and misinterpretations of the documents. But I am learning that indeed Wikipedia articles are not an attempt to write about the truth. That is where I went wrong. I assumed we were trying to work towards an accurate encyclopedia but it turns out readers are actually reading articles full of fantasy and they should beware when using this encyclopedia as a "reliable source". I also realize that while you delete my insertions that are factual you fail to delete those that are false. Such is the case of the Galindez entry that I explained above. Although it is true that half the world wrote that the navigator was a "Columbus" and "Genoese" after he became famous the facts of his life don't support this. For one he never called himself Columbus nor was that his real name and secondly he hid his true identity and nationality therefore none of those blabbermouths would have known where he was truly from and thirdly the man who sailed to America in 1492 was already a nobleman in Portugal 20 years before and was an educated scholar as well as an expert navigator who never wrote in Genoese or Italian not even to Italy nor to his 2 brothers and he is far from that wool weaving peasant the Genoese told us he was.
For you to understand this I will give you a simple scenario. Lets say that you come across some 1000 documents in Ghanna written by 1000 people from the late 1700s early 1800s that tell the tale of an African man "John Adamastor" captured in 1760 when age 25 who was enslaved and sold in America. In 1776 this African man saved George Washington's life in a battle. Because of this event George Washington married this African, John Adamastor, with the daughter of Vice-President John Adams. John Adamastor wrote back home to all his relatives, in Perfect English mind you, that he was now the son-in-law of the Vice-President and in his honor the Vice-President changed his name to John Adams. It is of course pure fantasy even if 1000 people wrote it as truth.- This is the same with Columbus. Just like a slave couldn't marry any "lady" in the 1700s NO wool-weaver from Genoa, Portugal or Mars could marry the woman that Columbus married in 1479. I hope you can now see the ridiculousnesses of the story of a Genoese wool-weaving Columbus.Colombo.bz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.158 (talk)

Born in Genoa? Maybe. Italian? Definitely not.

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

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

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

WHo was an Italian navigator?

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

A More Truthful Truth

Men have been jealous of C.C.'s achievements for five centuries. Philipps & Philipps, quotted extensively in this article, call his achievement "a triumph of the imagination." He's one of the most accomplished men of history; the natives were killed by diseases and by Hodeja, not Colon; he was off sailing - maladministration, not genocide. There are no maps anywhere in the Old World that show a continent in the Western Hemisphere. He found it and you didn't. He survived 3 hurricanes, a tidal wave, a water spout and the worst gale in European memory - and you didn't. Learn to deal with it.

ORIGINAL POST:

as you all know colulumbus "discovered" america. well all of that is a lie. he didnt discover it, indigeounous people were already living there. he took the credit but he also killed thousands of those people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.182.26.218 (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC) I am glad to see that much of my research is helping to set the record straight about Columbus and soon I hope to nail down his true identity. The current article is excellent and very well balanced but still much of it is propped up on lies, inventions and falsehoods which can be easily proven to be. Such a case is the statement:

"In fact, Columbus was wrong about degrees of longitude to be traversed and wrong about distance per degree, but he was right about a more vital fact: how to use the North Atlantic's great circular wind pattern, clockwise in direction, to get home"

The trade winds were already known by Portuguese sailors who had gone as far as the Sargasso Sea before 1436 and Columbus knew this from the Portuguese. Also Columbus was never wrong about Latitude nor Longitude he was dead on all the time with his sailing. He knew where he was every hour of every day. The fact is that he lied about latitudes and Longitudes to maintain control of the route. How can one prove he lied about the route, degrees and leagues?

It is simple. Columbus says that Cuba is at 42N which is a blatant lie. He also gives us many false details about location and distance but the proof that he was lying comes from his Brother Bartholomew. In 1493, upon returning from the French Court, Bartholomew was handed secret instructions from Christopher to go meet him in Haiti. Bartholomew having never been to Haiti followed Christopher's directions and arrived there without getting lost. This is because Christopher Columbus gave him exact measurements, degrees and routes otherwise Bartholomew would have gone to Boston at 42N or would have gotten lost and never arrive in Haiti if Christopher didn't know what he was doing. As anyone can gather Bartholomew and Christopher held the correct info tightly but lied to others. Manuel Rosa

Delusionary History Nothing More Nothing Less

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

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

Bartolomeu Perestrello is not of Genovese ascendency

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

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

Christopher Columbus of Catalonia?

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

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

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

Columbus had also a sister

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

Added Genocide, Removed Random Rape Account

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

Article completely glosses over horrors suffered by Indians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guns, Germs and Steel

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

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

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

nebulamoonbeam 02/21/2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Removal

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

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

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

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

Birthplace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ridley Scott

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

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

Physical Description - Eye Color

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

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

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

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

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

Re-worked Physical appearance section

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

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

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

Include in Governor info

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

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

Rape account translation

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Dollar" = What?

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

Christopher Columbus's Fourth voyage

From Reference Desk/Humanities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questionable statement in article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic consensus about his birthplace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should all crimes be mentioned?

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

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

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

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

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

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Embarrassing Article

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

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

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

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

Nationality

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

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

syphilis

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

Spanish words incorrectly written

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

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

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

Sentence Fragment

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

Indians ?

He always knew where he was ? I am of Native North American desent. In no way do native North and South americans resemble persons native to India. How wrong was Columbus. 76.71.17.88 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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