Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 11

COLUMBUS RULE IN HAITI
It may be important to keep in mind the actual span of Columbus's rule over the New World.

SECOND VOYAGE: THIRD VOYAGE: The Admiral is then arrested and sent to Spain under arrest in October 1500 - (ruled for 26 months). From 1493-1500 one can see the short period of time that Columbus in fact exercised the functions of governor in the New World. He ruled only four years in total and his brothers ruled three years in his stead.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Great Armada composed of 17 ships left the Canary Islands, 13/10/1493
 * The island of Dominica sighted at dawn, Guadalupe shortly after the 03.11.1493
 * Arrival in Española (Haiti), the 22.11.1493
 * Returned to Fort Natividad, finds the Santa Maria burned and the 39 Christians dead 28/11/1493
 * Founded the new colony of La Isabela, the 08.12.1493
 * Leaves La Isabela in a voyage to discover, 04/24/1494 - (ruled for only 4 months)
 * Arrives in Cuba on 30.04.1494
 * Comes to Jamaica to 05.05.1494
 * Return to Cuba 14/05/1494
 * Starts the return to La Isabela 13.06.1494
 * Arrives at Haiti 20/08/1494
 * Leaves La Isabela for Spain, 10.03.1496 - (ruled for 19 months, leaving his brothers in charge of the colony).
 * Reaches the coast of Portugal, 08.06.1496
 * Leaves Sanlucar, Spain, taking with him six vessels, 30.05.1498
 * Goes to Portuguese Porto Santo and Madeira, and then navigates to Gomera (Canary Islands), sends half the fleet to Haiti and sails in the direction of Portuguese Cape Verde with the other half, 19/06/1498
 * Leaves Cape Verde Islands 04.07.1498
 * Arrives in Trinidad to 31.07.1498
 * Leaves the Gulf of Paria and Margarita on 8/13/1498
 * Arrives at Haiti 19/08/1498

Missing Columbus Statue References
The list of Columbus Statues is very US-focused. Missing reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Monument,_Barcelona ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.234.129 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Bartolomeu Perestrelo's Family In order to understand Admiral Colón's status in 1479, it is important to understand who he married in 1479. It is also important to understand the customs of his day as well as the bars that existed between nobility and peasants. For that reason I place here the descendants of Colón's father-in-law and who they married. Bartolomeu Perestrelo was a Portuguese-born high noble whose Italian ancestors included the Count Fillipone Langosco, Ruler of Pavia. He was uncle to John II's Mistress, brother-in-law to King Duarte's "nanny" and a Knight of Santiago, member of Prince Henry the Navigator's Household and brother-in-law the the Comendadora-Major of Santiago, Violante Nogueira. His children partnered with the following high Portuguese nobles:  Branca Dias Perestrelo with D. Pedro de Noronha (Grandson of Kings of Portugal and Spain) Filipa de Mendonça married João Teixeira, son of Tristão Vaz Teixeira, First Captain of Machico, Madeira Catarina Furtado Mendonça married Mem Rodrigues de Vasconcelos, (Spanish royal blood) Knight of Prince Fernando's Household and Judge for the City of Funchal Izeu Perestrelo wife of Pedro Correia da Cunha, First Captain of Graciosa Island in the Azores and one of King John II's twenty-five bodyguards (descendant of King Afonso III of Portugal) Bartolomeu Perestrelo II, Third Captain of Porto Santo, married Guiomar Teixeira, daughter of Tristão Vaz Teixeira, First Captain of Machico, Madeira Filipa Moniz married Cristoforo Colombo, Genoese peasant wool-weaver shipwrecked in Portugal in August 1476.  The Grandchildren of Bartolomeu Perestrelo, thus the future "Admiral" Colón's son, nieces and nephews, and who they married:  <li>D. João de Noronha, o Velho, Mayor of Óbidos married D. Filipa de Castro (Portuguese Royal blood)</li> <li>D. Pedro de Noronha, Lord of Cadaval, Comendador-Major of Santiago, King John II's Lord Chamberlain married Catarina de Tavora (Spanish royal blood)</li> <li>D. Isabel de Noronha married D. João de Bragança, Marquis of Montemor-o-Novo, great-grandson of King John I of Portugal</li> <li>D. Inês de Noronha married D. João de Almeida, Second Count of Abrantes, (descendant of King Pedro I of Portugal)</li> <li>D. Catarina de Noronha married D. Lopo de Albuquerque, First Count Penamacor, King Afonso's Chamberlain and Captain of the Royal Guard (descendant of King Dinis I of Portugal)</li> <li>D. Fernando de Noronha married Constança de Albuquerque (descendant of King Dinis I of Portugal)</li> <li>Constança de Mendonça de Vasconcelos married Álvaro de Ornelas de Saavedra (Spanish royal blood)</li> <li>Heitor Mendes de Vasconcelos married Catarina Correia de Lacerda (Portuguese royal blood)</li> <li>Yolanda ou Solanda Teixeira married Bartolomeu Perestrelo Fourth Captain of Porto Santo</li> <li>Polycena de Vasconcelos married Henrique Teixeira (Portuguese royal blood)</li> <li>Jorge Correia da Cunha married Leonor de Melo (Spanish royal blood)</li> <li>Bartolomeu Perestrelo, Fourth Captain of Porto Santo, married Aldonça Rodrigues da Camara, granddaughter of Captain Zarco of Funchal, Madeira</li> <li>D. Diego Colón, married María de Toledo y Rojas, Spanish royal blood and cousin of King Fernando who was married to the famous Queen Isabel!!!!!!</li> </ul> Filpa Moniz's son married the King of Spain's cousin!!!! The facts are what they are.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

New World?
The second to last sentence of paragraph three in the opening section. "They had, therefore, an enormous impact in the historical development of the modern Western world."

This event had impacts that reached far beyond the Western World. An examination of the agricultural effects alone would show that with many New World agricultural products now wide spread in parts of the world that are hardly Western. Corn. Turkey. Tomatoes. Potatoes. Yams (though probably initially dispersed by Polynesians). That's just a few, and just agriculture. This seems like a VERY narrow view of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.225.244 (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Columbus's father was polish not Italian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.211.34 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. Reliable sources, please? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone please clarify which of his writings are extant?
Were they published and (or) translated into english? If so, when and by who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.26.25 (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of his letters are published and translated in Christopher Columbus: his life, his work, his remains, as revealed by original printed and manuscript records, John Boyd Thacher, Nueva York y Londres, G. P. Putnam’s sons, 1903-4. You may find it in Google books, it's in 3 volumes.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Cause of Death and Diagnosis of Reiter's Syndrome
The passage (in the "Death" section) which refers to Columbus having died of a heart attack and having suffered from reactive arthritis needs to be reworked. The WP article currently states, "According to a study, published in February 2007, by Antonio Rodriguez Cuartero, Department of Internal Medicine of the University of Granada, he died of a heart attack caused by reactive arthritis. According to his personal diaries and notes by contemporaries, the symptoms of this illness (burning pain during urination, pain and swelling of the knees, and conjunctivitis) were clearly evident in his last three years."

There are several problems with this passage.

1. The passage makes reference to a study "published" by Dr. Rodriguez Cuartero in February 2007; however, the newspaper article that is provided as a reference does not actually state that Dr. Rodriguez Cuartero published his findings. It says only that he conducted a study. If he did publish his study results, a reference should be provided for the publication; otherwise, the wording of the WP passage should be changed to refer only to a study, not to a published study. This is an important point because the newspaper article identifies Dr. Rodriguez Cuartero as being both a medical specialist and a university professor; publication of a study usually implies, in both medicine and academia, that the study has withstood the scrutiny of peer review and warrants more serious consideration than a non-peer-reviewed study or a mere best-guess opinion.

2. The WP passage says that the written record of Columbus' diaries and notes of his contemporaries documented that Columbus experienced burning pain during urination, a hallmark symptom of Reiter's syndrome. In fact, on the contrary, according to the newspaper article that is provided as a reference, Dr. Rodriguez Cuartero said, "No dicen nada de la uretritis que es el tercer síntoma, pero era muy frecuente entre los españoles por aquella época, por lo que es casi seguro que padeciera dicha enfermedad" (ie, Columbus' sons did not say anything about him having experienced burning pain with urination, which is the third symptom of the syndrome, but that symptom was very common among Spaniards of that period, so it's almost certain that he suffered from the disease).

3. The WP passage states that Dr. Rodriguez Cuartero's study indicates that Columbus died of a heart attack caused by reactive arthritis. However, in the reporting from the newspaper account, Dr. Rodriguez Cuartero sounds much more hesitant in offering a specific diagnosis. I'm also not sure that "heart attack" is the best translation for the diagnostic term he uses (as opposed to "cardiac arrest" or "heart failure"). The newspaper says, "Añade que Colón no pudo padecer 'enfermedades de viejo ni respiratorias, pues no fumó nunca', por lo cual la causa de su muerte 'pudo ser un posible fallo cardíaco, provocado por un decaimiento orgánico' " (ie He adds that Columbus couldn't have suffered diseases of aging or a respiratory condition, as he never smoked, so the cause of his death could possibly have been heart failure, resulting from malnutrition. --- I'm not sure of the best translation for "decaimiento orgánico," but in this context, I think he means malnutrition or general physical decline, because in the previous quote Dr. Rodriguez had said that the great admiral had died sick, too poor to eat, dejected, and in complete anonymity; malnutrition is a well-established cause of heart failure.)

4. Dr. Rodriguez Cuartero offers a pretty dubious argument for why Columbus could not have had a sexually-transmitted infection ("no fue un mujeriego y guardaba la jerarquía" cuando escogía a una mujer, motivo por el cual Rodríguez Cuartero cree que "no pudo contagiarse de ninguna enfermedad sexual").

I think it would be fair to have a brief section in the WP article discussing symptoms Columbus was known to have experienced (eg the arthritis) and the diagnoses for those symptoms that have been hypothesized over the years, including the recent hypothesis from Dr. Rodriguez Cuartero. But to go beyond that runs a high risk of wandering into highly speculative territory. Doctors often have a hard enough time making a diagnosis for a patient sitting right in front of them today, even with all the modern advances in medical knowledge and access to sophisticated diagnostic tests. Trying to diagnose a patient who has been dead half a millenium is surely problematic even under the best of circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezastru (talk • contribs) 21:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 January 2012
Is it possible to add WhoWasColumbus.com (http://www.whowascolumbus.com) to the external links?

212.204.130.90 (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌, not a reliable link, per WP:EL-- Jac 16888 Talk 19:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never seen a more complete amalgamation of trash on Columbus than this article. Nothing in it is substantiated and much if it i hearsay completely out of sync with the customs of the day. This article was apparently written with one sole purpose: Re-enfocre the genoese tale no matter how at odds the facts of the Spanish Admiral are with it.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

the christopher columbus's courage
can i ask you a question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.154.6 (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

John Cabot
Shouldn't John Cabot receive more mention here since he was the first to actually discover the continent of North America, rather than just islands? FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He wasn't the first since the norsemen already mentioned beat him with ca. 500 years (not to mention the natives) furthermore he was 5 years after Columbus. He should of course be mentioned in an article about the early European explorers of the Americas. Not necessary in this article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant. FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I assumed this was a good faith edit and might have a simple, though incorrect in context, explanation. That is why I simply reverted the edit, noting the later date for Cabot's first voyage to reach the Americas. The sentence in the Columbus article to which the addition of John Cabot was made is not limited to North America. It refers to explorers who preceded Columbus to "the Americas." The Wikipedia article on Americas states in the second sentence: "In the English language, the Americas refers to the landmasses of North America and South America with their associated islands and regions,...." Taking in both continents, islands, etc., the only European explorers proven to have gotten to the Americas before Columbus were Vikings. I agree with User:Maunus. John Cabot gets his due in a rather full article about him. He also gets some credit in Age of Discovery and is mentioned in European colonization of the Americas. He did not arrive in "the Americas" before Columbus. Donner60 (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible earliest birth date
The infobox says he was born between 22 August and 31 October, but the text gives the earliest date as 25 August. Which is correct, and why? --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The earliest date is August 25. This is based on a document in the archives of Genoa dated August 25, 1479 in which Columbus (then visiting Genoa while living in Lisbon) stated in a deposition that he was born in Genoa and was "about" 27 years old. If his birth date were any earlier in August, he would have been 28 on that date. Thanks for noticing the infobox error, which I will correct. Keithpickering (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, Keith.
 * But I'm wondering if we can really be so definite about this earliest possible date, based purely on Columbus's statement. Being "about 27" on 25 August 1479 could have meant he was aged somewhere between 26.5 and 27.5, which means he was born somewhere between late February 1452 and late February 1453.  And even that's very fuzzy.  Yet we're giving the year as 1451 (August-October).  The arithmetic of this just doesn't hang together, for my money.  Maybe the dates we're giving can be justified, but if so, they need to be explained more clearly than is the case at the moment.  Cheers.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, we don't give readers any explanation at all about how we came up with the date range August 25-October 31 or the year 1451. We really need to do this. That could mean providing a link to a reliable source.  I hope so, because I hope it's not just something that Wikipedia editors have come up with on the basis of what they personally feel is plausible.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The latest date, October 31, 1451, is derived from another legal document in the Genoese archives, dated October 31, 1470, in which Domenico Columbo and his son Chrisoforo, "above nineteen years of age", were ordered by the court to pay a debt. So Columbus must have been born before October 31, 1451 or he would not yet be 19 on that date. If you want a reference for this evidence, we could give either Morison 1942 (Admiral of the Ocean Sea), or Morison's source, Vignaud 1907, American History Review, XII, 270-279. The former is more accessible, the latter less secondary. Keithpickering (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not so much what I want, but what WP policies require.
 * Assuming he was born on October 30, 1451 (the last possible date from the 1470 document): that would mean that on August 25, 1479 he was 27 and fast approaching 28. That would be consistent with "about 27".  The earlier he was born before October 30, 1451, the further away he gets from "about 27".  But what does "about 27" mean?  Above, I gave it 6 months either side of exactly 27.  But the infobox seems to give it 12 months, because it's saying his earliest birthdate was August 25, 1451, which would correspond to being exactly 28 on August 25, 1479.  Now, Columbus probably didn't know his own birthdate or his exact age at any point in time, so his statements are prone to error.  So, how can we be sure his error was no more than 12 months when he said "about 27"?  I really don't think we have any right to be so categorical about the earliest date.  We can say with confidence that he was born no later than October 30, 1451, and we can say we think he was probably born within a few months of that date, but we cannot pin it down any more definitely than that.
 * I would very much like to see a short discussion in the article about the sources that give us information about when he was born, what historians have gleaned from them, and what the current consensus is on the matter. And inline references to all the relevant sources.  Cheers.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  04:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not so simple as you make it. The Genoese Documents are not Trustworthy- The Assereto is a problematic document. "The notable Assereto document (pp. XIII, XIX, 137, 173) passes as an original until critical examination finds it to be an indifferent, uncertified copy of two documents, themselves perhaps un-authenticated." ( I suggest you read The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 13, No. 2 (May, 1933), pp. 204-212 for unbiased facts: http://1492.us.com/assereto/CRITICAL_REVIEW_ASSERETO.pdf ) Written in two different handwritings and found as  a loose leaf inserted into a notary book. The COLOMBO of the Assereto DOES NOT SAY who his parents are, therefore even if the Assereto was true and beyond doubts, that Colombo cannot be said to be the Admiral Colon of Spain. Nothing in the Genoese deeds tie de Colombo family to the Admiral Colon of Spain by blood relation. Nothing int he Spanish Admiral Colon's writings tie him to the Genoese Colombos. It is not true that Fernando Colon wrote that his father was born in Genoa. In fact ALL the Certainties sold over the last 120 years by the City of Genoa, has all evaporated in the last 6 years. The history of a weaver Colombo is now discredited.The fact is that there is not one document linking Colombos to Colons nor Colons to Colombos and the life of Admiral Colon in Portugal and Spain deny a peasant birth as his marriage to a high noble Filipa Moniz proves.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is important to differentiate between uncertainties about Columbus's birthdate and his nationality. It was only after Columbus became the most famous person in the world that anyone asserted he was born anywhere other than Genoa (and I refer here to Genoa as the city-state generally). Every person who knew him in life (and who commented on the matter) stated he was Genoese, Ligurian, or Italian. So if that's the argument we're going to have, the non-Genoese advocates will need to put up some impressive documentation.


 * That being said, I think it is completely fair to state that if we accept Columbus was indeed Genoese, then the existing documentation about his birthdate, rough as it may be, points to a date in the latter half of 1451. Personally, I'm completely fine with a (somewhat) expanded discussion of the birthdate question in the main article, including uncertainties. But I consider the nationality question to be settled. Keithpickering (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keith, the nationality and the birthdate are tied together they cannot be removed one form the other. It is not true that everyone who knew the discoverer in Spain called him "genoese" in fact the court, who one would expect knew better than those who spoke from hearsay, called him "portuguese" in 1487 while they paid him the equivalent of $20,000 USD and this is the first nationality given to him and the ONLY nationality given to him by the court of Spain. Certainly you do not wish us to accept that the court did not know who they were paying? Fortunately for us, the Assereto is now fully viewable in high res online ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Documento_Assereto ) where one can see that it is written in several handwritings, inconstantly numbered and not an original deposition but it is "supposedly" a transcription o a non-existent original. I, for one, will accept only documents that are beyond suspicion and in the case of the Assereto it is highly dubious if not a blatant forgery. However the Assereto, to be used as proof of anything even if it was a "true" original lacks something very important. In it we have NO IDEA of the Christopher Colombo is. Yes, there is NOTHING to identify this Colombo with any family in Italy nor with any family in Portugal. If this is the keystone to the genoese argument, it is worthless for anyone who is objective and wants SOLID evidence not inventions.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Colon - unless you accept that the current very strong consensus in Historiography is that Columbus was genoese and stop using this talkbox as your private soapbox I am going to have to take steps to getting you topic banned from topics related to Columbus. In order to be able to edit here you must be able to set aside your personal ideas and preferences and write objectively about the field from the stand point of a disinterested reviewer. Unless you are able to do this you will not be able to cintriibute positively to this article, but only cause needless disruption. The next time I have to tell you this I will do so at ANI where I will request you to be topic banned.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the Awarak problem
This article, while long and giving the appearance of completeness, almost completely omits Columbus' brutal treatment of the Arawak natives of Haiti, his enslavement of them for purposes of mining gold for Spain, the kidnapping of some of them to bring back to Spain as curiosities, and the fact that the Haiti Awawaks, estimated at 8 million strong on that island when Columbus landed, were essentially all gone within 50 years due to disease, brutal and violent treatment, and gross abuses by Columbus and the Spanish. It also ignores the fact that the European slave trade began not with Africans, but with Native Americans. They only started enslaving Africans when the peaceful Native American groups began dying en masse or the less-peaceful ones began fighting. Today, this behavior would be called genocide. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To quote the article: "some analyses of the question of Columbus's legacy for Native Americans do not clearly distinguish between the actions of Columbus himself, who died well before the first pandemic to hit Hispaniola or the height of the encomienda system, and those of later European governors and colonists on Hispaniola." That seems to describe your comment quite well. Also the 8 million population is wildly inflated. Keithpickering (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So, did Columbus commit genocide or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.99.1.145 (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Map for the third voyage
The article currently incorporates detailed maps for the Caribbean portions of the first, second, and fourth voyages. Could someone look into incorporating a similar map for the third voyage? - Eb.hoop (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Odd ... I put up a third voyage map in November along with the other three. The page is on my watchlist, but somehow the this map was deleted and I missed it. I have replaced the map now. Thanks for noticing. Keithpickering (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Footnote / Citation Error
Citation number 45 referes to a dead link. The citation is also invalid as it doesn't state where the quote is from, merely lists what appears to be some form of article. Unsure of the protocol, I did not delete the citation. Help would be appreciated on this one. Job (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have managed to track down what is probably the original source of the quotation&mdash;a translation of extracts from Columbus's journal published in 1938, and re-issued by Dover in 1991. I've now replaced the citation with one to the Dover reprint.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 10:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

crude POV errors
there is no definite proof that Columbus was born in Genoa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.82.223.105 (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than the fact that everyone who knew him in life said he was Genoese, including Las Casas, Bernaldez, Bishop Gerladini, Peter Martyr, Angelo Trevisan, and his own son Fernando Colon; and that he testified he was a citizen of Genoa; and that his bank was in Genoa; and that at least four contemporary Genoese identified him as a compatriot; I guess not. But if that's not definite proof in your mind, then it is clear there is no definite proof he was born anywhere else. Keithpickering (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keith, you should not make deductions out to be facts. Most people who knew him DID NOT say he was Genoese. What they said was that "they heard say he was Genoese" others that he was Milanese, others that he was from Nervi, others that he was from Saona, others Ligur, etc... However the man himself NEVER stated where he came from other than in one letter to the Spanish Monarchs on March 4, 1493 where he called Portugal "my homeland". Furthermore, it is a lie to say that the Bank of St. George in Genoa was "his bank" do you have records of a single financial transaction between Admiral Colon and the Bank of St. George? Or even between the "weaver Colombos" and the Bank of St. George? Do you have proof that Admiral Colon EVER "testified he was a citizen of Genoa"? Unless you can show proof of your statements, I would refrain from passing them off as consecrated facts when they are nothing more than supposition and conclusions of faith without any documentation.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would hope that anyone participating in the discussion about Colon and his heritage has seen the video Columbus: Secrets From the Grave. It was on the discovery channel website and I ran across it while looking for material to teach my high school students.  It certainly has some solid research supporting Colon as Spanish, and refuting the popular Genoese heritage theory. Connormcmannus (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article should at least refer early on that his birthplace is disputed. And always has been, not only recently! One reading this article thinks that is a centaincy and that is POV pushing. --Pedro (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this has been discussed a couple of years ago, now, and there's no "POV pushing" in saying he was from Genoa. Wikipedia does not really care what's "true", as long as it is sourced, and by the majority consensus.  And there are too many copious references and reliable sources that say he was from Genoa.  And that is the majority historian consensus.   Sorry, if you think putting he was from Genoa when most reliable sources say he was from Genoa is "POV pushing", then you need to look up what POV pushing is again.  Even if SOME historians doubt or question or are not sure he was from Genoa, Wikipedia (let's be consistent if we do the same thing with the "Evolution" article, for example) has to go by majority consensus.  Most sources have said and still say that he was from Genoa, present day Italy.  And there IS many kinds of evidence to support that.  Why did Columbus's parents have Italian last names?   And why did so many people at the time say he was from Genoa?   They got that notion from the air or something?   Even so, though, Wikipedia does not care much what is technically or actually "true", as long as the statements are sourced, by overall consensus, etc. Case closed. Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The companion article Origin theories of Christopher Columbus offers some discussion of alternative hypotheses concerning Columbus's family origins and birthplace. There is a link to that article at the very top of the "Early Life" section of this article. Perhaps if there were some way to highlight that link, and maybe change the name a little in the link, more readers would see it?  Dezastru (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

the new Kolumbus
Search the google now proves Manuel Rosa was right about the Columbus history all false. Italians forged the documents now there is proof. DNA shows it no Italian Colombo was matched to Kolumbus. Kolumb1444 (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The google" is not a reliable source. Please provide high quality sources to show that academic consensus is that Columbus was Polish--or even that it's a widely held minority opinion. Otherwise, this is inappropriate for this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * President of Portuguese Academy of History finaly agree with historian Manuel Rosa and admitting Columbus was Portuguese http://da.ambaal.pt/agenda/?id=691 - again the Rosa was right he write that Cristóbal Colón son of poland king and portuguese noble dame.Kolumb1444 (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a distortion of what the article says, which is "Regarding the possible origin of the Portuguese navigator, and Cuba, advocated by the Association Christopher Columbus, the historian believes, or Columbus "was Portuguese, or came very new to Portugal", but admits he does not have data to substantiate any of these hypotheses". Note the 'came very new to Portugal'. Please try to present sources more accurately. Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is well known that the Icelanders discovered America. it is also well known that Columbus discovered it.  Ergo, Columbus is Icelandic.  Also, since Icelandic has no "C" - - --- Kolumbus.  I'm still looking for a good reference too, should find one at any moment,  but, until then, it is widely known.  Carptrash (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Manuel Rosa ? I don't know the author. I did a search on the internet...


 * Q+A with Manuel Rosa, IT analyst at the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center


 * At this moment, he is not recognized as an academic. He speaks of the document "Alonso de Quintanilla" as a document overwhelmingly. The document describes the person as Portuguese but his name is empty. However, Antonio Rumeo De Armas in his book identifies the person, whose name is omitted, as Christopher Columbus. Antonio Rumeu De Armas has written many studies clarifying particular aspects of the Columbus story. In his most famous book, "El « portugués » Cristóbal Colón en Castilla", the historian thinks Columbus was Genoese but so influenced by his years in Portugal that he could have been mistaken for a Portuguese by Spaniards. The book tells us " Columbus spent more than ten years in Portugal " (in fact, Columbus's career as a seaman began effectively in Portugal, where he lived and worked for about ten years, from the late 1470s to the late 1480s) and that he married a Portuguese woman and lived in Lisbon.


 * This proof (?) is an error in "good faith" of those who wrote the document.


 * The reappointment are the 188 legal and commercial documents (and the 125 contemporary European writers) overwhelmingly places him in Genoa. --PoseidonAndMedusa (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 188 documents from Genoa do not place any Cristóbal Colón in Genoa. Soon the Portuguese Academy of History will began rewriting their history books based on Rosa's discoveries. Cristoforo Colombo was a weaver and a weaver's son that never wrote Genoese and could never marry Filipa Moniz. Furthermore, many documents utilized by the Italians are in fact forgeries presented in 1580 by a pretender Baltazar Colombo. The false story has been uncovered.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Colon-el-Nuevo,


 * the documents have been checked by the mainstream scholars (Davidson, Varela, Taviani ... ) and in some cases, the historians consulted graphologists - experts at analyzing handwriting - who studied the documents and declared them authentic. This statement is false.


 * Everything is explained in the book of the Spanish historian De Armas. Columbus' father, Domenico was a weaver, tavern keeper, and local politician.


 * Christopher married Felipa Perestrello Moniz, whose family belonged to the Portuguese middle nobility, of Genoese origin. Although the family was relatively poor, they still had direct connections to the Portuguese court and the king (and Columbus used these to gain access to an important collection of papers). In general, the historian says that her family was of the middle nobility. The voice "Filipa Moniz" is POV.


 * The testimony of contemporaries, of the son of Christopher Columbus (Ferdinand) and his nephew (Diego) are overwhelming evidence. The facts are incontrovertible and the conclusions inescapable. Best regards. --PoseidonAndMedusa (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're making the same mistake practically every new editor who comes to this page does: you're arguing about the history itself. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Write a journal paper, write a book, do whatever. Wikipedia will not changed based on your or anyone else's arguments that one set of historical facts is "inescapable". If you want the page to change, what you need to do is show that the general consensus among scholars has changed. Or, at a bare minimum, that any given theory has a sizable enough minority following that it passes beyond WP:FRINGE. Because of past problems with this page, any more arguments from primary sources will be collapsed, as they don't help us decide what to do with the article itself, which is the only thing this talk page may be used for. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Qwy,


 * I simply responded to him. These sentences were taken from the book of Professor Antonio Rumeu de Armas. End. Hello. --PoseidonAndMedusa (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Jewish?
This article by Carlos Garcia claims that Columbus was a marrano, which would contradict many of the statements in the WP article about him (e. g., that he saw his voyages as being primarily about the spread of Christianity). Is Garcia right? 173.165.239.237 (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That theory is not generally accepted, no.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Columbus was born in Genoa. Such was certainly the view of most contemporaries. A Spanish court register, pre-dating his first voyage, describes him as "Cristobal Colon, genoves" The Lombard chronicler Martire refers in 1493 to "a certain Christopher Columbus, Ligurian". The historians Bernaldez and Las Casas both say he came from Genoa. Oviedo had also been told that he came from the province of Liguria, though possibly from one of the smaller places around Genoa such as Savona or Nevri. Recently the Italian government and the city of Genoa have taken pains to amass convincing documentary evidence in support of Columbus's Genoese origins. The deeds on display in the "Sala Colombiana" at the Genoa State Archives confirm not only that there was a Colombo family living in Genoa in the late fifteenth century, but that the father, Domenico, had two sons: first Cristoforo, and later Bartolomeo. In September 1470 we see Domenico and Cristoforo Colombo making an agreement about a debt. Next month a document mentions their receiving a stock of wine, and helps us compute a date for Columbus's birth as some time before 31 October 1451. Too many coincidences for "cultivate" the doubt.


 * This is the State Archive of Genoa:"Sono 188 i documenti liguri compresi nell'edizione della Nuova Raccolta Colombiana del 1992. Genova e Savona sono le uniche città d'Europa che conservino documenti su Cristoforo Colombo prima del suo arrivo nella penisola Iberica. Tutte le tesi che negano le sue origini genovesi sono basate su ipotesi, congetture, interpretazioni più o meno fantasiose di testi. Nessuna ha trovato il sostegno di una traccia scritta."


 * I hope I've helped. Greetings. --PoseidonAndMedusa (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources speak for themselves. It's not for editors to what is generally accepted or not.  When credible sources talk about Columbus being a Jew, Wikipedia ignoring them just shows how unreliable it truly is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.214.96 (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Before Carlos Garcia ? Two novelists, De Madariaga and Simon Wiesenthal, both had the idea of writing about the "Spanish Jew origin of Columbus." The results ? Nearly 40 years have passed... None of their hypothesis was supported by a written record. --PoseidonAndMedusa (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiesenthal published the book Sails of Hope.


 * Estelle Irizarry, a linguistics professor at Georgetown University, has analyzed the language and syntax of hundreds of handwritten letters, diaries and documents of Columbus and concluded that the explorer's primary written and spoken language was Castilian Spanish.


 * Columbus's voyage was not, as is commonly believed, funded by the deep pockets of Queen Isabella, but rather by two Jewish Conversos and another prominent Jew. Louis de Santangel and Gabriel Sanchez advanced an interest free loan of 17,000 ducats from their own pockets to help pay for the voyage, as did Don Isaac Abrabanel, rabbi and Jewish statesman.   I'm definitely seeing some written evidence here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.113.8 (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It´s not, to me, at this point, clear that Charles Garcia, the CEO of Garcia Trujillo, a business focused on the Hispanic market, is a RS on this subject, or that his opinion on the subject is notable enough for this article Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Garcia makes an interesting speculation, and I suppose that any opinion that becomes widely known should be considered notable. That being said, Columbus was at least "officially" Catholic. But was he Jewish in secret? That could, ironically, have contributed to an impulse to expand Catholicism through voyaging: in a climate that punished Judaism and rewarded Catholicism, a closet Jew might have wanted to be seen as above reproach by being as publicly Catholic as possible. I do not, however, know what being Ligurian or Genoese has to do with Catholicism, Judaism, or lack thereof. 192.12.88.41 (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The companion article Origin theories of Christopher Columbus offers some discussion of alternative hypotheses concerning Columbus's family origins and birthplace. There is a link to that article at the very top of the "Early Life" section of this article. Perhaps if there were some way to highlight that link, and maybe change the name a little in the link, more readers would see it?  Dezastru (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed the "See Also" text at the top of the section to help more readers notice it. Further exploration of alternative hypotheses will probably be more readily entertained in the companion article. Dezastru (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting if he were from a converted family, but the deception was pretty deep if that's what it was. He certainly talked up converting the heathen and spreading Xianity at every turn. But don't take my word for it. — LlywelynII  11:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah regardless of his ancestry the dude was definitely Christian to the extreme – it's pretty obvious if you read his letters/diaries. --Xiaphias (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Flat-earthers: Misconception formerly formally taught
"Washington Irving's 1828 biography of Columbus popularized the idea that Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because many Catholic theologians insisted that the Earth was flat.[25]"

In decades past, this inaccuracy was taught as fact in US elementary school history courses. Nowadays, however, present-day schoolteachers and more recent textbooks have corrected this error. Can anyone find a source on when this unfortunate, outright lie finally fell out of favor?

I'm guessing that this change happened in the late 1970s (around the time my sister was born). I for one was taught in school that he was seeking a trade route to India, not seeking to prove the world was round. (Only one study hall proctor, not active teacher, in middle school ever suggested he was proving the world was round. She was a retired history teacher who had come back to work exclusively as a study hall proctor, if I remember right.) Anyway, I'm fairly certain that my sister learned the correct facts on him as well, and she's 10 years older than I am. I graduated in 2008, just in case anyone's wondering when I went through K12 schools.

That of course is anecdotal, so does anyone know where to look for a reliable source on when this transition happened in US education? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It was certainly dead with the publication of Jeffrey Burton Russell's 1991 book Inventing the flat earth: Columbus and modern historians. Keithpickering (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, it was definitely an exaggeration in past history books that that's why he had trouble getting financial support, but let's not go overboard the other way and say that no one back then doubted the earth's roundness.  A few still did actually.  There were still a few people who weren't sure if the earth was round or spherical.  Most Catholics believed it was round, as it was becoming the accepted view, but not all.   Most pagans believed it was round, but not all.  Or some were simply not sure.   So those who may have been a little skeptical could have been a little problem.  (See the 1949 movie Christopher Columbus for example and see how most accepted the earth's roundness, even monks, but still not all people.) So that didn't exactly help matters.  And of course that kernel of truth was hyped up and exaggerated over the decades in history books.  True.  But I think it is going a bit too far the other way to say it was not true at all, or that no one back then believed the earth was "flat".  A few still did.  You can't say that every person on the planet in the 1400s A.D. was unquestionably convinced of the earth's roundness.   Remember, there were no TVs, phones, cameras, or computers back then.  Or fast communication or travel yet. Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cute. But no, it was absolutely established that the earth was round and the only people who doubted the point were just as provincial or uneducated as those disputing the same point today. Irving was utterly, completely wrong; there's no "other side" to it; and Columbus was unusual simply in his horrible math: he took Arabic measures of the earth's circumference and used them with the much shorter Italian mile, making Europe to China look doable. — LlywelynII  11:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

LlywelnII is completely right, there's no evidence that anyone ever thought the earth was flat, that's a complete myth. Ever climbed a high mountain&mdash;one that offers a 360-degree view of the horizon? ...Does it look like a square? It doesn't. Even people with no concept of astronomy would've been able to deduce the shape of our planet. As for when the myth "fell out of favor", I'm not sure that it has yet: most people still believe the flat-earth history, and that's what I was taught in highschool (and I graduated HS within the last 10 years). --Xiaphias (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Did he know he wasn't going to India?
I came across the following idea somewhere and now can't find a source for it:

Columbus's misconception of the size of the earth was apparently based on a series of mistakes regarding what units were used in various ancient texts. The mistake seems so unlikely (too many steps, all involving errors in the same direction) that some authors have suggested he knew perfectly well what he was doing - he knew the size of the earth and realised that the blank space on the map was likely to conceal unknown land masses, so he used the cover story of finding a route to India as an excuse for going to have a look what is there. It has even been speculated that the Spanish monarchs were also well aware that he wasn't going to India but realised what they stood to gain if he did discover something.

Is anyone familiar with this idea and able to supply a source and/or more detail? - HairyDan (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a perfectly simple explanation why he made all those "errors in the same direction:" he wanted to believe that he could accomplish something no one else had tried and reach Asia by sailing west. I think everyone is familiar with this kind of wishful thinking, even scientists, and Columbus wasn't really a scholar.  In any case, the article currently gives good mainstream sources on how and why Columbus thought as he did.  As for the Spanish monarchs, it made perfect sense for them to make a small investment on a far-fetched project with a large potential return. - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Eb.hoop, it may be "a perfectly simple explanation" to you. However, it is not true that Cristóbal Colón was not a scholar, in fact for his time, the man was in the top tier of scholarly people, unless you consider writing Latin, Portuguese and Castilian, knowing cartography, geography, astronomy, algebra, geometry, theology, navigation plus secret cyphers the realm of "no t really being a scholar" in the 15th Century. Furthermore, no one in their right mind would plan a voyage to "India" across the Atlantic unless they already knew there were lands along the way where they could refurbish their sailing supplies (water for drinking, wood for cooking, and food itself). All the "errors in the same direction" have been committed by the sources currently referenced.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Colon-el-Nuevo: Yes, we know...  All those errors in the same direction have been committed by everyone except you.  - Eb.hoop (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Eb.hoop "All those errors in the same direction have been committed by everyone except you." That is correct. In fact Manuel Rosa presented his findings on May 16 at the Portuguese Academy of History where all his "facts" were fully accepted, as they had already been accepted at the University of Valladolid on 14 October, 2010. The only difference is that in Portugal the History Professors are now seeing the error of their ways and being in full support of the new facts, as the President of the Portuguese Academy of History herself are declaring so to the newspapers only 3 days after Rosa's Lecture and then in a full 1 hour lecture of her own. It is not their fault they never looked into the facts... however one can be blamed for refusing to look now that the facts are out. Also no one can be blamed for not being able to read foreign languages but yes for not seeking a good translator.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of this theory before; it may exist as a fringe theory but certainly isn't a widely accepted viewpoint in academia. The fact is, no one had any reason to expect an enormous body of land to exist over here–even the Vikings, who never understood where they'd actually been–and anyone who knew the true size of the planet (as most educated people did) would've recognized Columbus' planned voyage as a suicide mission.  He never would've attempted it, and the monarchs never would've funded it, on the mere chance that a giant and unknown chunk of fertile land might exist on this side of the globe.


 * He also died without ever admitting he hadn't reached India...so there's that. --Xiaphias (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And he tortured Indian captives asking them where the Ganges was... So... Yeah, there's that, too.


 * No, that theory is utter balderdash without any basis in anything the Admiral left behind in writing or report. — LlywelynII  11:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ships
Capitana is not the name of a ship: it's the Spanish for "Flagship" and the way Columbus would refer to the vessel he was captaining. For the dispute in Spanish & English scholarship over the number of vessels on the third voyage, see the talk page at Columbus's Voyages. — LlywelynII  11:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Untrue afirmations
I suggest this statement be modified "Never admitting that he had reached a continent previously unknown to Europeans, rather than the East Indies he had set out for, Columbus called the inhabitants of the lands he visited indios (Spanish for "Indians")."

Columbus actually admitted several times that he reached "otro mundo" Another World and "up to now unknown lands" (which excludes INDIA) and that Spain should disregard the "India" of Calecute as less appealing this his New World. E even writes that "muy poco a que no se sabía otra tierra más de la que Ptolomeo escrivió." it was not too long ago that no other land was known other that that which Ptolemy described." NOTE that Ptolemy described INDIA e East of that India a land called China. Therefore when Columbus says his Other World is not any of Ptolemy's lands it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be India. It is the historians who have never admitted that Columbus knew where he was.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There appear to be a number of reliable sources, though I can't read them. We could include both POV, as long as you have reliable secondary sources to support the argument you list above. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't take Colon El-Nuevo's word for that. He is prone to make arguments like this based almost exclusively on controversial interpretations of primary sources, and his favourite historian the IT analyst Manuel Rosa. The article is based, and should be based, on the interpretations found in the best biographies and historical works about Columbus. If he can find a standard work on Columbus that makes this assertion then we can include it, not based on him cherry picking quotes from Columbus' diaries.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree; this is what I meant by calling on him to find RS. You're further correct, Maunus, on the fact that they need to be good, well-respected, secondary sources. Columbus is such a widely researched topic that using anything other than the best sources is just a poor idea. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed: the scholarly sources I've read uncondintionally affirm that Columbus died still claiming to have reached India, so this article should do likewise unless substantial evidence to the contrary has been published. --Xiaphias (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And just a side note: those quotes from Columbus are actually of little importance, because Columbus did accept that his newfound islands were previously unknown to Europeans. His mistake was believing them to be part of the Indies (which encompassed India and nearby Pacific islands) rather than belonging to an entirely seperate continent.  That's why Europeans ended up with the terms "East Indies" and "West Indies" to describe two wholly unrelated archipelagos. --Xiaphias (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * His comments are related to South America only, not the West Indies as a whole. He reached the Gulf of Paria on his third voyage and found surprising, as was evident from the size of the Orinoco delta, that there must be a great continent lying behind it, in a part of the globe (i.e. south of Asia) which the ancients had declared was empty (kinda like the same surprise that befell whomever discovered Australia). It did not implicate his belief that the west Indies islands themselves being still the edges of Asia. Walrasiad (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * you are all following what you call "reliable sources" but who in fact had left out all of the history of navigation in Portugal and who had taken for granted that Columbus could not sail beyond Iceland in 1477 because that was impossible and Iceland was a desolate place no one could get to. I can only laugh now at how silly those "scholarly sources" were as new evidence comes to light showing the settlement of Iceland began in AD 874.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In general we care about verifiability, not truth. Even reliable sources may be wrong. Maybe the reliable sources available ten years from now will prove you are right. But for now we just need to report what the current reliable sources say. Arcandam (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. But until your views on Columbus and his origins are accepted as self-evident, Wikipedia is not a proper forum for them, not even in talk pages.  You should know that by now.  - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2012
I would like to add some personal names in the original language. For example "Cristobal Colón" or the island of "La Española". Always between parenthesis and after the english term: ...the island of Hispaniola (in Spanish: La Española)...

Withouthnick (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TOW  talk  06:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Genoese name is already in the sidebar with facts (not sure what it is called). So it should either be removed there or added after the name in the first line of the article. It should be removed is it is unreliable, otherwise Naming conventions (use English) prescribes its addition behind the name. The other suggested names may not be reliable. PinkShinyRose (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I have added Cristobal Colón; however, I did not add "la Española". Clicking on the wikilink will bring up Hispaniola which gives the Spanish name.  I have not seen policy that supports including the spanish name in an unrelated article. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  06:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Columbus not Genovese
Observation: The assertion that Columbus' Genoese heritage is firmly established or generally accepted is a gross over statement. It is more correct to say that scholars generally accept this theory for lack of compelling evidence to the contrary. But Columbus' origins have never been considered a definitively settled matter, even that the presumption that he was from anywhere in Italy at all. The records of "his" life in Italy have never been definitively proven to be records of the same man that sailed to America. Again, scholars tend to accept this more because so many people want to accept it and there has never been established evidence to the contrary.

The point is that the article needs to be clear about the controversial nature of these theories and ideally should give some voice to some of the other theories that have authoritative supporters.

--173.174.49.245 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources to support your position. And please, Colon or anybody else, do not provide a laundry list of sources to support the current article: it's a waste of time. The burden is on the new editor to provide sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

French Name
Columbus's French name should be added under the "other names" section: Christophe Colomb.

Not a major addition but a useful one nonetheless. French Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.156.133.159 (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Columbus. History unknown
An article to consider translated from the Polish page here: "Known to all who discovered the New World became the hero of many biographical items. According to previous studies, Christopher Columbus, Genoese weaver's son, was a European sailor, explorer and navigator. As the organizer and master of four transatlantic journeys of discovery from Spain to America, has changed the course of history. Book Columbus. Unknown history is a presentation of the facts, resulting from twenty years of historical research, in many places, undermining all that has so far been made ​​available to the general public.

Manuel Rosa reveals to the reader the information known to the public. His statements, however, are supported by specific documents. The combination of adventure, history and indisputable facts and assumption not only makes interesting reading, but - above all - trying to find out about the authenticity of the given reasons. Who really was Christopher Columbus? Where was he born? Where are you going back to his family? Evidence and facts presented to explain a lot, acting at the same time based on arguments challenge for historians.

The materials collected by the author are extensive and detailed. He tries to fill the void of Christopher Columbus (covered by section five hundred years of life associated with travel to Portugal) effects of in-depth research and critical and scientific analysis. All this proves that the "first Admiral" could not be a simple weaver of low origin. And that's the starting point towards a return to original research of Manuel Rosa. The most famous of the sailors lived to see the so-depth research, to raise awareness of its mysterious past into the light of truth.

Publication of Columbus. Unknown history is rich in fragments quoted by the author's relationship with tours, maps, diagrams, mathematical formulas, drawings, geographical regions, illustrations, photographs, excerpts and codes of papal bulls, letters from the Vatican Secret Archives, and many other documents and sources. The numerous footnotes and an extensive bibliography (unfortunately, the only foreign language) show the enormous amount of work done by the author. The thesis expounded in this paper went through the creation of a special web site where interested persons may leave their contributions, helping to determine the authenticity of the identity of Christopher Columbus.

The work of Manuel Rosa is designed not only to historians. Considering the context of science, power and politics, examining the historicity of the events and the role of the papacy and the knights, as well as explaining the mystery of an incredible testament, leads to the definition of fraud, which for five hundred years remained suppressed. The reading is extremely strong, as revealing hitherto unknown truth, completely changes the story. Since the events on marine expeditions of Christopher Columbus (a Pole, not the Genoese) are placed within the curriculum, the true information given by Manuel Rosa should become mandatory for all." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colon-el-Nuevo (talk • contribs) 02:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 September 2012
I would like to have the following reference added to the section "Popular culture: In music" :


 * Christophorus Columbus - "Lost Paradises" by Jordi Savall,Montserrat Figueras, Hespèrion XXI and La Capella Reial de Catalunya

Classicalacarte (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Requesting user has been indef'd as a spam username; the address of the requested EL matches the username. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 September 2012
Please correct his name or site where and who is in charge of this false translation of his name

50.29.18.77 (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. What error do you see? RudolfRed (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 September 2012
In the section "Voyages," under the heading "Second Voyage," the following sentence appears to be at odds with source material listed: "The priest Bartolomé de las Casas also accompanied Columbus on this voyage.[55]"

The source material clearly says it was the FATHER of priest Bartolomé de las Casas who accompanied Columbus on his second voyage. Here's the link that's listed in the source material. http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=7Jmi4Wb1DdsC&pg=PA48&dq=pedro+de+las+casas+columbus&hl=en#v=onepage&q=pedro%20de%20las%20casas%20columbus&f=false

Fray Bartolomé would have been quite young (only around 9 or 10 years old) for an ocean voyage. This small discrepancy notwithstanding, thanks for an interesting read, and as always, keep up the good work.

Lasangelina (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC) ✅
 * Thank you for letting us know of the error.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus origins
Columbus was born in Genova in 1451? Columbus died in Valladolid in the year 1506 to the age of 70 years such as it is documented. The dates do not coincide. The king Fernando, gives to him the titles of Admiral and of Viceroy, when the laws of Castilla forbade that a foreigner had public charges. The doubts persist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikibcnes (talk • contribs) 10:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus origins
Although they persist the doubts on the origin of Christopher Columbus, little by little the theory of his catalanity goes earning followers like Charles J. Merrill, Gerard Garrigue, Estelle Irizarry, without mentioning to the ones of Spain. They exist basic and simple doubts on his "genovesity" like that a son of a wool weave had familiar heraldic shield which expanded the king Fernando, when the heraldic shields were conceded to noble people by the king, his Courts or Real Chancelleries. The title of Admiral in the crown of Aragon (initially in the one of Castilla did not exist, conceded  the one of General Captain) was reserved to the  royal family, as well as the title of Viceroy or "Visorey" of the crown of Aragon. It results incredible that a son of trader by prosperous that it was, plant in front of one of the most powerful kings of his time and in return to loan him a service demand him those titles. On the other hand, if it was genovés of Génova, it is necessary to remember that the Spanish laws forbade of form expresses that any foreigner had any public charge. It is not an opinion without foundation the theory of the catalanity of the discoverer in the person of "Joan Colom i Beltran". The same brothers, the same stay in Portugal after a shipwreck, the fact that it was a prestigious sailor. That it had to escape for struggling at the side of the counts of Urgell against the Trastamara family (the family of de king Fernando). There was thought that he had died according to a document in 1472, maybe appears again with name and signature in documents of 1484, 1487 and 1490 that still conserve. He married Felipa de Coimbra the youngest daughter of Pedro of Portugal, First duke of Coimbra and of Isabel “of Urgel and Aragon”, daughter of the count James II of “Urgell”. Maybe of his stay in Portugal come from the words of portuguese influence that can be read in his writings, combined with words of catalan influence They have not found words of Italian influence in his writings, and when it has tried to write in Italian, it has done it of almost ridiculous form remaining demonstrated his ignorance of this language It signed many of his writings with a "J" crossed by a "S", that all linguists knows that it means "Joanness" or  Juan or Joan (Juan in Catalan language) maybe Joan Colom i Beltran? Had with his brother a business of cartography in Portugal, his maps reflect the form to do of the Catalan cartography, which learnt according to some during a long stay in the Balearic, maybe Ibiza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikibcnes (talk • contribs) 06:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take your original research elsewhere. Wikipedia deals only with information that is verified by reliable sources. In cases where there is dispute, we do often include both sides of a dispute, except in cases where there is overwhelming support for one position or the other. If you look at the archives of this talk page, you will see that there is, in fact, extremely overwhelming evidence that he is from Genoa. We have a whole article, Christopher Columbus origin theories that discuses these alternatives, but this article will continue to reflect the consensus view of historians. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

What? You say "extremely overwhelming evidence that he is from Genoa". Many serious historians do not think this way. What scientific authority have you to decide what version of this matter is the correct one? Who has given you the finger for to pontificate in a matter as polemic as this one? You unlike I, don't contributes with neither information nor any contribution to this discussion except this daringly and maybe interested affirmation. Do you have read what historians like Charles J. Merrill, Gerard Garrigue, Estelle Irizarry, affirm and document.? "His father was Domenico Colombo, a middle-class wool weaver who worked both in Genoa and Savona and who also owned a cheese stand at which young Christopher worked as a helper." "...where Domenico took over a tavern. In the same year" Is it this the same Colon that demands from one of the most powerful kings  that grants to him the titles of Admiral and Viceroy that are titles reserved to the royal family? Can a son of merchant have heraldic shield that the king Fernando extended the simbols when the heraldic shields are reserved to the noble families? Do you continue believing that there exist overwhelming evidence that the Columbus of Genoa is the Colon that discovered America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikibcnes (talk • contribs) 10:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The only intention of my comment about the origins of Christopher Columbus has been to remember that they exist a lot of doubts. It does not seem me very scientific to say that they exist facts tested and not accepting any comment. If we base in this principle giving a subject closed in spite of so many doubts still would be still thinking that the earth is flat and that the unicorn is an authentic animal, or even that the earth is the centre of the universe. Doubt, that the doubt opens the mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikibcnes (talk • contribs) 07:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The main support for the “genovesity” of Crhistopher Columbus theory is the called document Assereto of 1479 (called like the one who discovered it in 1904, Hugo Assereto), which carries us to the Christopher Columbus that supposedly  was born in Genoa (some historians affirm that he was born in other Italian cities). But any serious historian or good fan to the history topics must admit that the doubts still persist on this theory or affirmation. To say that it is a closed topic only reflects the interest for the permanency of the current version of these origins for simple convenience, something imprudent  in a  so doubtful  and discussed topic like this one. This is one of the doubts or contradictions of the official version or commonly accepted version: Fernando II of Aragon or Fernando the Catholic was born in Sos of the Catholic King on 10 March 1452, that is to say, would be younger that Cristopher Columbus whose birth supposes happened in Italy in 1451. It is known that from the year 1494, it was prohibited to all the citizens of the realm (Castilla and Aragon), employ mules like animal of transport for people. As what pretended  was to increase the number of horses in the realm. The king gave example stopping to ride mules, as usually it did it. In the year 1504 (it is supposed that Genoa's Columbus had the age of 53 years) Cristopher Columbus, requests to the king Fernando dispenses him to be able to travel riding a mule since his age prevents him travel riding in a so nervous animal like a horse. Registered in the Archive of Simancas and in date 23 February 1505, exists a document of the king Fernando conceding to Cristobal Colon licence to ride a mule by any parts of these realms. The King says: “By what am informed that you the Admiral Cristóbal Colon are indisposed of your person by some illnesses that have had and have, and you can not ride a horse without a lot of damage of your health: therefore, observing the aforementioned and your old age, by the present I give you licence so that you can ride a mule by any parts of these realms [...] Date in the city of Toro at twenty and three February one thousand, five hundred and five. A king aged of 53 years and who still consideres himself like a active person can say “Your old age” referring to somebody that practically has his same age?. It is logic to recognise that something does not agree in all this, something goes wrong, but it has certain verisimilitude if we believe that it is true that Colon died in Valladolid in the year 1506, having 70 years, "senectute bona" or "age of seventy years" because this way the contemporary historians had written it. That is to say, he dies on the following year of which the king Fernando was granting license to him for not to ride horses in his trips. Note: I apologize for my bad english — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikibcnes (talk • contribs) 09:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

He was't born in Genoa, he was born in Ibiza! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.127.25 (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Now he's Norwegian
One of the most recent interpretations of his life maintains that Columbus was Norwegian. Professor Tor Borch Sannes (Christopher Columbus — A European from Norway) argues that Columbus' father was from Norway and worked in the shipping industry. The true identity of Columbus. The mystery is revealed: Columbus was Norwegian. The rest is speculation.

New Book explains everything: A wonderful book. The REAL Story of COLUMBUS. (Columbus NOT Colonbo).

I have this book in my home: Christopher Columbus – en europeer fra Norge.

The Professor Tor Borch Sannes (Book):


 * Suggests that Columbus was a Norwegian nobleman named Christopher Bonde Columbus who discovered America in 1477, not in 1492.
 * Columbus actually undertook a voyage north of Iceland in 1477, according to the World Book Encyclopedia. Sannes argues that voyage could have reached Canada or New England 15 years before Columbus laid anchor in the West Indies in 1492.
 * The most convincing evidence was Columbus' coat of arms, said Sannes. In the position designating a father's lineage, it bears an emblem identical to that used by the Bonde-Columbus family, he said.
 * Sannes said Columbus' father could have been a member of the noble Bonde-Columbus family who he believes fled to Italy in the 1400s to avoid persecution in Norway.
 * Sannes cited other bits of evidence: he called himself a foreigner in southern Europe and he was a described in some biographies as tall, fair and blue-eyed, typical Nordic characteristics.
 * Sannes said documents on Columbus gathered by Genoa residents in the 1930s mentioned the Norwegian Bonde-Columbus family and other associates of the explorer with ties to Norway.
 * Sannes said Columbus' son Fernando, in a biography of his father, wrote that the explorer never wanted to disclose where he was born, but called himself a man of the sea.

The professor Tor Borch Sannes has spent 25 years researching Christopher Columbus and his voyage to America. The highest authority of Christopher Columbus.

The book has generated considerable news coverage. Read it three times!!! The truth is discovered. Update information, please read !!! --2.33.180.39 (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Who made this journalist a professor? His book wasn't published by a university press but by Norsk Maritimt Forlag, Norse Maritime Press. Forskning.no, run by the Research Council of Norway, writing about cult archaeologists such as von Daniken, calls Sannes Norway's funniest cult archaeologist..
 * But the book is so convincing that... --2.33.180.39 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Genocide
This man is the Hitler of America. He was the spark of the fire that resulted in the genocide of the Native Americans, but the word "genocide" is not mentioned in this article not even once. Why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.42.242 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because no one has provided reliable sources that state that Columbus caused genocide. If you know of such sources, please provide them and we can evaluate if they would be appropriate for inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A relible source is A People's History of the United States 1492-Present by HOWARD ZINN Anonymous (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2012(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.89.118.146 (talk)
 * Howard Zinn is (or was) notoriously biased.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  01:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am new to this subject, but having just reviewed the wiki article on H. Zinn and the relevant text in question, I would like to better understand what constitutes an unbiased and reliable source. Clearly he was an activist, but his book appears to be used in many curricula at the high school and college levels; based on this and the 2005 discovery of accounts regarding the severity of his governance, is there precedence for at least a discussion on the matter? Cheers, Wolfworks (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2012
The actual History and character of columbus

the actual history of columbus according to many historians says that, columbus was a dacoit who was authorised by the church of europe probably chrch of portugal that he can capture america.he killed more than 10 crore of red indians who were inhabitant of america. there was a treaty signed by portugal and spain for looting whole world. portuguese were given east area of globe and spain was given east area of globe. and that treaty has been preserved by london any body can see that. hence pls stop celebrating columbus day in america atleast.

Vijaysoni7 (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also this proposed wording grossly violates the policy on neutral point-of-view. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

WAS COLUMBUS OF POLISH ORIGIN?
If I understand it right, some Portugese experts have been investigating the possibility of Columbus's being of Polish origin. In the USA this research has been ridiculed, as Americans, especially the media individuals, are virulently racist towards the Poles. But, as I understand, the Portugese folks have been adamant their claims may have a solid factual basis. Maybe their theory is worth mentioning in your entry on Columbus? Of course, in a respectful, not Polonophobic manner. Can you do that? You're American, I surmise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.154.41 (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're referring to the theories of Manuel Rosa. Take a look at the article Origin theories of Christopher Columbus, where his work is discussed, among other theories. That article is linked from this one (in the section "Early Life"). &bull; Lainagier &bull; talk &bull; 07:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 November 2012

 * These are all very nice pieces of the wool-weaver COLOMBO fairy tales. However, it should be noted that the discoverer called himself COLON and that already in January of 1479 belonged to such high noble rank that he was able to marry the aunt of King John II's Lord Chamberlain, Filipa_Moniz_Perestrelo, an Elite Member of the Portuguese Order of Santiago, whose Master, King John II, had to authorize the marriage, according the the Order's Own Rule Book.... wool-weaving Peasants married other peasants and Elite Santiago Nobles married other Elite Nobles- fantasy to the fantasists, history to the realists.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 November 2012
<!-Christopher Columbus is Basque County Boy SPAIN- Begin request -->

2.96.221.127 (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: - no understandable request. Begoon &thinsp; talk 00:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Born in SPAIN
Cristobal Colón nación en Valladolid (España) oficialmente. Otra cosa es que se especule con razón sobre su nacimiento, ya que pudo ser en Italia o en Portugal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.78.221.194 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing Sister
Christopher Columbus had a sister named Bianchinetta.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_were_Christopher_Columbus's_siblings http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/christopher-columbus.htm http://www.fact-index.com/c/ch/christopher_columbus.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meporter (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of those meet our reliable sources guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. Does the following work: Title : "Columbus: The Four Voyages, 1492-1504" Author : Laurence Bergreen Publisher : Penguin Books Page : 49 (available through Amazon's Look Inside feature) Amazon Link to Book : http://www.amazon.com/Columbus-The-Four-Voyages-1492-1504/dp/014312210X/ref=zg_bs_917122_6

Title : "Columbus and the Quest for Jerusalem: How Religion Drove the Voyages that Led to America" Author : Carol Delaney Publisher : Free Press Page : 22 (available through Amazon's Look Inside feature) Amazon Link to the Book : http://www.amazon.com/Columbus-Quest-Jerusalem-Religion-Voyages/dp/1439102376/ref=zg_bs_917122_8

Title : "The Legacy of Christopher Columbus: The Historic Litigations Involving His Discoveries, His Will, His Family, and His Descendants" Author : Otto Schoenrich Publisher : The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.

And finally, I submit the Wikipedia entry for Christopher Columbus's mother - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susanna_Fontanarossa "Susanna of Fontanarossa (?-?) was probably the mother of Cristoforo Colombo, a Genoese wool weaver commonly believed to have been Christopher Columbus, a navigator and explorer who is generally credited as a discoverer of the Americas. Almost nothing is known about her before her marriage to Domenico Colombo in 1445. She bore 5 children to Domenico: Cristoforo, Bartolomeo, Giovanni, Giacomo, and a daughter named Bianchinetta." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.200.100 (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Were these sources acceptable? Thanks in advance for the consideration.

(These were my edits.)

Hello? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meporter (talk • contribs) 20:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article is certainly not acceptable for citation as a source in Wikipedia itself. The two books look ok to me, but if there's any dispute about them I can add Maria Fagioli's introduction to an italian edition of Columbus's logs, Fernández-Armesto's book, Columbus, and the Phillipses' book, The Worlds of Christopher Columbus, although these last write her nane "Bianchineta" rather than "Bianchinetta".
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information.

Wikipedia - is it possible to get this information added to the official page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meporter (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence at the end of the first paragraph of "Early Life"; I arbitrarily picked the first book given as the reference, though someone is welcome to change that if they like. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. My 8-year old daughter was the one who discovered this and made me promise to try and get it changed here. Would you also mind adding it to the side bar that currently notes his brothers? Thank you once again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meporter (talk • contribs) 01:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please relay our thanks to your daughter.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Portrait
I don't know why you keep replacing Alejo Fernandez's portrait of Columbus with the ugly Piombo's portrait. We all know Piombo's portrait is NOT of Columbus - http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/110002098 - while Fernandez's portrait is very likely the actual portrait - http://personal.us.es/alporu/histsevilla/alejo_fernandez.htm -  remembering that Alejo was court painter already in 1505 and that the painting was commissioned for Casa de Contratación de las Indias (House of Commerce of the Indies) - Piombo never saw Columbus - while Alejo Fernandez was painting for the court while Columbus was alive. If you want to keep using Piombo move it to another part of the page but PLEASE don't use tis fake portrait as the main image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colon-el-Nuevo (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In your last edit you write: "December 2012‎ Che829 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (107,564 bytes) (+1,076)‎ . . (There is no mention it is "fake" and is no physical evidence/proof. Piombo's portrait is just a posthumous portrait.)" ... Piombo was born in 1485 and lived in Italy and painted the "Columbus" portrait around 1519- Columbus was living in Portugal from 1476 until 1484 and in Spain from 1484 until he died in 1506.... any logical person would see that Piombo never saw Columbus. On the other hand, Fernandez was a court painter in Spain already in 1505. Any logical person would say that Fernandez had plenty of opportunity to see Columbus in Spain. Why do you insit on putting up this fake painting by Piombo?????Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It is you who first started keep replacing Sebastiano del Piombo's portrait of Columbus with the face cropped picture from Alejo Fernández's altarpiece painting The Virgin of the Navigators redundantly—as even it was already inserted at Physical appearance section—since 20:55, 14 November 2012 along with your own POV pushig edit summary "(It is about time to remove the ugly and proven false image of columbus by Piombo from these pages)".
 * The editorialized words you repetitively wrote such as "ugly", "proven false", "fake" can't be a rational reason to replace the existing main image.
 * The Metropolitan Museum of Art doesn't describe Piombo's artwork as proven false or fake at all. Its Gallery Label displays only following text: "Painted in Rome by one of the outstanding Venetian masters of the High Renaissance, this badly damaged portrait purports to show Christopher Columbus. The inscription identifies him as "the Ligurian Colombo, the first to enter by ship into the world of the Antipodes 1519," but the writing is not entirely trustworthy and the date 1519 means that it cannot have been painted from life, as Columbus died in 1506. There are other, quite different, portraits that also claim to show Columbus. Nonetheless, from an early date our picture became the authoritative likeness. In 1814 the painting was part of the collection of Prince Talleyrand and was exhibited at the Palais Royal in Paris."


 * Besides, according to two reliable references of Alejo Fernández's biography he was never a "court" painter as you said, but a commissioned painter to the Seville Cathedral (1508) and the chapel at the Casa de Contratación (1531–36).
 * The Museo del Prado online encyclopedia: "Pintor de origen alemán, representante del primer renacimiento en Andalucía. Por un documento del año 1505 conservado en la catedral de Sevilla se sabe que él y su hermano, el escultor Jorge Fernández, eran alemanes.", "Permanece en Córdoba hasta el año 1508 en que se traslada a Sevilla junto con su hermano Jorge para trabajar en la catedral, donde pinta la viga del retablo mayor."
 * The University of Seville: 500 years of history (Quincentenary): "Sin duda, la condición de canónigo-arcediano de Rodriguez de Santaella y los trabajos que Alejo realizó para la catedral, debieron poner en contacto a ambos personajes.", "Aunque ni su apellido ni el de sus padres permiten suponerle de origen extranjero, hay que señalar que en los libros de cuentas de la catedral de Sevilla se le cita en una ocasión como "Maestro Alexos pintor aleman".", "En 1508 era llamado por el Cabildo de la catedral sevillana para ocuparse del retablo mayor, y allí lo encontramos, poco después, establecido con su familia en la collación de San Ildefonso. Los trabajos realizados en la catedral fueron los mejores pregoneros de sus merecimientos."
 * It should be noted that Fernández's painting has been executed between 1531 and 1536, so that it postdates Columbus's death in 1506.
 * "salvo excepciones como la Virgen de los Navegantes, con destino a la Casa de Contratación de Sevilla (h. 1531-1536)."
 * "Debió de pintarse entre 1531 y 1536."
 * Furthermore the identification of the figures in Fernández's altarpiece painting is also controversial and the person of that face cropped picture has been believed to represent Ferdinand the Catholic, while Columbus is in the immediate left of the Virgin Mary.
 * "La identificación de los personajes acogidos al manto de la Virgen es muy discutida.", "Se ha creído que los arrodillados a la derecha de la Virgen son: Fernando el Católico, en primer término, y el obispo Fonseca y el canónigo Sancho de Matienzo, en segundo plano; y los de su izquierda, Cristobal Colón, el inmediato a la Virgen, y tres de los cuatro pilotos que asistieron a la Junta de Burgos: Américo, Yáñez Pinzón y Juan de la Cosa o Solís."
 * Presuming the supposed Ferdinand the Catholic to be Christopher Columbus is simply a conjectural hypothesis based on Bartolomé de las Casas's anecdotal source.
 * "El supuesto Fernando el Católico podría ser en realidad Cristóbal Colón. El lugar que ocupa es evidente el de mayor honor, y su rostro largo, de nariz ligeramente aguileña, no puede por menos de evocar el recuerdo de los términos en que Fray Bartolomé de las Casas nos describe al Primer Almirante: "El Almirante -nos dice- físicamente era alto, de agradable presencia, fornido, de rostro alargado y nariz aguileña, ojos grises, claros, pardos, pero muy animados; castaño el cabello y la tez muy blanca, pero algo pecosa y colorada; a los treinta años comenzó a encanecer."


 * Please remember: "Although an abundance of artwork involving Christopher Columbus exists, no authentic contemporary portrait has been found."
 * "'Major, Int. Letters of Columbus, ixxxviii., says "Not one of the so-called portraits of Columbus is unquestionably authentic." They differ from each other, and cannot represent the same person.'"

Che829 (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Biased position concerning nationality
Hi. It's my first time doing anything around here, so please be gentle.

My point is that the current text fails to give an accurate account of the controversy relating to Columbus' nationality. This text does mention there are scholars who defend he was not from Genoa, but at the same time it dismisses such theories as "discounted by mainstream scholars".

There being valid logical reasons to infer he had a different nationality (I'm more familiar with the Portuguese theory, but the fact that islands named by Columbus have the same name as portuguese regions - eg.: Cuba - is a very sound argument, especially given the rivalry between Portugal and Spain at the time), it seems to me that there should at least be a section in the text devoted to this controversy.

Since this page should be neutral... why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiviriol (talk • contribs) 00:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The page is neutral, because it accurately summarizes the situation. Basically, for each of the alternative theories, the only people who support them are fringe writers from that specific country. That is, the Polish origin theory is believed pretty much only in Poland, and not even to a large extent there. WP:NPOV does not say that we should give all points of view equal coverage, but that we should give them coverage equal to the weight those theories carry in the real world. We already have a whole other page, Origin theories of Christopher Columbus which goes more into detail on the fringe theories. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not true. Here is an example: a portuguese historian putting forward a "polish theory".

Interestingly enough, you can also find a quote of an american historian recognising the flaws in the mainstream point of view in that same link.

Even if you're not going to give them equal credit, what is wrong with mentioning the main arguments of each theory (provided there is a clear distinction between facts and speculation)? Or at least include an explicit link to the page you mentioned in the text? (by the way, the portuguese hypothesis is very poorly shown there - I'm amazed at the fact that the reference used in this brief reference in Columbus' page is not even mentioned in the theories' page! Although that source does discuss a bit of the "portuguese jew" columbus theory there, it presents evidence which is independent of that (such as the question of the lands Columbus named, which I have already mentioned), as well as more scientific corroborations (via DNA testing and the likes). Someone should complete that)

Wikiviriol (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Feedback?

Wikiviriol (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The other theories are listed at the other article, which is linked from this article. This article will not contain any WP:FRINGE viewpoints, because the international consensus on this matter is astoundingly clear. Simply look at the archives for this talk page, and you will find dozens upon dozens of large-scale studies or signed letters indicated this to be the case. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction needed
>>Isabella turned Columbus down on the advice of her confessor, and he was leaving town by mule in despair, when Ferdinand intervened. Isabella then sent a royal guard to fetch him, and Ferdinand later claimed credit for being "the principal cause why those islands were discovered".[39]<<

Actually, the source quoted states that is was Juan Perez, a former official of Isabella's rather than her confessor, Talavera who rented a mule and rode to court to plead Columbus's case. Please correct. The source is verifiable on Amazon - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Worlds-Christopher-Columbus-William-Phillips/dp/052144652X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355837980&sr=8-1#reader_052144652X Pages 131/132.193.108.78.10 (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Christòval Colòn
According to recent studies conducted by the researcher Marisa Azuara, it seems that Christopher Columbus was a Sardinian aristocratic born in Sanluri as the Christòval Colòn, son of Salvatore of Siena and Alagon  and  Isabella Alagon of Arborea,  related to Enea Silvio Piccolomini  ascended  to the papal throne in 1470 as the Pius II Christòval Colòn was born in 1436 and spent his adolescence in the castle of Sanluri, Oristano, Tuili, Tortolì and Castelsardo studying marine sciences. I must also say that academic historians were skeptical about the thesis of Azuara.

Confusing Error. Reads as CHinese Mainland. The sea spans to a mainland, but the land spans to a coast. So it should read coast. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

New research by Manuel da Silva Rosa (Columbus. The Unknown History)
I would point you to the most recent research on the matter of "Cristóbal Colón" origins, written by historian 'Manuel da Silva Rosa'. The book "Columbus. The Unknown History" published in Poland as "Kolumb. Historia nieznana", explains some of the gaps and misconceptions in the Genovese story of the sailor origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.109.58.245 (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement that "Columbus. The Unknown History"will become a reference for any future biography on Columbus. Unfortunately the English speaking world has no idea of the breakthroughs presented by Manuel Rosa since 2006 and therefore the book is not allowed ot be utilized as a source here.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Current article is not neutral and therefore in violation of Wiki policy.
The barbaric acts of Columbus are well documented by numerous sources. The current article paints Columbus in a positive light and as one 'misunderstood' or 'not able to tell his side'. The many barbaric acts are not listed and his role as the father of slavery in the United States is not stated.

The bias in such a neutral fact is evident. Father of slavery is an important fact. It is what it is. The bias moderator is keeping such facts from being included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.216.202 (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no moderators--we all edit the article; the only reason unregistered editors can't edit it is because of extensive vandalism problems in the past. However, I'd be happy to add proper material on your bhealf. So please provide some examples of the "numerous sources" you're speaking of and what you think should be added, and we can discuss it, and add it if it meets WP's policies and guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See Aztec slavery. Slavery was common in America before 1492. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.17.133 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See History of slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.17.133 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Magnum Opus
Miltiades Varvounis, distinguished Greek-Polish historian, researcher and author of the critically acclaimed Jan Sobieski: The King Who Saved Europe, among several other history books, wrote in Lithuanian Heritage Magazine "... Colón: La Historia Nunca Contada is a magnum opus and by no means should be considered a work of pseudo history or just another source of nutty conspiracy theories. Rosa's numerous reliable findings and solid theories would make Sherlock Holmes jealous. The History of Columbus has many mixed-up facts and personalities, and maybe the time has come for the discoverer's life to be finally rewritten."  Source Lithuanian Heritage Magazine, (January/February 2913) pg. 28. So it seems Rosa's research can be a reliable source after all. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Any evidence that Lithuanian Heritage Magazine is a reliable source? And, if it is, that it is specifically qualified to speak reliably on matters of the history of Columbus? It seems highly unlikely that they are, since, you know, Columbus doesn't fall under Lithuanian history. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what criteria you apply, but the reviewer, Miltiades Varvounis ( http://www.miltiadesvarvounis.com ) is also a history author, just one more in the list of academics who appears to support Rosa's research.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That could rise to the level of review worth including in Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. Try asking there. As always, here we will need an unambiguous statement that the overall opinion in the field has shifted, not "it may be time for...". Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Not until the 18th and 19th centuries did anyone begin disputing Columbus's Genoese origins. Many contemporary descriptions say that he was a Ligurian, using the name for the Mediterranean coastal strip near Genoa. Needless to say, this is not the view of the majority of historians. [ WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR ] - This user is famous for absurd theories.

In this regard, the historian Felipe Fernández-Armesto writes [1492. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010. p. 180.] "The Catalan, French, Galician, Greek, Ibizan, Jewish, Majorcan, Polish, Scottish, and other increasingly silly Columbuses concocted by historical fantasists are agenda-driven creations, usually inspired by a desire to arrogate a supposed or confected hero to the cause of a particular nation or historic community - or, more often than not, to some immigrant group striving to establish a special place of esteem in the United States. The evidence of Columbus's origins in Genoa is overwhelming..." --Aries no Mur (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Aries no Mur - The evidence of Columbus's origins in Genoa is overwhelming for those who are not bothered with factual details. However, when one begins sytematically combing through the "evidence", as did Manuel Rosa, and then presents, not only the fault lines in that so-called "evidence" but factual evidence showing how the man named Colon in Spain could NEVER be the same wool-weaver named Colombo in Genoa, the facts speak for themselves. The history is changing and everyone who read Rosa's research is in accordance with him. Four books in 6 years and not one single academic who tried to dispute the evidence after reading it. Of course if you do not read it, you have no standing as a critic. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to say congratulations to Mr. Rose and to leave here information about another great scholar who refused to play the academic game and is rewriting Columbus history in a book titled Christopher Columbus: en europeer fra Norge.

This theory was expounded by the distinguished Norwegian maritime historian Borch Sannes in his book "Christopher Columbus - En Europeer fra Norge?" (Translation : Christopher Columbus - a European from Norway?). It was published in Oslo in 1991 by Norsk Maritim Forlag (Norwegian Maritime Publishers). The author asserts that Columbus was born in Hyen, a small community in Western Norway's beautiful Nordfjord area, under the name Christopher Bonde. Bonde, in Norwegian, means farmer andtranslates into the Latin Colonus. According to Sannes,Swedish-Norwegian friction caused Bonde to flee to ... Genoa,Liguria, Italy.

An English translation of the book reportedly was being completed by a lady in Connecticut, according to the October, 4, 1990 issue of Brooklyn-based "Nordisk Tidende", a well established weekly.

The book that changed history

http://books.google.it/books?id=bXolAQAAMAAJ&dq=Christopher+Columbus:+en+europeer+fra+Norge&hl=it&sa=X&ei=Iw4_UYbFE83DPNvdgPAE&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ

Christopher Bonde: America's discoverer Norwegian not Italian, claim historians. --2.33.180.185 (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with this page. This is obviously a WP:FRINGE theory at best. It was long ago decided that this article would contain only the consensus historical theory, and that all other theories would be consigned to Origin theories of Christopher Columbus, where, in fact, this theory is already listed. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Qwyrxian !

I do not agree with you but I respect your point of view. For the last 25 years, Mr. Borch Sannes has investigated and searched out the facts concerning the discovery of America utilizing a non-biased scientific approach that has taken him to Portugal, Spain, the Dominican Republic, Poland and many places in-between in his pursuit of Columbus origins.


 * For Colon-el-Nuevo. "Christopher Columbus", an explorer who discovered America could have had Lithuanian blood, Portuguese historian Manuel Rosa claims. I also read his book Colón: La Historia Nunca Contada. The father of Christopher Columbus wasn't Polish but Lithuanian. --2.33.180.185 (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that Colon-el-Nuevo is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, because he insisted upon using this and the other article's talk pages as a place to push de Rosa's theories about Columbus. Thus, he will not be responding. Furthermore, please note that article talk pages aren't a place for general discussion; that is, you it's not like an internet forum where people debate or discuss various ideas. The only purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you are absolutely right ! Well... I basically just wanna learn from the articles. But I also want to help improve wikipedia so other users can benefit from it also. In the university library, I found many copies of the book Christopher Columbus—en Europeer fra Norge? (Christopher Columbus — a European from Norwey?). The author Tor Borch Sannes pointed out that Columbus gathered his knowledge about the New World from his early trip to Norway in 1477, and that Columbus's coat of arms was identical to that of a Norwegian family's from the Nordfjord. According to Sannes, Columbus had blond hair and blue eyes and was really named Christopher Bonde from the town of Hyen, just north of the Sognefjord. Hope these are helpful to the cause ! Be the compatriot of Columbus would be, for me, a real honor !!!!! --2.33.180.179 (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The topic of Columbus' arms come up quite a bit in the various article talkpages. Maybe this article ought to have a small section or at least a good footnote covering the heraldry attributed to Columbus (ATM all we've got it one image). Like, was he ever granted a coat of arms or were they only attributed to him in later sources, and how many coats of arms are actually attributed to Columbus?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a GREAT idea.

Historian: Christopher Columbus May be Norwegian [The mystery is revealed]
 * http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1991/Historian-Christopher-Columbus-May-be-Norwegian/id-0266bf2d038ae86e24b94c9d7f598e6e

Sannes said the historical evidence could just as easily lead to a conclusion that Columbus was born in Norway.

" Sannes said Columbus' father could have been a member of the noble Bonde family who he believes fled to Italy in the 1400s to avoid persecution in Norway.

The most convincing evidence was Columbus' coat of arms, said Sannes. In the position designating a father's lineage, it bears an emblem identical to that used by the Bonde family, he said. Now i want to rewrite the history. Thank you all for the support! --2.33.180.179 (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian Prince?
Christopher Columbus’s True Identity Unmasked: A Lithuanian Prince? By Jon Platakis - Founder/Chairman of the National Lithuanian American Hall of Fame, exclusive for the Lithuania Tribune - http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/31724/christopher-columbuss-true-identity-unmasked-a-lithuanian-prince-201331724/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.52.234.135 (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This is impossible. Christopher Columbus was NORWEGIAN ! The Historian Sannes - Christopher-Columbus-May-be-Norwegian. Click here --2.33.180.112 (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2013
pleasw can i edit this page as some information is incorrect

Jackdapickle (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * When using this template you need to say exactly what changes you have in mind. Moonraker (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've marked the request as answered as we can't do anything until we know what changes you are suggesting. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Columbus was Croatian ?
According to historian Vincent Sinovcic, Columbus was C-r-o-a-t-i-a-n.

Columbus:Debunking of a Legen

From the book:

" ...Columbus was C-r-o-a-t-i-a-n... "

" ... the anonymous, heroic and tragic crew of the caravel Atlantic, which, in 1484, found America ... "


 * http://books.google.it/books/about/Columbus_debunking_of_a_legend.html?id=eoclAQAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

The t-r-u-t-h is finally r-e-v-e-a-l-e-d !!!!!! --KolumboCro (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

'''This is impossible. Christopher Columbus was NORWEGIAN !''' Click here


 * The Norwegian historian Tor Borch Sannes some years ago published a book called "Christopher Columbus - a European from Norway?"
 * For the last 25 years, Mr. Borch Sannes has investigated and searched out the facts concerning the discovery of America. The Facts. I am the compatriot of Christopher Columbus. This is a great honor.


 * There are at least 50 sources (encyclopedias etc.) who reported that Columbus was Norwegian. --2.33.180.108 (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just stop it, all of you. There is absolutely no doubt that the broad consensus among reliable historians is that Columbus is from Genoa. There are dozens of other WP:FRINGE theories, and they're covered on Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. Until such time as historical consensus changes, these are not productive discussions. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"Until such time as historical consensus changes"

Dear Qwyrxian, as always, you are the wiser. I need to find other sources and, finally, the online version of the Encyclopedia will be updated. I'm excited. The dream comes true. The truth is that Columbus was a Norwegian nobleman. Thanks Qwyrxian, for your support. I will write a book about Christopher Columbus (after graduation). I have too many ideas. --2.33.180.231 (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

O-k. O-k. But... Some H-i-s-t-o-r-i-a-n-s have argued that Columbus was not from G-e-n-o-a, but instead, from Croatia or Slovenia.

One of these scholars is V-i-n-c-e-n-t S-I-N-O-V-C-I-C. He stated:

...Columbus was C-r-o-a-t-i-a-n... " ... a Croatian nobleman ... "

" ... the anonymous, heroic and tragic crew of the caravel Atlantic, which, in 1484, found America ... "

Sources:


 * SINOVCIC Vincent (1990). Publishing,inc Columbus: Debunking of a Legend. Nueva York. ISBN 9780944957066.
 * ARRANZ MÁRQUEZ, Luis. Págs. 97.

Christopher Columbus may be Croatian. Bye. Good d-a-y to a-l-l! --KolumboCro (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The historian Felipe Fernández-Armesto writes: "The Catalan, French, Galician, Greek, Ibizan, Jewish, Majorcan, Polish, Scottish, and other increasingly silly Columbuses concocted by historical fantasists are agenda-driven creations, usually inspired by a desire to arrogate a supposed or confected hero to the cause of a particular nation or historic community - or, more often than not, to some immigrant group striving to establish a special place of esteem in the United States. The evidence of Columbus's origins in Genoa is overwhelming..."


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


 * The historian Consuelo Varela writes: "One of the mysteries that important historiographers like to discuss, idling away the time with new and bizarre conjectures, is that of the origin and birth date of Christopher Columbus, despite the fact that all chroniclers of that period wrote that he was from Liguria in northern Italy."


 * The Spanish historian Antonio Ballesteros Beretta writes: "One person is responsible for the polemics about the birthplace of Christopher Columbus, and that person is his own son Ferdinand, who, in his biography of his father, displayed ignorance and doubts on a subject which, on the contrary, he should have known well. We must unhesitatingly point out that Don Ferdinand's work is rather tendentious and must be used with great caution. The problem of the Admiral's origin would not exist if Ferdinand had told the truth, which, instead, he deliberately concealed." "His dubious attitude" continues Ballesteros, "about the Discoverer's origins has given rise to an endless series of hypotheses, some of which are farfetched and fantastic. It is true that Ferdinand, in his father's biography, never ventures away from the Italian thesis, but he creates a great confusion. He tries to condition his readers, speaking of a noble family, from which his progenitor was presumably descended. He seeks it in Italy, and his attempts are aimed at creating a kind of nebula in which the splendour of an uncertain birth shines, and at the same time of a definite noble background. What is behind the father's silence and the confusion originated by the son?" Ballesteros has no hesitation in explaining: "We cannot blame Christopher or Ferdinand for having wanted to hide their origins. It was natural and human that Columbus, having reached great heights, at the side of the most powerful sovereigns of the earth, should conceal, with a claim of noble ancestry, his humble origins. Let us try to understand these human weaknesses and let us have compassion on his memory."


 * The historian Paolo Emilio Taviani writes: "It is understandable that certain Spanish historians would seek to bestow full credit for the great discovery on Spain by arguing that Columbus was a Spanish citizen. It is equally understandable that the Castilians and Catalonians - two populations that have been linguistically and culturally divided for centuries - have fought over which of the two had the honor of being the birthplace of Christopher Columbus. But what wild imaginings could have generated a Greek Columbus, an English Columbus, three French Columbuses, and, as if that were not enough, a Corsican Columbus, a Swiss Columbus, and three Portuguese Columbuses? For an explanation, we can look only to the immeasurable greatness of Columbus's achievement and to its profound consequences on the course of human history; only to the mythic figure of the Navigator, the first man to unveil the mystery of the New World to the inhabitants of the Old World, only to the amazing story of his life and his voyages. The glorious myth of Columbus has prompted some minds to hallucinate and some dilettantes to try to appropriate the myth for themselves."

Scholars from all over the world agree that Columbus was Genoese: Juan Manzano Manzano, Diego Luis Molinari, Robertson, Navarrete, Milhou, Irving, Boorstin, Demetrio Ramos, Carpentier, D'Avezac, Manuel Alvar, Nunez Jimenez, Munoz, Peschel, Duro, Mollat, Harrisse, Perez de Tudela, Aynashiya, Morales Padron, Magidovic, Roselly de Lorgues, Asensio, Braudel, Winsor, Fiske, Ciroanescu, Ruge, Markham, Serrano y Sanz, Obregon, Laguarda Trias, Thacher, de Gandia, Emiliano Jos, Aurelio Tio, Goldemberg, Vignaud, Ramirez Corria, Alvarez Pedroso, Marta Sanguinetti, Altolaguirre, Breuer, Leithaus, Alegria, Arciniegas, Davey, Nunn, Johnson, Juan Gil, Sumien, Charcot, Ballesteros Gaibrois, Levillier, Dickey, Parry, Young, Streicher, de La Ronciere, Muro Orejon, Pedroso, Brebner, Houben, Rumeu de Armas, de Madariaga, Stefansson, Martinez Hidalgo, Taylor, Mahn Lot, Verlinden, Bradford, Heers, Davidson, Bergreen, Fernandez-Armesto, McGovern, Kirkpatrick Sale, Spotorno, Sanguineti, Tarducci, Peragallo, Desimoni, De Lollis, Salvagnini, Uzielli, Assereto, Pessagno, Caddeo, Magnaghi, Almagia, Revelli, Bignardelli, João de Barros, Damião de Góis, Geraldini, Segni, Pietro Bembo, Francesco Guicciardini, Giovanni Lorenzo d'Anania, Tommaso Bozio, Antonio Chiusole,  Tommaso Fazello, Paolo Giovio, Bartolomé de las Casas, Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés, Rui de Pina, Johannes Schöner, Francisco López de Gómara, Garcia de Resende, Hieronymo Girava, Theodor Zwinger, Peter Martyr d'Anghiera, D. Diego (a grandson of Columbus), Alonzo de Santa Cruz, Gonzalo de Illescas, Lancelot Voisin de La Popelinière, Michael Neander, Gonzalo Argote de Molina, Juan de Mariana, William and Carla Phillips Etc. etc. etc. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that there is room on Wikipedia for an article on Disputes of the Origin of Christopher Columbus or something like that where topics like this can be addressed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Paul... The number of supporters grows...

The Professor Tor Borch Sannes (Book):


 * Suggests that Columbus was a Norwegian nobleman named Christopher Bonde Columbus who discovered America in 1477, not in 1492.


 * Columbus actually undertook a voyage north of Iceland in 1477, according to the World Book Encyclopedia. Sannes argues that voyage could have reached Canada or New England 15 years before Columbus laid anchor in the West Indies in 1492.


 * The most convincing evidence was Columbus' coat of arms, said Sannes. In the position designating a father's lineage, it bears an emblem identical to that used by the Bonde family, he said.


 * Sannes said Columbus' father could have been a member of the noble Bonde family who he believes fled to Italy in the 1400s to avoid persecution in Norway.

The professor Tor Borch Sannes has spent 25 years researching Christopher Bonde and his voyage to America. I love the story of Christopher Bonde. My hero. I can't edit the page? Why? I'm new here. I love the English wikipedia. --2.33.180.113 (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"An article on Disputes of the Origin of Christopher Columbus"

A GREAT idea. I have so much material that "awaits" Wikipedia. Magazines and books of Professor Tor Borch Sannes. What should I do to open this page ? --2.33.180.113 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Paul, there already is such an article, it's Origin theories of Christopher Columbus, and I think both of these theories are listed there. IP, if you don't stop trying to use this page to push the theory you like, I'll either ask for you to be blocked or for this talk page to be protected. I've said it many times: this is not a place for open discussion of topics. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"IP"

My name is Bjørn.

"if you don't stop trying to use this page to push the theory you like, I'll either ask for you to be blocked or for this talk page to be protected."

Qwyrxian, you are absolutely right !!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry !!!!!!!!!! I just wanted to respond to the query that was put forth. "Total silence". Bye --2.33.180.115 (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

COLUMBUS AN ARMENIAN ?
On April 27, 1922, the New York Times reported that Christopher Columbus, explorer for Spain, was an Armenian.

COLUMBUS AN ARMENIAN ? So Miss Olivia Hill Says, Quoting Prominent Armenian Scholars. 

Many people think that the history of the U.S. begins with the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus in 1492. But that's not really true. The majority of the Armenians scholars came to the conclusion that Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1485. --SuperArmenian (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please keep this discussion on Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus, where I see you've already started a thread there. This is clearly not a mainstream theory, and thus belongs only over there. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Legacy section: Replaced "traditionally considered the discoverer of America"
I think the word "traditionally" is very problematic. It's a very poorly defined term. I have therefore changed text in the first sentence of the "Legacy" section from "Although among non-Native Americans Christopher Columbus is traditionally considered the discoverer of America..." to "Although Christopher Columbus was commonly considered to be the "discoverer of America" in popular culture until late in the twentieth century". This could still do with refining further to clarify *who* thought of him as the "discoverer of America". My European school education in the late 20th century promoted this idea but I am aware that even in popular culture it is now recognised that other Europeans travelled to the American landmass before him. A more detailed and nuanced opening to this section would be a good addition. thanks!--mgaved (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To weigh in here, Columbus is still commonly regarded to have discovered America for Eurasia. The continent was originally discovered by the forefathers of its indigenous peoples, of course; but they never communicated news of this discovery back to the Old World (for obvious reasons).  Other voyagers predated Columbus's arrival, but it's not clear that any of them even recognized they'd left the European continent, let alone communicated this finding back to Europe/Africa/Asia. So the Vikings only discovered America in the sense that someone struck by lightening discovers electricity. --Xiaphias (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not clear that Columbus recognized that he'd left Eurasia either. If he did, he never admitted it. -Wormcast (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Too Eurocentric?
Maybe this Christopher Columbus entry should be less euro centric and should include the theories about the Olmecs who many consider to be African as earlier visitors of the Americas, predating the Vikings. And the fact that when the Greeks entered into contact with the Egyptians they acquired a lot of the knowledge in terms of the roundness of the earth that is ascribed to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.197.191 (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Latin ?
"Columbus eventually learned Latin, as well as Portuguese and Castilian, and read widely about astronomy, geography, and history, including the works of Ptolemy, Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly's Imago Mundi, the travels of Marco Polo"
 * To read Marco Polo, he did not need Latin : Le Devisement du monde had been written in French : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devisement_du_monde#Langue . 212.198.148.24 (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Italian
I guess we are having this problem again - so again will ask. Can we get those removing this to provided sources to dispute those in the article. Have no problem if it not in the infobox as it is now.. but lets make sure the lead stays -- Moxy (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that the objection of those removing "nationality Italian" from the infobox is not to Columbus's being described as "Italian"—which would indeed be silly—but to this being given as his "nationality".
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would guess that is the reason as Genoa was an independent city-state at the time. I have no problem leaving it blank in the infobox.Moxy (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to agree that he couldn't have had Italian as his nationality at that time, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Moxy, that's why I agreed with the removal. He was ethnically "Italian", but not nationally. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Moxy, that's why I agreed with the removal. He was ethnically "Italian", but not nationally. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Calligraphic Study: Columbus was Pedro Alvarez de Sotomayor, a galician nobleman. http://cristobal-colon-su-historia.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/estudio-pericial-sobre-la-identidad.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.80.98 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

First, the born place of Cristobal Colon is widely discussed, so to affirm only his supposed Italian origin is not scientific. At a meeting held by the Academy of History, April 30, 1926, appeared the following proposition, which was accepted and incorporated into the record: “If it is true that so far there is no sufficient proof to establish that Columbus was born in Pontevedra, nor is there that he was born in Genova”. Other links to the trustily Galician origin: (English: http://www.cristobal-colon.es/christopher-columbus-galician/) (Spanish: http://www.cristobal-colon.es/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesdeGparaelmundo (talk • contribs) 12:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Questioning Neutrality
I think the sentence, "Yet he studied these books, made hundreds of marginal notations in them and came out with ideas about the world that were characteristically simple and strong and sometimes wrong, the kind of ideas that the self-educated person gains from independent reading and clings to in defiance of what anyone else tries to tell him." is a little harsh. If someone could make it say the same thing but nicer, it would be cool. Thanks, Ronster21 (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Ronster21
 * The part that describes how Columbus punished a man found guilty of stealing corn (by having his his ears and nose cut off and then selling him into slavery) comes off a bit harsh also. Could there be a way to make that sound nicer, too? -Wormcast (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * now why would you do that? does the truth offend your sensibilities? Columbus was a typical religious zealot of his or any other day..he treated the native people like animals and was pretty much a criminal by modern standards..I suppose the stories you`ve heard him give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside but not to me..why would you want to portray him as a " nice guy " when in reality he was a self deluded piece of crap? Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Columbus was a typical religious zealot". King of Spain and Pope absolutely forbid slavery on Natives. Colombus was indeed religious, but he was Jewish. When Spain discovered what Jews did, Colombus was imprisoned and all the Jews got expelled. Jews went to Africa, starting the African-American slave trade. Also, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4959361/Christopher-Columbus-was-actually-a-Scotsman-called-Pedro-Scotto-historian-says.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.28.196.219 (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Having read Columbus' Journal, I just cannot agree with that conformist position. His journal shows that he was eager to communicate with the people he met there (what is surprising is the speed with which he arrived to quite elaborate conversations, not the kind one would have with "animals", though humans are mammals and mammals are certainly animals). The only very strange thing in that journal is that he is constantly speaking about gold, bit after all this expedition had cost a lot, he had lost one of his three vessels, and he probably wanted to be forgiven by raising hopes. 212.198.148.24 (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)uest


 * In the words of Jon Cryer, "Sarcasm is lost in print." -Wormcast (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * you should probably dig a little deeper than his journal which for obvious reasons only expressed his point of view..he ended up enslaving virtually the entire population of espanoila..I`m not a historian but I read a lot of history and I do know something about it..i`m not going to write an article on this as there are too many other subjects here that I am better suited to research..he was not a good person by any stretch of the imagination and you will learn this if you get into it..he was on a mission of conquest and like most of our so called heroes of the past the truth regarding him is probably stranger than fiction and yet they are canonized to justify the evil that they bring into the world..his entire career has been whitewashed for centuries and the truth is he didn't "discover" anything.. there is plenty of information regarding him available should you care to learn more..I will come back to this when I have more time...to the person who messaged me informing me of all he has done for me..please sign your post. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Norwegian theory again
The true story of Christopher Columbus ! One book in Norwegian, considering Columbus as a Norwegian:

Tor Borch Sannes. Christopher Columbus: En europeer fra Norge? Oslo: Norsk maritimt forlag, 1991. The source is reliable. The facts are incontrovertible and the conclusions inescapable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.33.180.111 (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is one theory, not really accepted by, well, anyone other than the book author, and already described at Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply my friend.

The theory of the Norwegian origin of Christopher Columbus has been reported, on this section, in a distorted way.

In his book, Christopher Columbus - A European from Norway? Tor Busch Sannes suggests that Columbus was a Norwegian nobleman named Christopher Bonde who discovered America in 1477, not in 1492.


 * Columbus actually undertook a voyage north of Iceland in 1477, according to the World Book Encyclopedia. Sannes argues that voyage could have reached Canada or New England 15 years before Columbus laid anchor in the West Indies in 1492.


 * Sannes said Columbus' father could have been a member of the noble Bonde family who he believes fled to Italy in the 1400s to avoid persecution in Norway.


 * Sannes cited other bits of evidence: Columbus never wrote in Italian, he called himself a foreigner in southern Europe and he was a described in some biographies as tall, fair and blue-eyed, typical Nordic Characteristics.

There is nothing in history to show he was not born in Norway.
 * Again, take it to the other article, it's not going here. Mainly because your very last sentence is patently ridiculous--I'd be shocked if you could find more than 1 out of 10000 historians who accept the theory as even slightly plausible. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'm sorry. However, even Galileo Galilei was taken for a madman and then ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.33.180.109 (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Columbus Norwegian? Then Leif Ericson is Italian ahahahaha --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

According to historian Vincent Sinovcic Columbus was a Croatian nobleman (Columbus:Debunking of a Legen). Sinovcic states that Columbus even had a chart given to him by a mariner who returned from Hispanola in 1484. There is, indeed, considerable evidence that people from all around the world, including Europe, had visited the Americas for trade, fishing, refuge, and even settlement. Information about these previous voyages is published in numerous books.

Perhaps Christopher Columbus was really Croatian ? The life of Columbus is a mystery and there is no evidence on his Genoese origin. Thanks for everything. Bye. --KolumboCro (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)