Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 3

Introduction
greetings =)

as for now, the intro reads:

"Christopher Columbus Italian: Cristoforo Colombo; Spanish: Cristóbal Colón (c. 1451 – May 20, 1506) was a navigator and an admiral for the Crown of Castile whose transatlantic voyages opened the Americas to European exploration and colonization. He is commonly believed to have been from Genoa, but his origins remain uncertified and highly disputed. History places great significance on his original voyage of 1492 A.D., although he did not actually reach the mainland until his third voyage in 1498. Likewise, he was not the earliest European explorer to reach the Americas, as there are accounts of European transatlantic contact prior to 1492. However, Columbus' voyage came at a critical time of growing national imperialism and economic competition between developing nation states seeking wealth from the establishment of trade routes and colonies. Therefore, the period before 1492 is known as Pre-Columbian, and the anniversary of this event is celebrated throughout the Americas and in Spain and Italy."

in my opinion, it is a satisfactory text, which allows the readers to get a grip on the main aspects of the explorer's life and achievements. it tells them his name(s), his possible origins, his occupation, his sponsors (the kings of spain), his accomplishments and the repercussions they had.

if anyone disagrees or has any objections, please do tell, so that we can try to accommodate all penchants.

by the way, as someone already suggested, maybe it's time to spin off the origins section, it's overloading the article. and perhaps it's also time to give the portuguese theory the relevance it deserves – there's a bit of prejudice towards theories claiming columbus was portuguese, while theories claiming he was a spaniard get sympathy from almost everyone (apart from italian people, i suppose). GUi 02:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins
I think we have finally reached a real non biased view and I agree that uncertified origin is at this time the best solution to his nationality.Colombo.bz 18:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Charles Merrill's Catalan Flimflam
"The Newest Catalan Theory" that is presented in Section 5 of the article, fails to mention that this theory is being promoted by Charles Merrill. The cited "research" was presented on the Discovery Channel program "Columbus: Secrets from the grave" on 1 August 2004, at 10 PM EDT. The program was produced by Atlantic Productions of London, and a summary is available at: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/columbus/evidence/explore.html After the broadcast Merrill answered various questions at: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/columbus/experts/questions.html User: Italus, 4 August 2006We

We should not rule out any theory until the time when absolute evidence is found, we should at the very least explain to the public that there are and have been historians who do not accept the accepted story. However Merrill's theory, as it was presented is ridiculous and unfounded. The main theme is that Colon was really Colom from Barcelona. But we all know Colon was an alias because he changed his name. Merrill accepts that the name was changed and that Colon hid his true identity for the last 20 years of his life. Yet he wishes us to accept that Colom was hiding from King Fernando by changing his name to Colon!!!!! Wow what a genius this Colon was to hide behind the same name and how stupid was the king to not notice that Colom and Colon were almost the same? It makes no common sense. As for Merrill's proposal that Colon was Catalan because his handwriting looked like someone from Barcelona, we must be really gullible to believe that you can tell a persons place of birth by how they write. I dare anyone to prove that they can tell a person's nationality by their handwriting, (looking simply at how their letters are formed as Merrill's "expert" presented). 213.13.246.228 09:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa
 * Your theory about Colon hiding who he was can't be right. There is too many evidence against:
 * He was received in court and given money and shelter because who he was, precisely.
 * He could marry a noble woman because he was who he was.
 * He had his family arround him. You don't bring your family with you when you are hiding your identity.
 * The titles he was given by the king where reserved, by law, to noblemen. Yet nobody protested.
 * In the trials the kings used to withdraw some of the terms of their contract, they used all kind of lies and acusations (such as believing to travel to India). He was constantly acused of not living in Castille. He was never acused of not being part of the nobility, easy as it would have been.
 * And so on. Spaniards can't pronounce correctly Colom and they say Colon instead. It is that simple. Both forms where used, even during his life, this doesn't mean anything special.

>..... Indeed my theory is quite consistent. He was hiding his true identity that is true. He changed his name when he went to Castile but he was not hiding from the kings. Not from the kings of Spain nor from the Kings of Portugal because they all knew who he was. His family knew who he was. His wife's family knew who he was, his children knew who he was. He was hiding from us, the public, because he was protecting his father and his mother. This in the end is the real reason so many around him helped to hide his true lineage becasue his birth was a black mark on someone's shiny gold armour. The DNA will eventually bear it out. 213.13.247.3 01:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa


 * There is no proof that he was hiding anything. CC "secret identity" defies evidence. The point is not what his family knew, but that everyone knew who his family was. The identity of CC is confused now, but this was not the case during his lifetime.

>... You are quite correct that every one knew well who CC and is family were both in Spain and in Portugal and he was not from Genoa. Not one fact points to Genoa only hearsay. 213.13.246.254 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

After reading through this Catalan section, I'm more and more convinced this whole section really is out of place, particularly as the opening of the CC background section. How on earth, btw, does DNA prove you are or you're not Jewish? I'm rather skeptical of that claim. It sounds like magic thinking to me. --Eileen R 02:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

>... Eileen, DNA has proven that CC was a caucasian therefore not Middle Eastern. Of course this does not rule out that he may have adopted the Jewish religion but he was not a Jew by birth. I think the fact that the DNA shows him to be of a caucasian stock can pretty much rule out the Jewish theory since Jews as a race would carry a diferent DNA marker. See Discovery Channel .. Secrets from the Grave. 213.13.246.254 22:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Columbus National Origins
Where it is written "It has even been suggested that the epitaph on his tomb, translated as "Let me not be confused forever," is a veiled hint left by Columbus that his identity was other than he publicly stated during his life. However, the actual phrase, "Non confundar in aeternam" (in Latin), is perhaps more accurately translated "Let me never be confounded," and is contained in several Psalms."

The proper translation from the Latin Non confundar in aeternam is “I will not be forever confused.” 213.13.240.218 03:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa, Historian of Iberia.

Portuguese Controversy
Someone added the following in the Portuguese Controversy section: "On the other hand, conspiracy theories are fun and Portugal was indeed secretive, but everyone relied on Italian navigators, even the English. The French were as much a problem to the Portuguese as Castile and Catalonia. Furthermore, the Spanish Monarchs knew from Captain Pinzón and Columbus's messengers that he had returned. His letters were in their third printing by the time he finally reached Spain! Why would Portugal want to give up the Americas in any case? They did have just enough time before the Treaty of Tordesillas to zip across the Atlantic and seize upon Brazil, but that's a highly unlikely scenario."

This is really a very misinformed comment and I removed for the following reasons:

1-No one was relying on Italian sailors in the mid 1400s to explore in the Atlantic Sea because no other kingdoms were exploring that sea. Only Portugal was exploring the West and South Atlantic since King D. Dinis beginning in the year 1317 (the Italian sailors were kicked out of Portugal by King John I in 1424 for talking too much about where they had been while working on secret missions for Portugal).

2 – The French were never a problem to the Portuguese Guinea trade in the 1400s.

3 – Kingdom of Aragon were never a problem to the Portuguese trade until Fernando and Isabel became uncontested Kings of Castile (and Aragon) 1479. In 1480 the Portuguese captured one fleet of 35 Spanish ships sent by Queen Isabel to Portuguese controlled Guinea.

4 – There is no proof that Colon sent any messenger from Lisbon especially since his letter is dated March 14 and he left Lisbon March 13 meaning the letter was written at sea on the way to Spain.

5 – Pinzon arrived in Palos behind Columbus's ship and Pinzon's request to go to court was rejected by Queen Isabel and King Fernando.

6 – The first letter printed was by Pedro Posa in Barcelona, April 1493 (in Spanish). Colon made it back to his homeport of Palos on March 15, 1493 clearly before the letter was in its third printing.

7 – The letter was dated Vlisbone, pridie ydus Marcii in English this is "Lisbon, the day before the Ides of March". The Ides of March is the 15th thus making this "day before" the 14th of March-- already at sea heading to Spain.

8 – Portugal did not want to give up the already known New World (some of it populated by naked, harmless, weaponless and trusting natives believed by Portugal to be worthless in trade) but made the decision to give up some of these lands in order to protect the real India.

9 – Portugal did not zip across the Atlantic and seize upon Brazil after Colon’s news. Portugal had already been to Brazil before Colon's 1st voyage and kept it secret. Colon himself tells us that the King of Portugal already knew the lands of Brazil were there and that this was the king's reason to force the line upon Spain for the Treaty of Tordesillas.

This is the proven history all else is clear speculation. 81.193.12.136 00:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa – Historian of Iberia


 * I've been told that the Portuguese sailors named North America as "Cá nada" and putted that on a map, which was later used by the French. "Cá nada" is plain Portuguese and means "Nothing here" because the area had nothing special and was cold, a climate not suitable for a Portuguese more familiar to the Mediterranean climate. And with so many lands to colonize they would obviously prefer better climates that existed in other places that were settled by Portugal. Can you confirm that in a source, that is repeatedly removed by Canadians that find that offensive as an alternative origin to their country's name. It is very improbably that a European nation would name a country after a name used by poor indigenous peoples and they know that. Although everyone knows that the treaty of Tordesillas was probably changed because of Brazil (that's a fact), the rest in Portuguese controversy should have a source, because it is a little different from what's "common sense", so references would help to one believe in that.--Pedro 01:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * look at the history they've created to the name "Canada"... Canada's name. if it is from Portuguese is "Cá nada" if it is from indigenous peoples it is 'kanata! I believe it is not nice to know that your country's name means "nothing here", but the French used secret Portuguese maps and they simply read it! Are there internet sources?! I've learned that in school, in Geography classes (Portuguese origin names in the world). --Pedro 23:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pedro: the Treaty of Tordesillas was never "changed" it was written only once. The Treaty of Tordesillas was written by King John II of Portugal. It was not written by Spain nor by the Pope as historians claim. The Pope only granted those lands 100 leagues West of the Azores to the kingdom of Castile, however this grant was not a specific contract with Portugal. King John II wanted (needed) a treaty and it was he who insisted on it. He drew the plans for it and he set the limits not the Pope and NOT Spain. What changed during the negotiations was the measuring point from the Azores (as queen Isabel was told to request from the Pope by Cristoval Colon) to Cabo Verde as King John II needed it because Cabo Verde is closer to Brazil and thus easier to measure. Those initial 100 leagues from the Azores as requested by the Queen (on Colon's advice [no doubt coached by King John II]) and the first 250 leagues from Cabo Verde that John II claimed – even if Colon's ships of the 2nd voyage landed on any of it – fall on the same location in Brazil. That is; 100 leagues from the Azores and 250 from Cabo Verde is the same location at approximately 37 degrees West and thus a big chunk of the bulge of Brazil. The extra 120 leagues of fudge space added gave a total of 370 leagues and were also added by King John II.

The word "Canada" is used widely in the Azores and it means a narrow street about (1 meter wide) many which can still be found on the island of Pico. It is true also that other European kingdoms had spies in Portugal and stole some secrets whihc may have included a map with "Cá Nada" meaning "Here Nothing" although the Portuguese like Duarte Pacheco Pereira usually wrote something like 'Aqui não há tratos' – 'Here there is no trade'. 213.13.246.33 00:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Manuel Rosa – Historian of Iberia

Columbus Chapel?
There's a Columbus Chapel located in Boalsburg, PA. that has a lot of Columbus related artifacts and items like Columbus' Admiral's Desk, a photograph of the Columbus family coat of arms (it has the symbol for the Admiral of the Ocean Seas on it for example) and also two pieces of the "True Cross" that was given to the Columbus Family. All of this stuff was inherited by a Boal who married into the Columbus Family. The website is http://www.boalmuseum.com but I'm not sure how to add this information (if it is even relevant) to the page

I have been to this Chapel which houses about 150,000 documents of the Colon family and I find it interesting that these documents were sent out of Spain around 1909. I wonder why an American and not a Spanish inhereted these. Did they need to get out of the country for safe keeping? 81.193.12.136 00:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

first § is a mess
The first paragraph of this article is a mess. A cleanup is needed, but I am a little afraid to touch as so many povs and npovs side by side. --BBird 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mispelled Paragraph corrected it--Pfc Ender 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, is there a particular reason that this paragraph says that CC reached Finland?! – Zorro77 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Legal docs
The legal documents that demonstrate the Genoese origin of Cristoforo, his father Domenico, and his brothers Bartolomeo and Giacomo (Diego) are discussed in Chapter II of Samuel Eliot Morison's "Admiral of the Ocean Sea. On page 14, Morison wrote:


 * "Besides these documents from which we may glean facts about Christopher's early life, there are others which identify the Discoverer as the son of Domenico the wool weaver, beyond the possibility of doubt. For instance, Domenico had a brother Antonio, like him a respectable member of the lower middle class in Genoa. Antonio had three sons: Matteo, Amigeto and Giovanni, who was generally known as Giannetto, the Genoese equivalent of "Johnny." Johnny like Christopher gave up a humdrum occupation to follow the sea. In 1496 the three brothers met in a notary's office at Genoa and agreed that Johnny should go to Spain and seek out his first cousin "Don Cristoforo de Colombo, Admiral of the King of Spain," each contributing one third of the traveling expenses. This quest for a job was highly successful.

The Admiral gave Johnny command of a caravel on the Third Voyage to America, and entrusted him with confidential matters as well."

Samuel Eliot Morison saw no legal documents connecting the discoverer who was called Cristoval Colon to Cristoforo Colombo. No such documents exist because it has never been proven that they were one and the same man. 82.154.144.230 01:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa
 * So there were two contemporary admirals in Spain with the same name? Funny. And both of them had a cousin called Johnny. Ha! --euyyn 16:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not correct. In his will of February 22, 1498, Columbus states flat out: "yo nacio en Genoba" (I was born in Genoa). See Textos y Documentos Completos, Consuela Varela, ed., Madrid: Alianza. In view of Columbus's own personal statement, I am changing the top paragraph to state that Columbus was Genoese, in spite of various theories to the contrary. 2006 April 18. Keith Pickering.

Regardless of what historians have written, Colon never admitted his nationality or the identity of his real family. The Last Will and Testament dated 1498, a document where one can read ‘siendo yo nacido en Genoa—being I born in Genoa” and accepted by historians as Colon’s real Last Will is false. In the court case following Colon's death, witness after witness was unable or unwilling to pinpoint his real nation of birth or his real family. Yet historians wanted us to believe that Don Cristoval Colon had already disclosed this secret in his Last Will in 1498. They can't explain how in this Last Will, Colon asks the very kings who are forcing this investigation to ensure that his Will is lived up to. How did the kings who are being asked to be executers of his Will miss the nationality inserted so clearly in there? In Chapter 5, “Misconceptions, Misgivings and Misleadings” we will show solid proof of the fraud in this Last Will and Testament of Colon dated 1498, that so many historians have used as proof that he was the Colombo from Genoa. Quoted from Unmasking Columbus...

--> This document, his will of February 22, 1498 which is a fraudulent Last Will and Testament dated 1498, that so many historians use to try and prove that the Explorer Cristoval Colon was the same Cristoforo Colombo from Genoa was falsified after 1573. It has no witnesses on it no notary and inaccurate information easily verafiable by anyone wiht a 4th grade education who can read and do basic math. Furthermore in this document the Explorer is always called Colon and says that his family is Colon not Colombo even if he was from Genoa you still have the wrong man. The 1498 document is NOT a copy of the REAL Last Will and Testament of Cristoval Colon because the real Last Will was dated 1502 not 1498. It is very clear in the true notarized copy of the Testament and Codicil dated: a diez y nueve días del mes de Mayo, año del naçimiento de Nuestro Salvador Jhesucristo de mil e quinientos e seis anos that is 19th of May 1506. On this date don Cristóbal Colón, Almirante e Visorey e Governador General de las islas e tierra firme de las Indias stated before witnesses and a notary that his Last Will and Testament was instituted by him in 1502 (and not 1498) as I quote here: Cuando partí d'Espana el año de quinientos e dos yo fize una ordenança e mayorazgo de mis bienes TRANSLATION: When I left Spain in the year 1502 I made an ordinance and [order of] inheritance of my possessions. Therefore the date of the REAL Last Will and Testament was the year 1502 not 1498 as you accept. It has always amazed me how historians will throw away the real words of the Explorer and of the Court of Spain to replace them with their own words pushing their ideas of who Colon was.

Any historian accepting this 1498 forged and non-Notarized, non-witnessed piece of paper is accepting as unquestionable evidence a piece of paper that is so highly questionbale that it was thrown out of the Spanish Court as having the same worth a a blank piece of paper. At that time, when the Genoese liar, Baltasar Colombo (pretending to be a member of the Colon family), presented this Testament dated 1498, the Almirante de Aragón while reviewing it for authenticity said it was worth the same as un papel blanco – a blank piece of paper; it has no witness names added onto it, no original public notary name from 1498, nor the name of the notary who made the copy in the 1580s.

This is not objective but subjective history that you are peddling, this is wanting to accept evidence that was denied by the very court who granted the Admiral Colon the right to insititute his Mayorazgo and accepting a document presented by an impostor as real.

It is this continuous pushing of historians to accept flawed documents so they can try to merge the two persons into one (Cristoforo Colombo from Genoa and Admiral Cristoval Colon) that creates such unbelievable and unproven history as we are discussing here today. If you really want to be objective please start the article by saying that the true history and birthplace of Cristoval Colon is still contested and is really unknown but that most historians have agreed to accept he was a Genoese.

The Admiral wanted his birthplace to always be a Mystery and in this he has succeeded expertly. He would not go writing it in his Last Will as you accept. If you are convinced that he was from Genoa then you have not really researched as deep as you should have to reach a real unbiased decision based solely on the facts available. Not ONE document proves Cristoforo Colombo and Cristoval Colon were the same person. 81.193.41.13 11:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa – still Unmasking Columbus.

I would definetly remove the following from the Columbus National Origin section: Columbus's son Fernando wrote in his biography of Columbus that he was Genoese; and his Genoese origin was also asserted by longtime family friend Bartolomé de Las Casas.

Because Fernando never, ever asserted in his Le Historie that his father was Genoese. If you can't understand Spanish then you should ask a Spaniard how to translate it. What Fernando wrote was that others wanted him to assert this but he refused to do so. Please read it more carefully next time.

And Las Casas also does not assert that Cristoval Colon was from Genoa. You must read Las Casas carefully as well: Original: Fué, pues, este varón escogido de nación genovés, de algún lugar de la provincia de Génova; cuál fuese, donde nació o que nombre tuvo el tal lugar, no consta la verdad dello. Translation: It was then, this chosen man, of the Genoese nation, of some place of the province of Genoa, where he was born or what name had such place, it is not known the truth of it. You turn this it is not known the truth of it into an assertion but it is clearly a doubt. As I stated already there is no solid proof that the two men were the same. One, Cristoforo Colombo, was a woolweaver born in Genoa in 1451 (if you beleive the Asseretto Document to be truthful) while the other who assumed the name of Cristoval Colon in 1484 was a nobleman in Portugal and in Spain who had two noble brothers in Spain and two sons serving as pajes to the future king of Spain. It is quite a stretch to make them both one and the same without any real proof. 81.193.40.2 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Manuel Rosa

It has been said that CC himself said he was from Genoa in a letter addressed to the Banco de San Jorge de Genova. Prof. Charles Merrill quotes the original text as: "Muy nobles Señores: Bien que el coerpo ande acá, el corazón esta alí de contiguo." where you can see that no place name is mentioned at all.

Historie del S. D. Fernando Colombo
"The life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand," translated by Benjamin Keen, Greenwood Press (1978), is a translation of "Historie del S. D. Fernando Colombo; nelle quali s'ha particolare, & vera relatione della vita, & de fatti dell'Ammiraglio D. Cristoforo Colombo, suo padre: Et dello scoprimento ch'egli fece dell'Indie Occidentali, dette Mondo Nuovo, ..." , which is available on-line at:

http://www.liberliber.it/biblioteca/c/colombo_fernando/

The publication of this book is a truly incredible story that provides irrefutable, indirect evidence about the Genoese origin of the Discoverer. Fernando's manuscript was eventually inherited by his nephew Luis, the playboy grandson of the Discoverer. Luis was always strapped for money and sold the manuscript to Baliano de Fornari, "a wealthy and public-spirited Genoese physician." On page xv, Keen wrote:


 * "In the depth of winter the aged Fornari set out for Venice, the publishing center of Italy, to supervise the translation and publication of the book."

On page xxiv, the April 25, 1571 Dedication by Giuseppe Moleto states:


 * "Your Lordship [Fornari], then, being an honorable and generous gentleman, desiring to make immortal the memory of this great man, heedless of your Lordship's seventy years, of the season of the year, and of the length of the journey, came from Genoa to Venice with the aim of publishing the aforementioned book ... that the exploits of this eminent man, the true glory of Italy and especially of your Lordship's native city, might be made known."

Why on Earth would Fornari do this, if he was not certain that the Discoverer was Genoese? [User Domenico Rosa, 9 June 2006]

Maybe Fornari was being paid by Baltasar Colombo to sabotage the real Historie and make the original Manuscript disappear? It would not be the first time that Baltasar would play with the truth. 213.13.245.249 01:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Manuel Rosa

At the top of page 4 of Keen's translation, Fernando listed Nervi, Cugureo, Bugiasco, Savona, Genoa and Piacenza as possible places of origin. He also stated:


 * "Colombo ... was really the name of his ancestors. But he changed it in order to make it conform to the language of the country in which he came to reside and raise a new estate" (Colom in Portugal and Colón in Castile).

[User Domenico Rosa, 10 June 2006]

Dear Domenico Rosa: Unfortunately you (like all others who have read Don Hernando's Historie) have insisted in putting words into Don Hernando's mouth and have misread and mistranslated some very important phrases in that passage which are very clear even in Italian. Nowhere in that passage does Don Hernando say that his father is a Colombo or from any part of Italy. Here is what most historians overlook: ... alcuni volevano che io mi occupassi in dichiarare e dire come l'Ammiraglio procedette di sangue illustre ... E volevano che io facessi gran conto di quei due illustri Coloni suoi parenti ... Ma io mi ritrassi da questa fatica ... Di modo che ... tanto la sua patria e origine volle che fosse men certa e conosciuta.

TRANSLATION: some (people) wanted that I occupy myself in declaring and saying how the Admiral comes from illustrious blood ... And wanted that I make a great-to-do of those two illustrious Coloni his relatives ... But I removed myself from this endeavor ... In the way that ... both his homeland and his origins he wished to be less certain and known. READ IT CAREFULLY BECAUSE THIS IS NOT HERNANDO SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT HIS FATHER BEING ITALIAN OR A COLOMBO OR COLONI. THIS IS HERNANDO SAYING HOW OTHERS WANTED HIM TO SAY THIS BUT HE REFUSED TO DO SO LEAVING HIS FATHER'S REAL HOMELAND A MYSTERY AS HIS FATHER WANTED. HOWEVER: Per lo che alcuni che in una certa maniera pensano di oscurare la sua fama, dicono che fu di Nervi, altri che di Cugureo ... ed altri, che vogliono esaltarlo di più, dicono che era savonese, e altri genovese ... e ancora quelli che più salgono sopra il vento, lo fanno di Piacenza ...

TRASNLATION: So that some (people) that in some way wanting to obscure his fame say that he was from Nervi, others that he was from Cuguero ... and others, who wish to exalt him too much, say that he was Savonese, and others Genoese ... and still those who really aim for the heights, make him from Piacenza ...

AGAIN YOU NEED TO READ CAREFULLY BECAUSE HERNANDO NEVER STATED THAT HIS FATHER WAS FROM THESE PLACES. THIS IS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE WERE ASSERTING AND WANTED HIM TO ASSERT BUT HE IS CLEAR IN CALLING THEM LIARS FOR THEY ARE “REACHING FOR THE HEIGHTS”. NOW HERE IS WHERE HERNANDO FINISHES THIS TOPIC: Considerato questo, mi mossi a credere che, siccome la maggior parte delle sue cose furono operate per alcun mistero, così quello che tocca alla varietà di cotal nome e cognome non avvenne senza mistero.

Considering this, [what others were saying and wanting him to say] I realized that, the same way that a large part of his things were done under some mystery, thus what has to do with the form of his name and surname are not without mystery.

ONLY A READER WHO WANTS TO PUT WORDS IN HERNANDO'S MOUTH WOULD INSIST THAT HE HAD GIVEN AWAY HIS FATHER'S MYSTERY WHEN IN FACT HERNANDO WORKED HARD TO NOT DISCLOSE IT. THE MYSTERY REMAINED JUST AS CRISTOVAL COLON WANTED IT. ARE YOU WANTING TO BELIEVE ONLY THOSE WHO WERE REACHING FOR THE HEIGHTS????213.13.245.249 01:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa- Columbus Historian

Dear Manuel Rosa, You can interpret Fernando's writings in any fanciful way that you wish. In the material that you quoted from "Historie," you omitted the following, which is written after Piacenza:


 * " lo fanno di Piacenza, nella qual città sono alcune onorate persone della sua famiglia, e sepolture con armi, e lettere di Colombo, perché in effetto questo era già l'usato cognome dei suoi maggiori ancorché egli, conforme alla patria dove andò ad abitare e a cominciar nuovo stato, limò il vocabolo acciò che avesse conformità con l'antico, e distinse quelli che da esso discendessero da tutti gli altri che erano collaterali, e così si chiamò Colón." As translated by Keen, Fernando wrote: "Colombo ... was really the name of his ancestors. But he changed it in order to make it conform to the language of the country in which he came to reside and raise a new estate" (Colom in Portugal and Colón in Spain).

[User Domenico Rosa, 21 June 2006]

Domenico Rosa, There is nothing fanciful in misinterpretations and I have done no such thing. I omitted what was unnecessary to prove the point. As you write  As translated by Keen, Fernando wrote: "Colombo...ws really the name of his ancestors. If Keen says Colombo was really the name of his ancestor then Keen is being very creative since Hernando DOES NOT SAY this. It is thus an assumption by Keen, you and all others who read it that way.

Since you don't seem to understand what was written by Hernando I will again explain it here: ''e ancora quelli che più salgono sopra il vento, lo fanno di Piacenza, nella qual città sono alcune onorate persone della sua famiglia, e sepolture con armi, e lettere di Colombo, perché in effetto questo era già l'usato cognome dei suoi maggiori ancorché egli, conforme alla patria dove andò ad abitare e a cominciar nuovo stato, limò il vocabolo acciò che avesse conformità con l'antico, e distinse quelli che da esso discendessero da tutti gli altri che erano collaterali, e così si chiamò Colón. Considerato questo, mi mossi a credere che, siccome la maggior parte delle sue cose furono operate per alcun mistero, così quello che tocca alla varietà di cotal nome e cognome non avvenne senza mistero.''

TRANSLATION: and still those [people] who really aim for the heights [meaning lies], make him from Piacenza, in which city are some honorable people of his family, and tombs with [coat-of-]arms, and writings of Colombo, because [the liars say] in effect this was already the usual name of his ancestors although he [Colon] conforming with the nation where he went to live and to begin a new state, cut back the word to make it compliant with the ancient, and distinguished those that from him descended from all others who were collaterals, and this way [the liars say] he called himself Colon. Considering this, [what the liars were saying and wanted him to say] I realized that, the same way that a large part of his things were done under some mystery, thus what has to do with the form of his name and surname are not without mystery.

If you still wish more clarification I ask that you research exactly when the name was changed to 'Colon' and then I will explain how Hernando knew better than those Piacenza and Colombo liars. I alert you also to your orignal point that you wrote irrefutable, indirect evidence about the Genoese origin of the Discoverer. Is supposedly being from Piacenza is the same as Genoa???? 81.193.190.132 01:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa – Still Unmasking Columbus.

Manuel, I wonder why no one in Portugal took an interest in publishing Fernando's "Historie" and telling us the "real" story about Columbus? [Domenico Rosa, 23 June 2006]

Domenico, for the same reason that Fernando's Historie was Not published in Norway, Greece. France, England, Denmark, Geremany, Etc... The reason is that there were NO Colombos in those countries trying to butt-in to inherit the titles of someone who was NOT related to them. Only in Italy were there COLOMBOs trying to pretend that they were related to COLON. Therefore only in Italy was it needed to falsify the history and to print it in 1573 backdated to 1571. Exactly as the 3rd Admiral died. Or do you think a Spanish manuscript needed to be trasnslated into Italian before it was printed in Spanish. Do you also think they lost the orioginal by accident???? Soon we will have a new history based on facts not on fiction. Soon you will see that not only was the Historie falsified but so was the Last Will to say 'siendo yo nacido en Genova...' soon as the book is printed 213.13.244.99 16:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Manuel, you avoided the question: "I wonder why no one in Portugal took an interest in publishing Fernando's 'Historie' and telling us the 'real' story about Columbus?" By promoting so much nonsense about Cristoforo Colombo, you are doing a great disservice to all the great Portuguese navigators. [Domenico Rosa, 24 June 2006]

Domenico, you may choose to follow the fantasy history that Cristoforo Colombo was the same as Cristoval Colon. I will stop my investigation as soon as you show me ONE document that proves the two men were really one person. Until then I insist that we look at the facts. They were not one person. 213.13.243.26 09:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Manuel, if your fantasy is correct and the two are not the same, how do you explain the relationship between the Admiral and Giovanni Colombo (discussed above in Legal docs). [Domenico Rosa, 29 June 2006]

--

Following sentence looks like vandalism: "Columbus was not the first European to reach Mars. He did arrive though and exclaim, "The new world is like Paris Hilton: a landsape for every man to use!"


 * Trash cleaned up, again. Dominick (TALK) 00:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It states here that the myth of the Earth being flat in Columbus's time was perpetutate by Washington Irving, but Columbus died before Irving was born. --Commander gree 07:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Most educated people since the 3rd Century knew that the world was round.  The stories of people of Columbus' time believing in a flat world was invented in the 1800's to make the people of the Middle Ages and early Renaissance look quaint. --Pryaltonian

This article states that there were many pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts. That cannot be historically substantiated. There are quite a few myths about such contacts, such as those of Madoc and St. Brendan, but the only pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact that most historians of that particular area of study agree upon is that of the Vikings. Please edit the following to reflect what I wrote above: "Besides the fact that there were many instances of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, and it is questionable whether one person can "discover" a place which is inhabited by other people, Columbus is often credited as having discovered America." There weren't many; as I wrote above, only one such contact that can be proven to the satisfaction of most legitimate historians took place. Yes, if you were wondering, I am a historian, having received a degree in that subject from a large university.

Does your large university teach anything about the Portuguese Discoveries and have you ever heard of Terra dos Bacalhaus, Terra Nova, Nova Escocia, Terra do Lavrador or Antilhas? All are mentioned before 1492 as places named by Portuguese navigators beyond the Atlantic Ocean. 82.154.144.230 01:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa, Historian of Iberia


 * An event in this article is a January 4 selected anniversary
 * An event in this article is a March 15 selected anniversary

- '''As today, the dates are wrong, and also Columbus didn't started his travel from Mexico. This is vandalism, please someone correct it.''' - Long, sordid previous discussion archived at Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archived talk since the page is getting too long to edit in some browsers.

See also Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archived talk 2 with even more slave explorer trade banter.

Here's some links that quote from Columbus' diary.
 * http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/columbus1.html (really good one)
 * http://admin.muslimsonline.com/babri/columbus3.htm

He says, on first meeting Arawaks:
 * I was very attentive to them, and strove to learn if they had any gold.

Which would indicate that wealth was his primary motivation. So, he's a bastard and he took slaves, but I don't think that was his goal in the first voyage.


 * It is not such a strange thing that they wanted gold. It was not uncommon to trade worthless (to the Europeans) glass beads for worthless (to the Indians) gold.  Such is the nature of trade.  We only think that the Europeans ripped off the Indians because we think like Europeans.  Now of course killing them for gold is bad, but who wouldn't want to be paid for their work?  This voyage was a trade mission and like any business venture, it needed profit.  He is hardly a terrible person because he wanted wealth.  If so, we are all in big trouble most likely!  – Ram-Man

I'm most impressed by the fact that what is presented to elementary-school kids about Columbus is carefully sanitized to remove references to brutality towards natives, taking of slaves, cutting off of hands and ears, lust for gold, etc. That would be like talking about Charles Lindbergh but neglecting to mention the fact that he supported the Nazis... oh, wait.

Thankfully we at wikipedia can do better. Graft


 * Lindbergh? If you're talking about active support I think Henry Ford would be a better example.

I linked the article to Perceptions of Columbus which outlines good and evil archetypes of Columbus. It's a charged subject (like Palestinian homeland) – and might be used as a proxy for larger issues, like imperialism and so on. --Ed Poor


 * Perceptions of Columbus seems well incorporated into the main article here now, so I changed it to a redirect to Christopher Columbus. Infrogmation 20:16 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)


 * Christopher Columbus (Spanish: Cristóbal Colón, Italian: Cristoforo Colombo, 1451–1506) was a Genoese trader who crossed the Atlantic Ocean and reached the Americas in 1492

Lir, you changed "Genoese explorer" to "Genoese trader". Please don't get bent out of shape, if someone thisk Columbus was primarily an explorer – even if he was also a trader.

You might want to add a sentence or 2 later in the article, which talks about Columbus's career as a trader. When and where did he trade? What did he trade in? If his cargo included human beings, then we might call him a "Genoeses explorer and slave trader".

When writing an article, as your English teacher probably told you, it's good to follow up introductory thoughts (like trader) with additional information: like "Columbus spent the rest of his life making journeys of exploration and trade across the Atlantic, amassing a small fortune from profits on stolen gold and kidnapped natives whom he cruelly sold into slavery in Spain, Italy and Corsica." (Note: I completely made up the last sentence; it's an example of the kind of information which, if true, justifies calling Columbus a trader.)

Get it? --Ed Poor 23:55 Oct 22, 2002 (UT

Lir, when the page gets too big, sometimes you can't edit expecially with Internet Explorer. Some of this probably needs to be archived. But really, IT IS ALL YOUR FAULT it is so full. Fredbauder 00:09 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)


 * Most browsers on MacOS are vulnerable to this, maybe others too; the edit box craps out at around 32k of text. We were up to about 38k... I've moved old stuff to Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archived talk. --Brion 00:17 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

Ummmm....k. Columbos should be called by his proper Italian/Spanish name. Lir 00:18 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)


 * Well, right or wrong that's not how he's called in English. --Brion 00:23 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

But that is how he is called in English. When your friend Juan shows up to party do u call him John? When your friend Franz shows up do you insist on calling him Frank?


 * I'd call them by the names that everyone else who knows them use to call them in English; since you've postulated in English that they are Juan and Franz, that is, ipso facto, what they are called in English. A certain overcelebrated washed-up Genoese entrepreneur of low moral fiber is known in English as Christopher Columbus. A certain 1st-century Jewish rabble rouser is known in English as Jesus. A certain 20th-century American politician is known as Jimmy Carter despite technically being James Earl Carter, Junior. An island not far from Europe is known in English as Ireland, as is the country that resides on it. A certain country on the mainland is known in English as Russia. Yadda yadda yadda. From your one-note strawman argument I can only assume that you don't actually read anything I've been writing on this subject, or that you're simply trolling. Please feel free to prove me wrong by responding intelligently to the content of other peoples' replies. --Brion 01:11 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)


 * Right. A person called Ioannes who hung out with Jesus is rightly referred to as St. John in English, San Juan in Spanish, etc. Certain persons have entered the cultural consciousness enough to justify local adaptations of names. It's simply too hard to reverse. No westerners will be calling India "Bharata" any time soon, no matter what India calls itself.

Ummmmm...k- what language *is* "Italian/Spanish"? Is that like Esparanto?


 * Ho jes, Kristoforo Kolombo!

Should he not more properly be described as a sick and twisted genocidal monster, since that was precisely what he was?

One of the "sources" listed on the old talk page states that Columbus killed 8 million natives. That's pretty remarkable given that if he killed one native per minute, day and night, non- stop, it would have taken him about 16 years straight. Maybe Columbus invented the nuclear bomb, too?

I believe they are referring to those killing under the orders of Colombo. It is akin to saying Hitler killed 12,000,000.


 * But if he was a slaver, why would he destroy his "stock"?


 * Surplus? (or in words attributed to GHW Bush, "Useless eaters"?) – Kwantus 19:32, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you're not confusing Colombo with his followers ? Maybe he was a slave trader, that's no reason enough to order to kill millions. As far as I know, he did not stay long in America. No way he could order or would have ordered such killings. FvdP

You know...Colombo was a hero of Hitlers...


 * This overheard argument proves absolutely nothing. Hitler liked Eva Braun. Eva Braun did not order to kill millions. FvdP

Let me clarify, Colombo was a hero of Hitlers because Colombo was so effective at extinguishing the Untermensche.


 * Yet another unsubstantiated claim.... I'm not following you on this. And, I note that you cleverly avoided to answer my original argument: Why and how would CC have ordered to kill millions? FvdP
 * Lir, first: please sign your comments. It makes it easier to understand who said what, and I think we agree that communication is important.  Second: Please remember that when you're making claims that go against accepted belief, you have to back those claims up.  People want to know who said this thing that they do not believe so they can read it in further depth for themselves.  Finally, please understand that you may not ever change anyone's opinion.  Some people listen, some people don't.  Some people care, some people don't.  You may be right, you may not.  :-)  --KQ

Im making claims that lots of people here agree with and have submitted evidence for. Some people are refusing to make any effort to understand the subject. Lir 01:12 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)


 * And you're still avoiding efforts to answer my argument. I'm not sure were your lot of people are, since I'm not one of them. Like KQ wrote better than I would have, I'm ready to accept reasonable evidence, after I examined it. If "understand the subject" means "accept bare claims as Lir writes them down", then surely I refuse to make that "effort". --FvdP

Hitler did vocally admire the policies of exterminating Indians by both Columbus and the American government (I will attempt to find a source right now). I think the high number is a combination of people killed directly by columbus, by his men on his orders in order to subjugate the natives by frightening them, directly or indirectly killing slaves in transit to Europe, and him and his men introducing (albeit accidentally and without their knowledge) diseases such as smallpox and syphilis to which the natives had no defense to. Tokerboy 01:13 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)


 * Hitler was not a all-encompassing genius. He may be wrong on Colombus. Further, there is a claim of million victims here. Apart of diseases, I don't see where these victims come from. And if it's by disease, it's unintentional. Really a different thing that "ordering to kill millions". And probably not due to CC alone. (Well, I may cease the discussion anytime soon without a warning, lest it becomes just endless.) FvdP

See? Im sooooooooo on krak Lir 01:14 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

He never killed 8 million natives although by making the New World known to the Old World he opened the way for later Spaniards to kill those natives. But you can't blame CC for the actions of those who followed. CC's main goal was to evangelize the natives, collect gold to pay an army for the recapture of the Holy Land, and make for himself and his descendents a sort of European style kingdom which the natives did not take easily to. CC's small army did kill hundreds if not thousands of the Haiti\Dominican Republic natives in wars to pacify the natives and aquire control their territory. He also sent to Spain a few shiploads of salves captured supposedly in war a practice which was quickly stopped by Queen Isabel. 82.154.144.230 01:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Manuel Rosa

15th-century Europe was largely unaware of &#91;Americas'&#93; existence I added "largely" because it's likely there was traffic between Europe and the northeast part of the Americas...The Nova Scotian gov't has recognised the Henry Sinclair theory far enough to erect monuments to it. Some suspect precolumbian fishing settlements,;.not overwinter things but catch, dry, and go home arrangements. IMO "America" was a somewhat-guarded secret on which Columbus blew the whistle. – Kwantus (indeed further down the same paragraph is that basic idea. Kwantus 19:32, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC))

I was surprised to see the current portrait of Columbus in favor of the well-known and well-regarded portrait by Sebastiano del Piombo which is really easy to find
 * http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=Columbus+Piombo

I've never even seen the current portrait before. For an interesting read, I suggest Looks Are Deceiving: the Portraits of Christopher Columbus, but I think the article would be better with the del Piombo portrait. Daniel Quinlan 10:01 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Add it to the article – this article is long enough for both. I suggest moving the current photo down near the paras talking about his later life since the etching is of an older Columbus. --mav 10:05 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Early Life
I have found a very good thesis made by Alfonso Enseñat de Villalonga about his early life, and the origin of his name. Any editor who is able to understand spanish, please read this document and consider it for inclusion in the main article: El CRISTÓBAL COLÓN HISTÓRICO: DE CORSARIO GENOVÉS A ALMIRANTE MAYOR DE LAS YNDIAS

His true name was: Pietro Scotto. He adopted a fake name to hide his pirate and later privateer career. The "Colombo" name was no invention either, he used to work with a pirate called Vincenzo Colombo, sentenced to death in 1492. When he reached Portugal, he used the name Pietro Colombo. When he went into Spain, he changed his name to Cristoforo Colombo, convincing the royalty that he was a capable privateer. He had to show a "clean" past, pirates were sentenced to death, and as privateer Pietro fought against spain. So he had to hide his true identity.

He sailed in all known seas and reached far away lands, so he had the experience. When in Portugal, he got a copy of a letter and map sent by the famous cosmographer Paolo del Pozzo Toscanelli to the king Joao II; of a possible route to india thru the west.

There is a detailed cronology and itinerary of his early life in this thesis. Please consider it for inclusion. Thanks.

picture of "columbus" at top of page
No one today knows what Columbus looked like as there are no extant portraits of him. There are references to his having been a redhead and to having had a strong, but average physique.


 * Yes, I know this. The portrait we're currently using is not all that well-favored.  Daniel Quinlan 18:10, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

The first paragraph is very biased. These facts should be presented in the document, but certainly not in the introduction.


 * "It has not been claimed that Columbus was Armenian."

What the heck is this? Is someone taking the piss? – Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 17:44, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

-

Look, Daniel, there's NO GOOD REASON not to mention slavery or killing of natives in the introduction. If you want to keep the text "succint" there are many other things you could remove, or you could condense verbose text. Your desire to have a wonderful, positive portrayal of Columbus and avoid mention of unpleasant realities in the introduction is NOT appropriate. Graft 19:33, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Did you read my change? All of slavery, killing, and exploitation are mentioned in the introduction.  Should I add too?  Daniel Quinlan 19:55, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure why you would want to remove mention of Las Casas, who is certainly one of the most significant figures connected to Columbus. Graft 19:33, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * He's mentioned in the body, but does not warrant a specific mention in the introduction, no more than Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile who are also not in the introduction.  Las Casas is also somewhat more well known for writings about post-Columbus events.  Daniel Quinlan 19:55, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I read your change: it removes mention of specific acts of Columbus and turns killing, slavery, etc., into general things which followed in his wake. That these were,in fact, things Columbus himself did is extremely significant in informing the reader about the nature and life of Columbus.

Re: las casas, he's the primary source for Columbus' journeys... I think he deserves mention in the introduction, but I'm not going to press it too hard. Graft 20:22, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The text right now is considerably lacking in the area of Christianity: Columbus himself felt he was inspired by a divine mission, and writes about it frequently. Furthermore many Catholics view his explorations as part of a divine plan... any ideas on this and how we might address it? Graft 20:22, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Just a note: I think it's common for Christians to attribute great inspiration to God. Sometimes, they even say God "spoke" to them.  Most Christians don't mean that they literally heard the voice of God, though, when they say that, they just mean they felt something in their heart, etc.  Daniel Quinlan 20:44, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * Beyond that, I think talking some about his Christianity, desire to convert, etc. is warranted, probably more than it is (it's near the end of the second voyage section). I am concerned that you personally have a major axe to grind, though.  Daniel Quinlan 20:44, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what axe that would be, exactly... I just think this is an important part of Columbus' significance in the world at large – his religious import. Graft 22:44, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

- Erghh... so, this is opening up a whole other can of worms, but can we somehow equivocate about "discovery" a bit more, like maybe remove the passive voice and say who considers him to be the discoverer? Certainly not the native residents of these continents... I don't find it very npov. Graft 20:27, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the "Columbus discovered America" thing is a bit of a straw man nowadays. That's not what most people say, even the most simplistic first grade lesson.  They say "Columbus discovered America in 1492" and are quite clear that Native Americans were already here (and probably even mention the Vikings most times).  And from his perspective and the perspective of Europe, he did.  I mean, if we find out space aliens knew about DNA a million years ago, will that mean that Watson and Crick didn't discover its structure?  So, I do believe it's accurate to designate him the European who discovered America.  Sure, the Vikings were in North America earlier and were Europeans, but basically nobody knew about their discovery until much later.  The "discovery" word ticks some people off, but the article already bends over backwards to portray him as discovering nothing.  Anyway, read the definition of "discover":


 * http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discover&r=67


 * Daniel Quinlan 20:44, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, this point will probably fly right by you, but Wikipedia is, in a lot of ways like this, written for white Europeans/Americans. E.g., "discovered" means, "found for other Europeans", but it's written entirely as if that were the only context, which is so subtextual that it's not even mentioned. The fact that millions of people had already "discovered" the Americas and had been living there for 40,000 years goes unmentioned, because we are only interested in the European context. This is a particular casting of history which basically asserts the primacy and importance of the Europeans in history, ignores or denies the personhood of Native Americans, and is generally not neutral point of view. Graft 22:44, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * No, you don't seem to have listened to what DQ said at all. Discover means merely that one found something one didn't know of before.  I can discover buried treasure, even though the person who buried it already knew it was there, and might even be alive, and might even live next door to me.  No one has ever claimed that people were not living in the Americas before Columbus got there, so obviously by discover this wide meaning was intended.  Look at the link DQ shows, with the example discovered a new restaurant on the west side.  Does that mean the restaurant was unknown to anyone until I "discovered" it?  This is not about "white European etc.", but about what the word means. – VV 23:12, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, I DID listen to DQ, you just didn't listen to me, or, as I was afraid, it flew right by you. The issue of "discovery" DOES have to do with how you're telling the story, and who it's about. In this case, we're interested in whether Columbus discovered America because of its impact on Europe. We know this because we compare other incidents to identify the seminal event – we're not interested in describing Columbus' discovery in the context of native history, and the native societies in question get sparse mention. Columbus is the beginning-point in European expansion (e.g., end of the introduction), not the end-point in several millenia of indigenous history. Graft 23:29, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand you. You're saying that we're looking at Columbus from the perspective of how important he was for European expansion, and that's why "discovery" seems like such a natural word.  Now how would the introduction be phrased differently if it were not from that vantage point?

''Others look past (or dispute) that view and recognize him for his massive impact on Western civilization. ''


 * This sentence has apparently been there a long time, but it bothers me alot. It's perfectly possible to view Columbus as one of the early leaders of a long string of genocidal conquerors and colonizers, and still "recognize him for his massive impact on Western Civilization".  Indeed, I would say that people who view him that way recognize very acutely "his massive impact on Western Civilization". DanKeshet

The only reason he is famous, is that he discovered (quite by accident) a geographical region which was unknown to Europeans. While that is certainly noteworthy, I don't think it should be trumped up as somehow dwarfing what he did with his fame, fortune, and discovery – that is, he started killing people, enslaving people, kidnapping people, raping people, and waging general genocide. How can you look past it? What is there to look past to? Essentially, I am agreeing with DanKeshet. Lirath Q. Pynnor

In all seriousness, look at this man in context. Matching him up with other Canary Island traders of his time, before his voyages, he was markedly different. They all engaged in such activities with people they regarded as inferior, and all took captives. Characterising them as slaves is not exactly correct, it was more like specimens. It is heinous, but this article is lacking when you look at it in context, and strip out the 1960s revisionism.

Calling him genocidal isn't exactly right seeing that he did not undertake a large scale action against native people from the lands he governed, they were not prepared for the onslaught of European germs and mores, and many died but not as a political aim. I think villifying a man as a symbol of others excesses is grossly unfair to Columbus as a human being. He may have done wrong, but he shouldn't be held for the crimes of his contemporaries. Dominick - excerpt of email to dominick

thanks for calling attention to the word "crimes" in your email to me. you're right that it was a poor choice of word. i've changed it and reverted the columbus page back to my other changes – which in my opinion add a lot of content, as well as clarify who the sentences refer to. now that i'm looking at it though, i do agree that it was more than a minor edit.

added content, which you welcomed in your message to me, includes for instance, the crucial primary source (the four voyages of columbus), the "black legend" material, and the crucial point that european diseases were more deadly to people being conquered and forced to labor in hard conditions with inadequate food. this is one of the main reasons that people tended to die at dachau, as well, of diseases that regular germans didn't die of.

clarification of perspective (eg. "claimed ownership ...monarchs" and "received as hero... in spain") makes the text less vague and less prone to simply accepting the assumptions of eurocentric history.

andy


 * email communications are not part of Wikipedia. I edited the page, where I think a NpoV balance is achived. I felt you introduced an anti-european bias, but I think some of your edits have improved the article. Lets agree to let th article lie for a awhile and see what others edit. Dominick 22:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * This counter editing must stop. Please note the text: "meet the modern legal definition of genocide" There is no modern legal definition. I do not think you can call Columbus genocidal, he could not pursue such a campaign with his limited resources. You may consider the entire Spanish exploration genocidal, but even then you would consider intermarriage with native population.

Should discuss (here or elsewhere) very unusual coat of arms of Columbus. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:04, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A comment on his ethnicity
"Although he is generally assumed to be Genoese, his actual background is clouded in mystery. Very little is really known about Columbus before the mid-1470s. It has been suggested that this might have been because he was hiding something – an event in his origin or history that he kept a secret deliberately. It has also been noted that he not only wrote flawless Castilian, but that he used the language even when writing with Italians."

He was hiding his humble origins, and didn't marry Beatriz for the same reason. Prof. Eakin of Vanderbilt University (who has a truly awe-inspiring lecture series "Conquest of the Americas" through the Teaching Company), recommended the short book The Worlds of Christopher Columbus by Phillips and Phillips. Scholarly but a fascinating look at the mariner and his times. That he was Italian on both sides of his family from way back is one of the best documented facts of his life. The rush to claim him for other countries was started in England 100 years after he died.

He spoke Castilian with a thick accent (exacerbating his "foreigner" status, and perhaps contributing to the fact that he killed more Spaniards than Indians!) and his written Castilian with Portuguese phoenetics charmed Isabela, who had Portuguese relatives. The authors think he learned to write when in Portugal – hence the nature of his grammatical mistakes in Castilian. -Lisa

He never wrote anything in italian, not even when mailing his italian friends. It is documented that he wrote in catalan and that could speak catalan, though actual documents of the voyages are lost. The existing translations of the voyages descriptions can be interpreted as literal tanslations from catalan; specifically names of animals have been literally translated into spanish but losing its meaning. Backtranslating into catalan allows to identify the refered species. All of his gramatical mistakes can be found to be correct catalan words, or are catalan idioms. The places of the new land he named were, without exception, references to catalan places he knew (like San Salvador), or have some meaning in catalan (like Veracruz). The first voyage started and ended in catalonia (otherwise existing data is inconsistent).


 * Explain this claim. The voyage starts from Palos which is not in Catalonia. – Error 00:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The start of the first voyage was Pals (Palos (spa) and Pals (cat) have the same meaning). Pals was the residence place of the Pinzón brothers. Palos has not, and had not, any sea harbour. This is consistent with the passing through Gibraltar, while Palos is west of Gibraltar.


 * I didn't know these claims.
 * So:
 * This is not Pinzón's house where his descendants have been living for centuries.


 * Most likely they are not. A population census made at that time in Palos shows there were no "Pinzon" living there.
 * Some more data: The historian David Grau personally went to Palos and talked with the former owner (now belongs to the town hall) of the supposed Martín Alonso Pinzón's house. It was build 50 years after the death of M. A. Pinzon. The house has belonged always to his family and they have no connection with any Pinzón. The name "Pinzón" is not known in the village.


 * Yánez Pinzón and Alonso Pinzón are Catalan names.


 * Not claiming this. The ones who lived in Pals were portuguese and named Pinçon. They were three brothers.
 * Alfonso Pinzón. It is well documented that he has been to Rome. The catalan ambassador to Rome at that time was named Alfons Anes Pinçon.
 * Fernando Pinzón. There was a civil servant in the catalan goverment of that time named Ferran Anes Pinçon.
 * Vicente Yañez Pinzón. There was a Vicens Anes Pinçon, living in Pals. This is documented in a letter to the king Ferran (1479).
 * It is highly unlikely that there were also three (unregistered) Pinzón brothers living in another place of similar name (Palos) in another country at the same time.


 * From Palos de la Frontera
 * A Pragmatic Sanction was read in Palos in May 1492 ordering the Palos-ans to give two caravelles to Columbus.
 * There is no shipyard nor harbour in Palos. Not any rest or trace. According to local tradition, there has never been any.
 * The monks from Nuestra Señora de la Rábida in Palos linked Columbus with the Pinzóns.


 * We know that Colón wrote to the Pinzón long before meeting them. It is not clear how Colon got to know the Pinzon. Some previous relationship probably existed. This is a better explanation than finding them "by chance".
 * We know that Colón was a friend of the owner of La Ràpita (near Balaguer, Catalonia).


 * The quay of La Fontanilla was the start point of Columbus's expedition.
 * -- Error 00:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Probably the first expedition departed from Pals (Catalonia). Pals doesn't have a sea port presently, but it had one at that time, as shown in ancient maps and backed by geological analysis. A drawing in the preserved copy of the first expedition documentation depicts the city walls of Pals with great detail.

It is reasonable to think that Pals was also the end of the first voyage. Documents say that it took Colón three days to walk form "Palos" to Barcelona. This is a long trip from Pals (about 100 km), but impossible (over 1000 km) from Palos.


 * It seems that all those claims are collected in http://www.geocities.com/cristofor_colom/a01.html that states that the early conquest of the Americas was done by Catalans, and that in the XVI century, the documents were (imperfectly) altered.
 * -- Error 00:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * See also (in spanish) http://www.navego.com.ar/biografias/rese%F1as/colon1.htm
 * In catalan: http://www.histocat.com

Pictures exist of him holding the catalan flag (a red cross). All documents from his time refer to him as "Colom" (as in Colombia), not Colón. Colón is spanish pronunciation for Colom. Colom is a common catalan name. The contract he signed with "his king" was registered according to catalan law. He never wrote a single letter to the spanish queen, but to the catalan king or to both. The powers he later claimed were given catalan names (like "virrey"). There is even more evidence. All this together makes the catalan hypotesis a solid one.

I am a high school stundent and I am adding some information on Columbus in the article. Here is a copy of the works cited I used for my information.

Works Cited “Age of Exploration: Christopher Columbus.” The Mariners’ Museum. 2004. Newport News.17Nov. 2004 http://www.mariner.org/educationalad/ageofex/columbus.php. Caso, Adolph. “The Known but Unknown Pilot”. Washington Times Dec. 1991, vol. 6, no. 12:394–401 Chin, Beverly, et al., eds. Glenco World Literature. New York: Glencoe McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000. Jones, Mary E., ed. Christopher Columbus and His Legacy: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1992. Lunenfeld, Marvin. “Columbus, Christopher.” World Book Online Reference Center. 2004. World Book, Inc. 17 Nov. 2004 http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar125200. “Medieval Sourcebook: Christopher Columbus: Extracts from Journal.” Internet Medieval Sourcebook. 1996. Halsall. 17 Nov. 2004. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/columbus1.html.

CC's son wrote that his father went to the monasterio de Palos, llamado La Rábida. This is the Palos near Huelva. He then writes Partido el Almirante de la Rábida, que está cerca de Palos still referencing the same Palos. Then after receiving orders to prepare for the first voyage Fernando Colon again writes el doce de mayo de dicho año 1492 salió de Granada para Palos, que es el puerto donde tenía que hacer su armada thus making it look like Palos near Huelva was the base of operations.


 * In fact, we don't know what CC's son wrote because no original document is preserved. The monasterio de la Rábida, which holds no record of CC having been there, is suposed to be the name by which the Monestir de Sant Carles de la Rapita has been changed into. The first voyage departed form the port of Pals. This is suported by a drawing of the Pals village in one of the copies of the first voyage log. CC departed from Barcelona to Pals. At first, this was believed impossible because Pals has no sea port, but then the historical evidence made no sense. Some further investigation has proved that Pals had a port at that time (old maps showing the port have been found, disputes over the works that destroyed the port have been found). This is a remarcable achivement in itself. Nowadays Pals is kilometers away from the sea.

Furthermore the name may have been written as Colom in Catalonia in 1493 but it was written as Colon in 1488 by King John II of Portugal, in 1492 in the Capitulaciones de Santa Fe, in 1493 in the Papal Bulls and in 1502 in the Book of Priviledges. As for the word Virrey you should read the title page of CC's own Book of Priviledges where it is clearly Visorey a Portuguese word for that title 82.154.144.230 02:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Manuel Rosa


 * I would certainly be glad to be able to read CC own's book, but it doesn't exist anymore. You are giving credit to "copies" made by you don't know who. CC didn't receive the title of Virrey in Portugal, therefore portuguese laws are not relevant in this aspect. The catholic kings could use the castilian or aragonese laws only. The title didn't exist in castilan laws. It did exist in aragonese laws.

It was the discovery of the other half of the world!
Columbus "discovered" the Americas for the map-making peoples of the world. Amerindians didn't go on voyages of discovery and didn't have maps of their continents. They were in the stone age and lacked the massive exchange of ideas available in the much larger Old World. They left Asia between 21,000 and 40,000 years ago according to genetic evidence. (To wit: Full blooded Amerindians, of which there are 100 million now thanks to the miracles of antibiotics and the anti-birth-control Catholic millieu, share no genetic mutations with anyone until you go back 40,000 years – eyelid-fold, tooth morphology changes, kinky hair, blue eyes, etc. They look like what all homo sapiens once did and are just as tall as northern Europeans under wholesome circumstances. The male children of Mayan refugees in Florida average 5'10". See this week's New Yorker.) -Lisa LisaHelenW@aol.com


 * Yes indeed. If I may, quit complaining :-). Help fix the Lisa, I welcome you to get a wiki account and start editing. Stealing from my own talk page but just a suseful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too. Dominick 12:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is one point that many people do not take into consideration. Columbus was a creature of his times, just as you and I are creatures of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The conduct and thinking that was acceptable and commonplace then is quite likely not so today. As will today's thinking be 500 years from now. Simply put, we must not judge 15th Century man by the standards of the 21st Century. -Don B.


 * As for the phrase "it is questionable whether one person can 'discover' a place inhabited by other people", and putting "discoverer" in quotes, both seem very childish and churlish to me. If there's a great city on the other side of the hill, but it is unknown to me and everyone else in my city, I will of course discover that it is there when I cross over the hill.  It's very plain and simple – it does not depend on whether or not that city is already inhabited, and it has nothing to do with "me-centrism".  If I come across, by my own devices, any piece of knowlege that was previously unavailable to me, then I have discovered something new to me, if not to the whole world.  Of course Columbus discovered America.


 * I will grant that it is equally obvious that Columbus cannot properly be fashioned as "the" discoverer of the hemisphere since he certainly was not the only discoverer. So I'm going to take a shot at rewording that intro paragraph a little, so see what you think of what I come up with.  --Kbh3rd talk  10:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Grave
Some could be said about the current location of his corpse. – Error 01:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Could it? I think there are no less than four places which claim to have it! – Nunh-huh 01:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

His language
Either he not only wrote flawless Castilian, but that he used the language even when writing with Italians. or Nor was it ever easy to read Columbus's nonnative Spanish with its Portuguese phonetics and Genoese locutions.. How was Columbus' language? Remember that until 1492 there was no published grammar of Spanish. – Error 02:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What I wrote in Columbus is a summary of a chapter in Det spanska Amerika i sprakets spegel by Bertil Malmberg. I used a translation. Ik sprak nej svenska. The Menéndez Pidal article should be in La lengua de Cristóbal Colón y otros estudios sobre el siglo XVI. Madrid, 1947.

Recent edits have highlighted the length of the first section. I don't mind long intros, but perhaps some of what is said there should be trimmed away. The opening paragraphs should explain who he was, why he was important, and any effect on modern society in some way (controversy, legacy). So some of what is said there about Muslim traders and the background to Columbus's voyages should be cut out or condensed, right? Brutannica 02:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Graft, that just about did it. Brutannica 05:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Columbus" meaning
The surname doesn't mean "colonist". Colón is similar to colono, but columbus, colombo, colom, colombe mean only "male pigeon". – Error 01:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

... and the pigeon (or dove) is associated (means) the Holy Spirit. His name (or pseudonim) means bearer of Christ and the Holy Spirit. --BBird 22:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, his "official" Latin name is "Christophorus Columbus" but in point of fact, many Renaissance era works written in Latin call him Christophorus Colonus (based, of course, on the Castilian form of his surname). And colonus does in fact mean "farmer; colonist." Seems worth mentioning somewhere, but perhaps not in the actual article ;) --Iustinus 08:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The name colonist comes from the spanish name Colon. But also note that the country name Colombia comes directly from the name of the discoverer. It is Colombia, not colonia.

Colon and Colom are not the same names nor do they have the same meanings. Columbus is Latin, Colombo is Italian, Pombo is Portuguese, Colombe is French and Colom is Catalan and all these translate to dove or pigeon but none of these were the name of the discoverer since Fernando Colon says that Colon...en griego quiere decir miembro Colon [Kolon]...in Greek means member. Since the name Colon was a stand-in for the Greek Kolon chosen by Christopher to mean member none of the above names for pigeon are correctly applied names. The name Xpoval Colon was only assumed in 1484 when Christopher ran away from Portugal to Castile and was not his real name.82.154.144.230 02:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

China theory
I removed a couple of things from the intro. First, we don't need to refute the flat earth thing in the intro, since the intro doesn't even introduce it. And the issue is treaded with much greater detail in the body of the article. Second, the China theory is so out there it has no place in this article. By all means, have a separate article on it. It doesn't bear on this one. Slrubenstein

>Vikings=go >Irishmen=go >Basque sailors=go >China=no go --->That doesn't make much sense.


 * Maybe we should set an official limit (say, 3, 4 if we count the Vikings) on the number of questionable pre-Columbian exploration theories brought up in this article. So we could bring up the Irish, the Basque, and the Chinese, and then agree to save everything else for an article on questionable pre-Columbian expeditions. (By the way, if we do do that, then I'm not necessarily suggesting we use those three – I thought the Phoenician and Malian theories were better supported?) Brutannica 20:14, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Mention of all but the Vikings can be deleted, as far as I'm concerned. Note that one previous version of the article claimed that the 6th century Irish missionary visits were probable. That is hogwash, according to almost everybody besides the followers of Barry Fell.CSTAR 21:16, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I think we need a second (or third) opinion, and although I agree "possible" is a better word than "probable," I don't think it would hurt to include them, if just in one sentence, like "Evidence also exists for other, less well-documented expeditions to the Americas, such as by the [people], [people], and [people] --- see [separate article]." (And maybe "(but most scholars dispute this)" or something.) Brutannica 21:26, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It's OK by me to mention them, provided it is stated clearly (as is the case currently) that the existence of the previous vists is very much a minority view, and with references to the sources of these views. Actually I wasn't able to pin down a source for the Portuguese Cod fisheries...The Irish Missionary business is pretty easy to source (and by now broadly debunked). CSTAR 21:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * But which theories should we cite? Besides the Vikings, there is evidence (in some form or another) for Indonesian, Japanese, Chinese, Phoenician, Celtic, Irish, Malian, Portuguese, Basque, and English expeditions. I personally suggest Phoenician, Malian, and some East Asian (China/Japan/Indonesia). Brutannica 04:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I say, let Vikings, maybe mention the presumed pre-discoverer whose knowledge would be transferred to Columbus and include a link to Ancient visitors of the Americas. This article is centered on Columbus. – Error 00:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Whose is "the presumed pre-discoverer whose knowledge would be transferred to Columbus?" And why include a link to a non-existent article? Brutannica 03:03, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Ancient visitors to the Americas. Grrr. There is some theory about some mariner who had arrived years earlier and whose knowledge would have reached Columbus somehow giving him some proof for his fabulous claims.
 * Debido a que se topara tierra tan rápido (tanto en este viaje como en los tres posteriores), se ha pensado que existiera un predescubridor que le hiciera saber a colón la existencia de esa ruta hay quienes piensan que este predescubridor sería un personaje originario de las costas de Huelva y llamado Alonso Sánchez. 
 * – Error 01:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is another theory and is an interesting one. It's a part of the catalan theory. CC real name was Joan Colom, from Barcelona. He sailed all the known seas from his childhood. He sailed to Norway and from there to America. He was registred by the name of Johannes Scolvus. CC could convince his kings to finance the expedition by telling them that it was not an adventure; he new about the new land because he had been there already.

About the flat earth theory, it doesn't make any sense. At CC time it was well know that the earth was round and an aproximation of its size, and CC was not an ignorant. Another matter is that in later trials where the king wanted to withdraw the given privileges, CC was accused to believe to be navigating to India, so he didn't "discover" a new land but found it "by chance". Doesn't make sense at all, it was a court trick.

Genora
While proofreading the article I found this confusing sentence: "Menéndez Pidal guesses that, in Genora learnt from some traveller notions of Portugalized Spanish and used in his deals a sort of commercial Latin (latín ginobisco for Spaniards). " I almost corrected Genora to Genoa and straightened out the rest of the sentence, but then I read that Pidal believed Columbus was from Catalonia. So I left the sentence alone, unable to figure out what was intended. Genora is a drug or a name, not a place I could find. Art LaPella 15:53, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Er, I meant Genoa. – Error 00:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Art, I reckon you got everything right. Menendez Pidal is believed to have researched about CC, found that he was a catalan and then tried to hide this fact concocting a theory about some weird mixture of languages.

WikiAwards
Just to state that this article is part of the paralel goal of the WikiAward for Greatest Sea Explorer of the period of the discoveries.


 * If you do not know what are the WikiAwards just find out here.
 * If you already knew register as participant and choose a category to vote. This Award is part of the History category.

Have fun, see the results, watch Wikipedia grow...--Gameiro Pais 05:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is this a joke? RickK 06:20, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Madeira question
"Felipa's father had partaken in the conquest of the Madeira Islands and owned one of them" i changed "conquest" to "discovery" since this could look like Madeira was conquered.. (or it wasnt meant this way?) also, did Felipa´s father really own one of the islands? there are just two... i assume it would be porto santo? ---Cyprus2k1 16:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The Madeiras probably were conquered – check the Wikipedia article to be sure. By the way, why all the links? Most of them are red. Brutannica 04:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * There was nobody living there, so they weren´t "conquered" in any sense of "invasion".. – --Cyprus2k1 04:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah. Well then, I guess they were "settled" instead. Brutannica 03:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Las Casas
Bartolome de Las Casas was a friend of Columbus. So he didn't blame him for the atrocities committed against Native Americans. Just check A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies. --Mixcoatl 12:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Spices
Hey Mr. 4 numbers, can we get some reference for these spice stories? Gadykozma 01:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This spice section is a good idea, but also a little suspicious. Much of it is contradictory – I didn't quite know what to make of the part about people saying Columbus had failed, then saying he escaped ridicule. Also, I think contemporary perceptions of Columbus should be incorporated into the main article and not in the section on spices. In fact, the whole spice section ought to be moved further up. Brutannica 19:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The section I think should go completely. As far as I can see, the only information it adds is which spices Columbus discovered (the aji information is really interesting — is Columbus really responsible for the pepper confusion?), which should probably be merged into the end of the "First Voyage" section. Definitely it does not belong in the "perceptions" section.


 * However, we also have a problem of verifiability: the guy who originally posted did not come up with any proof of that, and because Columbus is such a hot topic, he might have invented it. As you noticed yourself, it sounds fishy. How can we verify the entries from Columbus log and the other stuff? Gadykozma 20:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I added the aji quote at the end of the "First Voyage" section, and deleted all the rest. The Columbus - The First Spice Seeker page contained practically literally this paragraph over again so I redirected it and removed the "merge from" tag. BTW: my experience is that newbies that post the same text twice that's usually a sign for copyright violation. Anyone has turner's book at hand to check? Gadykozma 14:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

where did he die?
Columbus died in Valladolid, Spain.


 * So the official story goes, but it's not true. His death certificate states that he died in his own house, but he had no properties in Valladolid, not anywhere in Castille. (as stated in one of the trials against CC, where he was acused of not being an inhabitant of Castille, for not having any house there)
 * For the little that we know, CC returned from his fourth voyage on Nov 7th 1504. The queen was dying, but CC could not go to the court because he was very old and very ill. So he writes on Dec 1st. He sent his son. He did not dare to travel because of the fear to die in some hotel.
 * By the end of 1505, CC was immobilized in bed.
 * At March 1506, king Fernando is in Valladolid getting married. CC was not in Valladolid, for that if he were there, the king would have visited him or he would risked his live by moving to see the king. This didn't happen. CC was not there. He was in Barcelona, at his own home. In fact, the chroniclers of the court of that time, who describe with great detail all the gossip and chit chat about every single known person arround the royal marriage, they don't mention CC at all.
 * After that, the king decided to depart to go see CC. If he departed form Valladolid to meet CC, this means that CC was not in Valladolid.
 * The king left Valladolid on April 28th, after one month he is in Villafranca de Valcárcel. On June 2nd the king writes a letter where he named CC as a dead person (he was). He probably received the news one or two days before. On June 28th he is at Tordesillas, and at Calatayud on July 15th. He arrives at Lleida on Aug 1st and finally at Barcelona on 7th, where he will remain for the whole month. The purpose of the travel was to see CC, and he was going towards Barcelona.
 * CC died on May 20th 1506. After his death, his corpse was buried. Nowhere exist any mention of being transported anywhere. He was buried where he died.
 * The mortal rests of CC were moved form Barcelona to Sevilla 7 years after.
 * I don't know if you need any more proof. The chroniclers of Valladolid described their city down to ridiculous details, naming the suposed girlfriends of the sons of every house in the city, and failed completely to record the death and burial of CC? You can go to Valladolid and visit the house "where CC died", based on the fact that this house belonged to some descendants from CC... on 19th century, and that the house itself was built after CC death. Enjoy your visit.
 * CC himselft wrote: "Poco me han aprovechado veinte años de servicio que yo he servido con tantos trabajos y peligros, que hoy día no tengo en Castilla una teja; si quiero comer o dormir no tengo, salvo el mesón o taberna, y las más de las veces falta para pagar el escote..." A poor translation from spanish: I have made no profit from my 20 years of service, with so much straits(*) and perils, today I haven't a brick in Castille, if I want to eat or sleep I have no place except the hotel or tavern, and most of the times I don't have enough to pay cash(**)
 * (*) From the catalan meaning for "treballs", meaning penalities. It doesn't work in spanish.
 * (**) From the catalan "pagar a escot", a catalan idiom meaning cash, no credit.
 * I need to summarize, sorry. It is documented that: CC had no house in Sevilla. Had no properties in Castille. While immobilized he gave powers on Dec 10th 1505 where he recognized not being in Castille. Died very old. Died in his own house. Died acompanied by family and friends and servants. Issued last will and testament where he had his own archive. Never asked to be buried in any special place. Had a memorial monument in Barcelona cathedral. His son said CC was buried in a cathedral. There is other evidence proving that the rests could not be in Sevilla a few years after CC's death, but I'll skip that on behalf of sensibility
 * I need to summarize, sorry. It is documented that: CC had no house in Sevilla. Had no properties in Castille. While immobilized he gave powers on Dec 10th 1505 where he recognized not being in Castille. Died very old. Died in his own house. Died acompanied by family and friends and servants. Issued last will and testament where he had his own archive. Never asked to be buried in any special place. Had a memorial monument in Barcelona cathedral. His son said CC was buried in a cathedral. There is other evidence proving that the rests could not be in Sevilla a few years after CC's death, but I'll skip that on behalf of sensibility
 * I need to summarize, sorry. It is documented that: CC had no house in Sevilla. Had no properties in Castille. While immobilized he gave powers on Dec 10th 1505 where he recognized not being in Castille. Died very old. Died in his own house. Died acompanied by family and friends and servants. Issued last will and testament where he had his own archive. Never asked to be buried in any special place. Had a memorial monument in Barcelona cathedral. His son said CC was buried in a cathedral. There is other evidence proving that the rests could not be in Sevilla a few years after CC's death, but I'll skip that on behalf of sensibility

"Informationless Rant"
Don't know if this clears things up, but the passage pointed out the arrogance of Columbus in "claiming land" that was already populated and governed and then establishing himself and the Spaniards as rulers in the Caribbean. What gave him that right? Maybe it's not fair to single Colombo out from all the various other European land claimants in history, but I thought it gave an interesting perspective to the "Columbus as villain" argument.

By the way, the "Columbus as hero" section could use expansion. Brutannica 05:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * see Terra nullius, "a Latin expression meaning "empty land" or "no man's land". The term refers to a 17th century legal fiction that permitted European colonial powers to assume control of land that was unclaimed (at least by each other)." Peter Ellis 17:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Kukul Khan"?
"He'd heard the word "Kulkukan" (Feathered Serpent), and rejoiced that the land of "Kublai Khan" or the "Great Khan" was nigh." I never heard of that before, does someone has evidence Columbus heard the name Kukulcan? (Apart from that, the name is misspelled it's Kukulcan, not Kulkukan. --Mixcoatl 14:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vikings
Where is it aknowledged that the scandinavians going to america was vikings? Is the term viking used in any document describing those travels, or is it a personal opinion that they should be called vikings? Dan Koehl 12:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think by definition they would be considered people who went viking. The term refers to Norse explorers, travellers, traders, etc. and the people that arrived in NA circa 1000 AD were almost certainly Norse. There are ruins of a number of small villages in Newfoundland, Canada or Norse origin.

Columbus was a hack. Vikings got to America first by 3 centuries, do the math.

Still thought he was in Asia?
''On May 20, 1506, Columbus died in Spain, fairly wealthy due to the gold his men had accumulated in Hispaniola. He was still convinced that his discoveries were along the East Coast of Asia''


 * CC never thought he was on Asia. He wasn't such an ignorant. He was accused of believing to be in India when the king wanted to withdraw the given privileges conceded to discover a new land. The accusation was that he did not knew he had discovered a new land. Many of the false information about CC comes from those trials.

It was my understanding that this was a myth, and any belief that Columbus had that he was in Asia died when he visited the mouth of the Orinoco river, and realized that he was dealing with a bonafide continent. Or did he think that this was another part of Asia? --Bletch 18:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, Asia is a continent. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  20:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

look up the word vinland and you might find some evidance

Cristopher Columbus never really reached the americas...he never made it off the islands of central america, many years later someone else had found part of upper north america, and parts of Canada.

gabriel simon

rape and stuff
What is meant by "european historical account?" How many are there (the recent edit says "all")? Is this a synthetic claim, which would violate the no original research rule? I am tempted to revert it but would like to know what others think. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  00:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Greek?
Is Wikipedia going to back the Greek origin theory as much as to have it that up front in the article? I know that in NPOV the popular POV isn't the only one stated, but I think that it should be the one we say first. Now, mind, I'm not saying that he couldn't have been Greek. I'm just saying that we should say he was Genoese first.

Lee S. Svoboda 22:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) George Kontopoulos 00:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Greek ? Who is claiming that Colombus was actually greek ? Nobody! All the article is saying (at least on its latest version) is that there is some evidence that he might have been born in Chios or lived in Chios. Chios was under the Genoese rule at the time so officially he was Genoese no doubt about it! And by the way, with all this SHOUTING and sarcasm the only thing you are accomplishing is to discredit yourself.


 * The theory that he was geonese is from the 17th century (much later, more a wish than another thing),I believe, and it has many inconsistencies, that is why there are doubts about his origin. In classes, I was teached that he was probably genoese... but he could also be from other places. The article is fine, it is in the common sence POV, with a NPOV. ;) -Pedro 20:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What it factual is that Columbus kept some of his journals in Greek, and that a large part of his crew members were Greek sailors (which doesn't prove anything on its own). There have been however several publications which support the theory of Columbus being a Byzantine Greek prince from Chios, which was at the time part of the Genoan kingdom. Miskin 13:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, You state What it factual is that Columbus kept some of his journals in Greek what documents are these that you mention with such certainty? Have you seen these Greek Journals of Colon? And do you have the name of at least oen of his Greek sailors??? I have never seen such documents and even if Colon wrote in Greek it does not make him a Greek the same as if he wrote in Hebrew or Latin does not make him a Jew or Roman. Please show us the proof of these Greek Journals. 81.193.14.81 22:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Manuel Rosa, Columbus Historian


 * See Ruth Durlacher-Wolper, The identity of Christopher Columbus or Aaron Goodrich, A History of the Character and Achievements of the so-called Christopher Columbus and there should be others. It is cited in contemporary sources that he kept a journal in Greek, had Greek crew members and used Strabo as his primary source on geography. He also referred to his crew member "George le Grec" as his kinsman. The latter's full name is George Palaeologus Disipatos, and was supposedly related to the Byzantine dynasty of Palaeologoi. None of the above proves anything, it only gives a good reason to mention the speculation, and therefore answer your question. Miskin 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Very interesting info! i did not know it. but since Colombus himself (in his diary) refered to a Greek as his kinsman(co-Greek), i have no reason not to believe him... --Hectorian 00:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The names in the relation of sailors of their voyages are all fake names. All of them. Don't try to find nonexistant people, not even so far away as Greece. It's a loss of time.

Using strabo and Ptolomeo does not proof he was Greek. He used the Julian calendar that that make him a Roman? "George le Grec" also known as Colombo el Mozo was never a crew member of Cristoval Colon. It is again yet another historian who wishes to push upon the 1st Admiral of the Indies a nationality that can not be proven. THERE IS NO PROOF WHATSOEVER AT THIS POINT IN TIME WHAT NATIONALITY OR BETTER WHAT KINGDOM XPOVAL COLON WAS BORN IN AND WE CAN ONLY SAY FOR CERTAIN THAT HE LIVED IN PORTUGAL AND CASTILE ALL ESLE IS SPECULATION.
 * It is perfectly well documented that he never lived in Castille, except for the royal court. While in portugal, we know that he lived in the royal court, but I have no proof of him not having a house, so he could have had one. Not the same for Castille, he had no houses in Castille.

Most historians have accepted Genoa as his place of birth through faulty documents and non-conclusive heresay of Italian co-patriots who wish to claim the explorer as their own but heresay is not proof. No matter how often it is repeated or argued for as K. Pickering does there is no proof connecting Colon to Colombo. 213.58.112.33 22:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Manuel Rosa

Who was the portuguese that tried to capture Columbus?
I can't remember who was the portuguese almost caught Columbus at Azores on his way back to Spain after his discover of America. Las Casas reported this affair in his "Log of Christopher Columbus". --Ypacaraí 02:43, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

Genetics Reference
Does anyone know of a reference concerning the results of the gentic studies concerning Christopher Columbus? – Xpo FERENS

"discovery"
How can someone "discover" something that people have already found. more specifically, i do not believe that columbus should have credit for discovering anything, because there were already people where he landed (and did you know he killed a bunch of natives for thier gold??) Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)

This is semantics but nonetheless rather worth dealing with, since use of the word makes the text Euro-centric. Aside from the native Americans already there, it's clear Europeans had come before (some apparently keeping it secret to protect fishing areas). Columbus does get credit for going there on the first successful, public, state funded expedition that resulted in a significant and permanent European presence (what a mouthful! ...even the vikings get credit for the "first" we know about). Anyway I've removed the word discovery and used alternates like find, exploration and journey as appropriate. The word discovery remains in a quote, also in a reference to an archaeological find of a bullet. Wyss 10:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Signs of Land beyond the Atlantic in Galway? / Navigatio Sancti Brendani
There is a legend which quite everone knows in Galway, Ireland that Columbus stopped there and, moreover, found certain evidence of land existing beyond the sea. I added what I (and others) could find about it to the Galway page and also to the Christopher_Columbus page. However, I don't really know anything about the author of the letter that I'm quoting from, and about his reliability. Another theory explains his learning about land beyond the Atlantic from his somehow getting in touch with the Natigatio Sancti Brendani by St. Brendan – this is claimed on the Brendan site: Christopher_Columbus relied on the legends told of St Brendan as part of his argument that it was indeed possible to travel to Asia by crossing the Atlantic. Some propose St Brendan as one of the ancient visitors to the Americas. However, there is a contribution on Diskussion:Christoph_Kolumbus

in German which says he does not mention this book in his writings.

Another contribution on Diskussion:Christoph_Columbus states that "Columbus certainly knew the book because it had been spread and translated into several language from the 10th century onwards."

It is also said on a website that that "he mentions the city in his writings, and claimed to have visited England, and sailed as far north as Iceland." There is, however, no source indicated.

Can anybody take a look at this problem? --Robin.rueth 11:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * (message inserted from user:Robin.rueth's talk page

I had a look for "Armand de Châteauroux" and spotted that the author of the translation may not be bona fide. He appears to be of the Eric von Daniken and Dan Brown school of "creative archeology". So a little further looking found this – see Sulle (false) tracce di Atlantide – di Mariano Tomatis. My italian is not great, but it is good enough to see that this is a cutting criticism. I would like the see the original latin document and to be assured of its provenance. It might be wise to transfer your text to the Columbus talk page until you have more confidence in the source. It's just a pity I didn't spot this earlier! --Red King 14:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have removed my contribution from the Christopher_Columbus site until the problem has been solved. --Robin.rueth 14:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Here is the entry that I've removed:

A letter written by some Armand de Châteauroux claims that on this trip, near Galway in Ireland, he found what he considered a dead Chinese body floating in the water, which convinced him that it was possible to sail to China via the Atlantic Ocean.

The text of the rather lengthy letter can be found at. Its original is in Latin, the site contains the translation to Italian. The relevant passage is: "Cristobal mi rivelò che si stava dirigendo verso le coste inglesi ... una ricchezza pochi giorni prima insperata".

A translation into English of the key sentences follows: “Cristobal told me that we were going towards the English coasts (Footnote: Armand defines as “English coast” the territory of Galway in Western Ireland) and when I asked him why we were taking this unexpected way around, he told me that during navigation […] he had come across some sea currents that seemed to come from the remote and unknown West and which, in his opinion, had to touch the English coasts. He though that if really India was in the West, any object coming from there could have crossed the ocean and, drifting, reached the beaches where the currents were going. […]”

Some paragraphs later, the discovery of the dead bodies is described in great detail. There is a footnote saying: From the study of the biography of Columbus, one can see effectively that the trip to the Faroer islands did not stop there. […] Without any doubt, in this trip, he reached Western Ireland: In Galway, he saw, on some drifting ships, dead people, of unknown stature and kind, whom he identified with Chinese (from Cathay), and who, rather, were probably Laponians or Indians.

The bodies were found in the island of Flores, Azores, Portugal. Don fernando Colon writes in Chapter IX  Flores, la cual es una de las islas de los Azores, hallaron en la orilla dos hombres muertos, cuya cara y traza era diferente de los de sus costas. 81.193.8.173 11:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa, Columbus Historian

Improvement drive
Spice trade has been nominated to be improved by This week's improvement drive. Come and support the article with your vote!--Fenice 06:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Pear-shaped
I think it should be noted (with full citations, of course) that Christopher Columbus believed the world to be pear-shaped. violet/riga (t) 21:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This page is too long and tedious
This page needs to be shortened into a more brief description so as to make it possible for you students to read without getting bored to death.
 * I think this was supposed to give a decent overview of this man's complicated life. "Tedious" books were written about him that are much much longer. Thanks for your comments. Dominick 13:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What about the Vikings???? And the Native Americans???

Brittany


 * there are other articles linked from this page. Enjoy following them! Dominick 23:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Macuro
I would particularly mention in the third voyage section, that in that expedition it was the only time when one of his expeditions actually disembarked in the continent (as opposed to an island). This was in Macuro: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuro (from the Spanish Wiki). --Anagnorisis 05:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Columbus or Colon the real name!
First. his name appears written on the Papal Bulls as Cristofõm Colon.(Portuguese name)

Second. This Papa Bulls had been written by the Pope Alexander VI and he ordered to publish four Papal briefs related with the discovery of America.(they are in the Vatican Library) Third. We must notice that the texts of the 4 Papal briefs are written in Latin. It was to wait that the name of the navigator was in Latin, Christopher Columbus, but it is not.

We could wait that the name was in Italian, a time who the Papal brief was published in Rome, Cristoforo Columbus, but also it is not.

Or then in Spaniard, Cristobal Colon, a time that the Papal briefs had been directed to the Kings Catholics, but also it is not.

'''The name that appears in the Papal briefs has the archaic, old form, of the Portuguese name Cristofõm Colon that gave to origin the Cristóvão Colon. This is that it is the true name of the navigator'''

See this site: http://www.dightonrock.com/columbus_was_100_portuguese.htm

(FORMATTING) Dominick (TALK) 04:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL

 * Historian Harrison Osaki has recently added speculation that Columbus was not a man, but a super-intelligent robot from the future who travelled back to 15th Century Europe. Osaki believes that the robot who would become known as Christopher Columbus was actually built in Davesylvania (present-day Brazil) in the year 4673 by cyborg Parakeets and sent back in time to alter the future to their liking. This theory has been met with considerable opposition, especially when Osaki speculated that Columbus flagship, the Santa Maria, was actually created through a transformation of robo-Columbus' posterior.

LOL. I think mr. Osaki is in trouble, that idea is from The Terminator, I think there are copyright issues.--Pedro 20:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sea monsters?
Didn't Columbus encounter opposition to his plan based on the idea that the Atlantic was infested with sea monsters? How long were Atlantic sea monster myths held to be true? I really need to get this confirmed or denied for the article on Himilco the Navigator, as he originated some of the accounts sea monsters. Please help. Nick

p.s. don't vandalize my comment again please

The real nationality
Although what is teached in all world is that Cristopher Columbus is genovese, there are lot´s of info that may contradict this information. I cannot believe he was born in Genoa because he doesn´t speak italian. There was a Cristoforo Colombo that was born in fact in 1451, but I think you are mixing with the REAL Cristoforo Colombo, born in 1447, told by himself!! I believe he was or portuguese or catalan..

This sity (unfortunely in Portuguese) tries to claim he is..portuguese.. http://lusotopia.no.sapo.pt/indexPTColombo.html http://www.apol.net/dightonrock/columbus_was_100_portuguese.htm (in english)

Colongate: Barreto & Columbus' Braganza-French Connections

Barreto's thesis about Columbus/Colom/Colon being of Portuguese origin is total rubbish. Ferdinand and Las Cases both emphasize that Columbus entered into Portuguese society from the outside. I seem to recall that Barreto also argues that Columbus was a secret royal bastard...a half-brother to the Duke of Viseu or a half-brother to Joao II. actually I think to the Duke who was a first cousin to the King. In any case, in the Columbus dispute or Colongate, there are also two other secret royal bastard theories...one Catalan, known as the Carlos de Viana connection...and another one which is Castilian, known as the Guadalajara theory. All these theories are rubbish.

I do not have or offer any solution to Columbus' strange cryptic-signature. If you or other scholars (especially persons of French-origin) wish to discuss all this more, do not hesitate to contact me via email.

Sincerely,  Peter Dickson,

There is many other sites to prove that he´s catalan like this one http://www.bcngrafics.com/xpoferens/ (sorry, in spanish)

Ohio (don´t vandalize the claim, just try to disprove it)

No one is able to tell from where comes Columbus. He tried during his living to hide his real origins. His son Fernando himself write it in his book published in Venice, Italia, in 1571. (JMU)

January 4 or January 16?
Which day did Columbus set sail from Hispaniola for home? The article currently says January 4. One web page says January 16. The January 16 page lists "Columbus returning from his first voyage".

Calendar mismatch, or disagreement? References?

ATROCITIES
Many articles in the English Wikipedia are not neither neutral nor respectful to History. Some people think they can criticize and present their opinions as if they were god.

-Are they trying to change History?

-Are they trying to blame past events on whom?

-Are they trying to rewrite the History or just present the facts?

They are talking about atrocities and other issues. Every civilization, every country and every culture, as far as I know, has had a role in History. Maybe, we don't agree with it, but we can not turn back time. We should respect what their world and rules were at that time.

If you would like to criticize something, then speak up about this: atrocities are still taking place in our "civilized" world. Reflect on what those "bigger" and, supposedly, more civilized countries are doing this very minute.

Wikipedia is not and should not be the foro anyway. Jose.

I think that the "atrocities" need to be more strongly emphasized in this article. I wouldn't presume to judge the man—what good would it do?--but currently the article gives the impression that the genocide is either a debated issue, or otherwise inconsequential. There is debate as to how many Arawaks there were when Columbus arrived (estimates range from less than a million to eight million). It is not debated that they were all dead by 1650. Clearly this cannot be all laid at his feet, but to not mention it at all is very misleading. Tenebrous 20:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

POV
what exactly are the POV problems with this article so they can be addressed and the NPOV notice removed. Thanks Hmains 02:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

He was portuguese

 * On the Vatican´s Library there are 2 papals buls to the kings of Spain that say «Christophom Colon» and «Cristofõm Colon».«phom» or «fõm» is the ancient Portuguese form of «vão» (Cristovão Colombo). The tilde (~) on the «o» is used only in the Portuguese language.Is name wasn't written in Latin,Spanish nor Italian, but yes in Portuguese. Why? Because he was PORTUGUESE!!!! The Portuguese king João II wanted a better contract, so he sent his cousin Salvador Fernandes Zarco to Spain under the name Cristóvão Colon.He should convince the spanish kings to go west and distract them from the real way to India. He didn't accept all the propositions of finance his expedition if they werent from the spanish kings. The guy waited 7 years!
 * And don´t forget that Colombus called the islands he found with Portuguese names. For example, S.Salvador: he´s real name was Salvador; Santa Maria da Conceição: nor in Córdova, nor in Sevilha nor in Génova existed any church to that saint, but yes in Beja, the convent built by the prince D. Fernando (Colom's father) in 1467; Fernandina: it wasn't in honor of Fernando, king of Spain. Don't forget that his real name was Fernandes; Isabela: It could be in honor of queen Isabel of Spain, that suported him, but in that case, why didn't he caled Isabela to the third island? We can´t forget that his mother's name was Isabel da Câmara; Juanina: this is obvious. It was in honor of the Portuguese king D. João II. But, to not be suspicious, he changed it to Cuba, his homeland in Alentejo,Portugal. S.Bartolomeu, S.Vicente, S.Luís, Sta.Luzia, Guadiana, Porto Santo, Mourão, Isabel, Sta. Clara, S.Nicolau, Vera Cruz, Espírito Santo, Guadalupe, Conceição, Cabo de S. João, Cabo Roxo, S.Miguel, Sto.António, Sto.Domingo, Sta.Catarina, S.Jorge, Trindade, Ponta Galera, S.Bernardo, Margarida, Ponta de Faro, Boca de Touro, Cabo Isabel, ilha dos Guinchos, Salvador, Santarém, Cuba, Curaçao e Belém, and so on. Some may say that there are names that are both spanish an Portuguese, but names like Brasil, Santarém, Curaçao, Faro, Belém, Touro, and Ponta only exist in Portuguese.
 * Now, you're all talking about documents, letters an all, but a lot of them are fake. The name Cristoforo Colombo is fake, the will is fake and the so called Codicilo Militar  is fake to. All the "evidences" that suporte the genoese theorie are, you gess, FAKE!!
 * colombus didn't explore the west part of Cuba because he was afraid that it might be a passage to India, and he didn't wanted the spanish to have it.
 * He used the storm to stop in Portugal and talk with D.João II and visit is family in Madeira.
 * And to the ones that still think he was a genoese, I tell you that no weaver could be received by the kings of Spain.
 * In conclusion: HE IS PORTUGUESE!!!!!!!!!


 * The tilde was the usual abbreviation of an n (and maybe an m) when writing in Latin and other languages. That is the origin of ñ (=nn).--Error 00:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What does that has to do with his name? Its clear that the tilde wasn´t there to do an abbreviation. Lets face it, he was portuguese. John

vandalism?
Repeated changes made to this article in the last few days may have introduced false information into this article and may have been vandalilsm. The last good edit that I can see for sure is by kbh3rd on 3 Feb. Anyone else have other ideas on this? Thanks Hmains 00:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking into that Manuel Rosa Umasking Columbus, it looks like someone's got some pet theories and is hawking a book. (Forgive me if I've characterized it wrongly; I'm merely reporting my first impressions.)  If this is not peer-reviewed research that has widespread, though not necessarily universal, scholarly support, then it should be reverted, or at least marginalized as, "some crackpots posit that ...".  Or words to that effect. ;-)  I'm not a Columbus scholar and have this page on my watch list solely to revert the frequent obvious vandalism that occurs to it.  I don't think I'm qualified to pass final judgement on these edits.  --Kbh3rd talk  06:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Kbh3rd, it has taken me 15 years to research this subject and I am trying to point to a correct history all of which can be proven. If there are doubts this only means more research is needed. I am hoping that DNA tests I have proposed will soon answer all these questions. Peer-review can only be done by peers who have been able to break free from the false history prepatrated for 500 years. Was Hugo Assereto brought to a peer-review? Was Samuel Eliot Morison? Washington Irving? Henry Vignaud? NO.

Morison could not even translate five simple Spanish words pajaro puerco and rocin de madera dirty bird and wooden beast of burden respectively, translated by Morison as flying pig and wooden jade!!!!! Where was the peer-review for Ramón Menéndez Pidal when he criticized C.C.'s use of lhe as incorrect Portuguese in order to claim that C.C.'s mother toungue could not have been Portuguese? This while the very king of Portugal D. João II used the word lhe in his letters?

Yet people have no problem quoting these historians some of which had never read a book relating the history between Castile and Portugal – the only two kingdoms where it is known for certain that C.C. lived. Many don't even know that Isabel was not supposed to be Queen but that she stole the crown for her niece in 1475 and was allowed to keep it by an agreemnet with Portugal in 1479 and that after in 1483 Isabel tried to kill the king of Portugal using C.C.'s nephews as traitors. Who is faulting those C.C. historians for not mentioning that C.C. was, by marriage, uncle to 2 Counts and 1 Marquis in Portugal? That C.C. was uncle to the king's Lord Chamberlain and uncle to the Condestavel (Supreme Military Leader) of Portugal? All of them descendants of kings!

Who in their right mind would accept that a Genoese woolweaver, Cristoforo Colombo, who happened to have a totally diferent name than the pseudonome Cristoval Colon assumed by the discoverer, could be made uncle to royalty in the Middle Ages? Keep in mind that Galileo had a peer-review and was condemned by those peers who had not yet broken free of the false teachings they had been force-fed. The person attributed with discovering the New World used this name Cristoval Colon (Xpoval Colon) not Christopher Columbus. It may not be so obvious that the names are diffenrent but would you say that Lancelot Armstrung won the Tour de France? Furthermore he was not the Italian Cristoforo Colombo from Genoa as many historians have said. The fact is that there is no solid proof connecting Colon to that city. The only document that seemed to connect him, the supposed Testament dated 1498, was a document falsified after 1573 by the Genoese Baltasar Colombo to try and make himself a member of the Colon family. I have proof of this that will be published shortly. All the history relating to a Christopher Columbus should carry a qualifier that it is an assumed history without solid facts.82.154.144.230 01:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Manuel Rosa, Historian of Iberia. Still Unmasking Columbus.


 * Again, I won't make judgement calls that I'm not qualified to, but this makes me wonder if this runs afoul of the official Wikipedia policy on no original research? --Kbh3rd talk  03:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Kbh3rd I Understand. What was written (aside from proving the testament is false) is all documented and I can provide sources. Also What was inserted months ago by my coleagues was alreay published on the web. I believe soon we will have a new history. Keep in mind that DNA and Forensics have already discounted the Genoese Colombo family as being that of the Colon family since the age of the bones do not match.213.13.247.35 21:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Manuel Rosa

Colombus's Love Life
There was a section in this article a few days ago that talked about Colombus's wife and marriage, but it has been removed. Why is this? – Conrad Devonshire 02:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The language of Cristoforo
Someone argue that Cristoforo Colombo (the true name) couldn't speak italian but spanish. You have to know that "modern" italian language wasn't diffused in Italy since 1700 (in 1860 only 2% of the Italian residents spoke Italian), and the lingua franca was Latin, old French, Spanish or local dialects (Genoese).

Italian aren't nationalist, unlike the Spaniards and the Portugueses, and if neutral and trustworthy historians say that Colombo was Italian that's the TRUTH. We don't need to defend his origin nor we have to construct strange and obstruse theory to argue that he was Italian, just come here in Ligury...

You don't think that is strange that only Portuguese or Spanish 'historians' build up alternative theories of the origin of Colombo?

And what about Marco Polo? Someone argue he was Croatian... (help!) We, Italians, are tired to have our heroes theft by other nationalities. Please, keep your heroes and let us keep ours. Thanks!

Yes, I thought Wikipedia was a serious online encyclopedia...

You make it sound as if people in Genoa did not know how to speak, read and write for they had no language of their own!!!! Yet you wish to also have us believe that C. Colon, a man who knew Latin, Castilian, Portuguese, Geometry, Astronomy, Cartography, Navigation and the Bible almost by heart would not know his native toungue if he had been born in Genoa???? Veery strange indeed! 213.13.243.47


 * Do you have any sources which could verify that Colombus was native (or at least familiar) to the Genoese dialect? Miskin 08:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if it's undisputed that he grew up in Genoa, born to local parents, it's pretty obvious that he would be a speaker of the dialect, isn't it? Do we really need verification for that? (Just my outsider's 2c, I don't really want to get involved here.) Lukas (T. 09:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's undisputed that he was born at some part of the wider Kingdom of Genoa, most likely outside of Italy. I'd like to see some proof that he was at least fluent with Genoese or any form of Italian. Miskin 09:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm ... If his origins are so undisputed as you claim, then why are we disputing this here? 213.13.243.47 05:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Damit, if he didn't speak the language then he's not from there. I got Italians in my neighbourhood that have been here (Canada) for 60 years and still don't speak english, only Italian.  My point; if he was born there he would've spoke the language.  Not to mention that he was most comfortable speaking in portuguese. Read the wiki article, it states that he would fall back on Portuguese words when speaking other languages. (RG)


 * Dear RG, then if Swiss people speaks French, German and Italian they don't are Swiss but French, German or Italian? Your argument is very strange... Genoese dialect resemble phonetically to Portuguese, that's why he hadn't difficulties to speak Portuguese or even Catalan, because of their phonetic or lexical similarities. More info on Genoese dialect here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetto_genovese. Colombo is of Ligurian origin, he was born and worked in Genoa.

Nobody is disputing that Cristoforo Colombo (the true name of a Genoese woolweaver) was from Genoa. We are disputing that Cristoval Colon was a Genoese. Believe me I spent many years trying make sense of the documents to prove he was a Genoese without sucess. There are always questions left in the end. So if you have the proof that Cristoval Colon the man who lived in Portugal and Castile, was a Genoese show it to me. Web-bot 11:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's damn dificult to speak catalan. I speak Portuguese and Spanish and French and I can't make out what a Catalan is saying. And since I'm more fluent in Portuguese, whenever I'm strugling for a Spanish word, I'll substitute it with a Portuguese one. In terms of 'Genoese dialect resemble phonetically to Portuguese', it's because it's Latin based, like Spanish, French, Italian, and Romanian. (RG)


 * Yet I assume you do realise that this falls under POV. Miskin 09:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear RG, you can speak whatever language you want, Colombo was born in Genoa and thus spoke Genoese dialect and most probably – because of his job – Provençal, Catalan, old Spanish and old Portuguese. This is not a theory, but a very probable fact. More 'real' facts on Colombo at: http://www.cristobal-colon.net/Colon/C03p7.htm. It is interesting to note that lexically speaking many Genoese words are closer to Portuguese than to Italian: cömbo (Gen.) and pombo (Por.) mean 'pigeon', cô (Gen.) and côr (Por.) mean 'color', ægua (Gen.) and agua (Port.) mean 'water', and so on...

This entire business is nationalist foolishness. I don't mean to blame contributors here because apparently a lot of the documents that tried to pin down his birth were forgeries. This article would have to explore all of the theories without claiming that any one of them is correct. What is most interesting is what is known about him for fact, and I think you have to go back to the sources for that. Right now the article is rubbish because it washes over all of the possibilities. 59.112.33.143 12:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Colombo married a Portuguese woman of high nobility, Felipa Perestrello Moniz. If he were "only" a poor wool weaver – more than remarkable! Were social classes so permeable? Colombo "worked" for King João II of Portugal and took part in the discoveries  in Afrika. King  João II of Portugal declared the Portuguese explorations of main priority in his government and wanted to discover the maritime route to India. The maritime knowledge of the Portugueses was the biggest "state secret" since 1419 Henry the Navigator, the second son of King João I. of Portugal established a naval observatory at Sagres – that's why so little is known! And of course because of the earthquake + tsunami + fires in 1755. If Colombo were not Portuguese, but took part in the discoveries – he took part in the biggest "Portuguese secret" – quite remarkable! Why did King  João II of Portugal trust him and called him in a letter 1488 "our special friend”? The possibility that Colombo was Portuguese is as rubbish as the possibility that Colombo was Italian, pero se non è vero, è ben trovato! :-) --Sei Shonagon 04:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it strange that one can use analysis of his handwriting to determine what nationality a person was!!!! Even if C.C. wrote in Chinese letters one could not decide that he was a Chinese. The thought that handwriting analysis was chosen over the content of the letter which carries a Portuguese flavor, as all historians know, means they were grasping at straws to make a Catalan theory work. Even if there was a way to prove that a person's handrwriting was Catalan, which there isn't, how can one be certain C.C. had not simply been thought by a Catalan working in Portugal for instance? Web-bot 10:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Description of Columbus' signature
Under National Origin appears an image of Columbus' signature. The caption under this picture reads:
 * Sanctus, Sanctus, Altissimus, Sanctus, son of Mary & Joseph, Salvador Fernandes Zarco

However, the last line of the signature clearly reads:
 *  : ΧροFERENS./ → Chi rho ferens → Christopher

Nowhere here is anything even remotely like the "Salvador Fernandes Zarco" mentioned in the accompanying Portuguese origin theory. --MrShoggoth 15:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC) another inconsistency found in the Italian version, that can be used in the article: --Pedro 16:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * also from this page on the net :
 * The explorer’s cryptic signature, “XpoFERENS Colon” as we decipher it, indicates that he was a member of the super-secretive Templar Military Order of Christ, which had a stronghold in Portugal at the time leading up to his voyage. As a member, like his father-in-law and brothers-in-law, he was dedicated to ridding the world of Muslims, who had occupied his country several centuries before.
 * The Italian named Cristoforo Colombo (Christopher Columbus), long presumed to be the legendary explorer, was only a poor woolcarder in Genoa as claimed by every historian. He lacked the noble station required to marry nobility, as the explorer Colon did long before his historic voyage. There is no uncontested evidence that the explorer knew how to speak Italian, or had any substantial connection to that country.
 * BTW:
 * ''DNA on Christopher Columbus's son Don Hernando is currently being tested in Spain, Italy and Portugal to see if a match to a family can be found.

this is Dr. Manuel Luciano da Silva's interpretaion of the name here http://www.dightonrock.com/ – [ : XpõFERENS. / ]

Xpo = Christ
 * and / = Colon – Bearer of Christ

and – Christ = Saviour = Salvador (in Portuguese) FEREN = Messanger but also reduced form of Fernandes (son of Fernam) S – in fact an inverterted lambda = Z of Zarco see also this analysis (Port) --BBird 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * there are still known members of the zarco family alive in Portugal (mainland, Azores and Madeira). http://www.dightonrock.com/Beja-Portuguese.htm But how they know it is the same family, there are a lot of families with my surname... --Pedro 00:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

./ Salvador Fernandes Zarco y Colonna
The cryptic signature of C.C. can be deciphered the following way and has yet to be proven since there was never located a document in Portugal that a Salvador Fernandes Zarco y Colona ever existed. However the fact is that C.C. used this signature to mean something that only he and a few close to him knew.

C.C. signed as 'Xpo FERENS''. /'''

Xpo = Christo in Greek

FERENS = from the Latin verb Fero meaning to ferry but is probably an anagram for FERNES a contraction of Fernandes (meaning son of Fernando). The proper form of the name should have been pher and C.C. always wrote in CAPS making it unusual for a first name ChristoFERENS instead of Christopher.

. / = our semi-colon ; which was used by C.C. to replace Colon.

The last S of FERENS was usually written by C.C. to stand out leading some to believe it was the Hebraic Zarqa a sideways S used in Music. Zarqa is feminine and Zarqo is masculine.

Thus we have Christo Fernandes Zarqa Colon. Since the name Cristo was not used as a proper name it is subsituted by Christ's other name Salvador Savior and since Zarco was married to a distant relative of Pope Martin V Odonne Colonna we make the leap to:

Salvador Fernandes Zarco y Colonna

Working backwards we can see that a Salvador or a Savior brings Christ and is therefore a Christopher or Cristovam Pt. Cristobal Sp. and since C.C. was trying to hide his lineage of Zarco he used his great-grandmother's name of Colonna and shortened it to have the same sound as the Greek Kolon meaning member as clarified by his son Fernando. Now it stands to be proven and DNA can be the only true tool to do confirm or deny it.81.193.8.173 11:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Manuel Rosa,in Unmasking Columbus

Quote from Columbus' journal
If no one has objections, i will include the following entry from his journal : source Thomas Friedman's book The World is Flat. suggestions on where this shld go in the article?

"Your Highnesses, as Catholic Christians, and princes who love and promote the holy Christian faith, and are enemies of the doctrine of Mahomet, and of all idolatry and heresy, determined to send me, Christopher Columbus, to the above-mentioned countries of India, to see the said princes, people, and territories, and to learn their disposition and the proper method of converting them to our holy faith; and furthermore directed that I should not proceed by land to the East, as is customary, but by a Westerly route, in which direction we have hitherto no certain evidence that anyone has gone.

– Entry from the journal of Christopher Columbus on his voyage of 1492"   -gunslotsofguns 19:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Catalan Columbus?
I recently read that he may have been from Barcelona. Does any one have any info on this? I think we should discuss this but alas, I don't know much about the topic.

I just watched a show on the Science Channel about it that was fairly convincing, but ultimately inconclusive. Danahuff 19:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

First Picture on Page
I think a new picture needs to be added. I do not like the ring around the picture of Columbus. mrmewe 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree. picture is awful and unaesthetic (and if it resembles Colon is another story).--BBird 13:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Columbus pic modified to make it more appelaling. I feel this is an important image since it is the only state sponsored painting of the discoverer. 81.193.239.144 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

The Portuguese Hypothesis
Do we really need this section at all? It all appears to have been added on March 29, 2006, by a non-registered user, presumably Manuel Rosa himself. And reading Mr. Rosa's webpage on the theory does not inpspire confidence at all: "This journey of discovery has led to a chase of the illusive truth in seven different countries from which we can distill the facts of a conspiracy of lies that is much larger in scope then anyone could have imagined. Everyone around this man, from kings to friends, lied about his true identity. For five hundred years there have been historians inventing details, forging documents; and countries maneuvering against one another in order to claim this Colombo because of the political and economic investments that were at stake."

This is the kind of conspiracy-theory nonsense that Wiki can do without. You can't prove anything by discounting all the evidence against you as "forgeries".

--Keithpickering 19:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to mention the Rosa theory in passing, but it certainly doesn't deserve it's own section. --Keithpickering 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, then, I'm removing the Portuguese Hypothesis section, replacing with a gloss under national origins.

Keithpickering, it seems that you have misunderstood the "discounting of the evidence" it will be proven shortly that the only document tying Colombo to Colon was falsified after 1573 by Baltasar Colombo. I never said Colon was a Portuguese only that he was working for the king of Portugal in Spain. 81.193.188.200 18:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)ManuelRosa


 * In that case, you are violating NOR and the passage must be deleted. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Formatting mess
The first picture is not aligned correctly and there is a big chunk of white space at left. Can anyone sort this out? Carcharoth 15:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes created a propaganda like unilateral view
I left actively watching this article for a while and coming back I see a sad appropriation of this article by mainstream Genoese theory and "the master said" kind of statements which I frankly regret. I read several books and theories about Colon and the one sure thing is that he was a mystery man. He could be from Genoa but also from many other places. The mystery comes from facts, sentences, and fake documents (invariably those that support the Genoa theory and were produced after the Italian reunification. I don't want to go on balancing this article on my own, but I am sure it became less informative and less wikipedian. Just my HO. thanks. --BBird 21:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You BBird for the voice of reason. I don't want top negate eviodence that is proven truthful and correct only that which is doubful and never proven to be factual. 81.193.42.61 11:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC) MANUEL ROSa

The only people who want Colombo to be Spaniard, are Spaniards themselves and some stupid Americans (special mention for the pseudo historian Merrill something) who don't actually know where Europe is placed on a map and claim to know all about European history. We are sick of the stupidity of the American people and their 'conspiracy theory' of everything... Please, shut up! Ferdinand Valtran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.122.164 (talk • contribs)

Dear Ferdinand Valtran, what do you actually know about the true history of Cristoval Colon? I don't mean the Cristoforo Colombo, the one from Genoa that everyone tries to fit into the clothes of the Admiral but the actual Cristoval Colon who sailed across the Atlantic. Have you ever found 1 document that proves the Admiral ever called himself Colombo? That anyone in the court of Spain ever called him Colombo? Any document that is orignal and uncontested that proves Colombo and Colon are one and the same person? If so please present it otherwise hold your judgement of things you have no knowledge of. 213.13.245.202 12:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Columbus's Genoese origins are attested to by nearly every single person who knew him in life, not to mention Columbus himself. Most of these documents pre-date the era of nationalism. When you have a mountain of actual evidence on one side of the equation, and a pile of hypothesis on the other, don't we have an obligation to at least assume that the evidence is worthwhile? --Keithpickering 23:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Keith, believe me when I say that I wish I could accept all that evidence as you so easily accept. My life would have been made much eaiser these last 15 years. The fact is that I have sought but have not found that SOLID evidence that you and others claim. Please see my note to Domenico Rosa on this discussion page. Soon I hope to be presenting on a TV documentary proof of the fraud of the "1498 Testament" that you have wholeheartedly accepted as being from "Columbus himself" and the history of this man will for the first time be scrutinized as it needs to be. By looking at ALL the facts not only at those that fit a Genoese woolweaver while throwing out those that don't fit a poor uneducated man from Genoa. 213.13.245.249 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Manuel Rosa

More formatting problems
The formatting of the "Columbus' name in various languages" section needs repairing. It is currently messing up the following section – see here for an example of when it looks really bad. Carcharoth 10:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's my fault. I don't quite know how to fix it, but you should've seen it before! I think it was in a seperate floated box on the right. I'm not even sure if we need that whole section, quite frankly. W e s! &#149; Tc 23:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I do have a soft spot for that sort of thing after trying to track down variations of Ptolemy for Ptolemy (name). Still haven't found Egyptian or demotic forms... Carcharoth 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the point of "Columbus' name in various languages"? Is that really relevant or adding anything to the article? I'd like to scrap it; the article is pretty long as it is.Civil Engineer III 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Columbus was NEVER, EVER this guy's name. His name was Cristoval Colon NOT Columbus, Colombo or Colom. That is the name that shows up in all of the documents. The court of Castile called him COLON. The king of Portugal called him COLON. The Pope called him COLON. He called himself COLON. Who are you to call him Columbus? Would you think it correctly to call Lance Armstrong by Lancelot Armstrung? 81.193.8.226 01:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Spam
Could someone please remove the spam at the top of the page? The smiley faces are annoying and kind of dumb.

japan in the columbus theories section
whats the point of the japan reference in this article? at that time, no one was trying to sail to japan and japan was of no importance in the world. we all know everyone was after china and india, not japan.

Did you recieve any awards or serve in any wars?

Kidnapped???
Where is the proof for Columbus kidnapping indians? Why would he kidnap them if he thought "love would convert them to christanity?"

Well, when you take someone without their consent, and when they try to escape and you try to recapture them, what word properly describes such activity? I'd say kidnap is both fair and accurate. --Keithpickering 23:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Real name
There is a section on what Columbus is called in different languages, but what was his real name? Kernow 04:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody knows for certain what was his real name. In Spain he was always called Cristobal Colon but this is a name assumed in 1484 when he ran away from Portugal to Spain. Those who call him Colombo or Columbus in Latin have no documentation that it is one and the same person. 213.13.245.213 15:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Manuel Rosa – UnmaskingColumbus.com

Columbus, the tyrant
I added the following article to external links. Could someone please write something about it in the article page? Thx... ArmanJan 10:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources for nationality section?
A lot of statements are missing references.

For example, it is written he wrote only in Spanish, and later that he had a secret diary written in Greek: any reference?--Brunetti 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC) BOTTOM LINE, CC's LITTLE ARMY HAD DISEASES! THAT WHY SO MANY INDIANS WERE KILLED. MILITARILY, CC AND HIS ARMY DEFEATEAD THE TAINOS AND THE ARAWAKS, BUT THEY COULD NOT DEFEAT THE CARIBS(WHO ARE STILL HERE TODAY). FURTHEREMORE, THERE ARE ARAWAKS AND TAINOS IN SOUTH AMERICA IN COUNTRIES SUCH AS FRENCH GUYANA OR SURINAME OR EVEN BRAZIL. THE ARAWAKS AND TAINOS WERE JUST UNFORTUNATE, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT IMMUNE TO THE DISEASES THAT CC AND HIS LITTLE ARMY CARRIED. I THINK IT IS INHUMANE TO GLORIFY THE CC COLONIZATION AND DESTRUCTION OF THE NATIVE AMEICANS. MANY NATIVE AMERICANS RESISTED COLONIZATION, INCLUDING THE CARIBS, (EVEN THE ARAWAKS AND TAINOS). THE ONLY PROBLEM WAS THAT THE CARIBS WERE MUCH MORE AGGRESIVE AND FIERCE THAN THE ARAWAKS AND TAINOS, THAT'S WHY THEY ARE STILL HERE TODAY. FURTHERMORE, CC'S ARMY DID NOT KILL HUNNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANINDIANS WITH THEIR WEAPONS, THE DISEASES SUCH AS "SMALLPOX" IS WHAT KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. ALSO, EVEN IN THE BATTLES, EVEN IF HUNDREDS OF INDIANS WERE KILLED(DUE TO THE SOPHISTICATION OF EUROPEAN WEAPONS) THEY STILL WERE SMALL NUMBERS OF SPANIARDS WHO DIED. EVEN IN INHUMANE LABOR(ANOTHER ACTIVITY THAT KILLED MORE INDIANS THAN WEAPONS), SOME OF THE ARAWAKS WOULD SET UP A SPAINARD AND POUR HOT GOLD DOWN HIS THROAT. THE CARIBS ON THE OTHER HAND, INFLICTED MORE CASUALITIES ON THE SPANISH, INCLUDING CC'S CREW, THAT'S WHY THEY WERE NEVER DEFEATED MILITARY DEFEATED(DESPITE OF THE LACK OF GUNS) BY CC'S ARMY. IN CONCLUSION, THE NATIVE AMERICANS HAVE ALWAYS RESISTED, THE ONLY THING THAT KILLED "SOME" OF THEM IS DISEASES AND GUNS. IN THE END CC SHOULD BE HONORED FOR "RUNNING INTO" THE AMERICAS AND NOTHING ELSE. I DON'T THINK THAT HE SHOULD BE GLORIFIED FOR EXPLORIING THE AMERICAS, BECAUSE HE STILL THOUGHT HE WAS ASIA. HOWEVER, HE DID START SETTLEMENTS THAT WOULD EVEBTUALLY BECOME NICE COUNTRIES. ON THE OTHER HAND, NATIVE AMERICANS DESERVE MORE RESPECT. I'M TIRED OF SEEING THE LYING AND BELITTLEING. EVERYBODY SHOULD BE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT IF THE NATIVE AMERICANS WERE ALREADY (UNFORTUNATELY NOT) IMMUNE TO THE DISEASES THAT THE EUROPEANS BROUGHT TO THE AMERICAS THERE NEVER WOULD OF BEEN ANY USA OR MEXICO, BECAUSE IT WOULD OF BEEN MUCH MUCH HARDER TO COLONIZE THE AMERICANINDIANS. I THINK THAT DISEASES WAS A STRATEGY TO CLEAR LARGE AREAS OF POTENTIAL RESISTANCE FROM THE AMERICANINDIANS. HOWEVER, IT IS A WICKED STRATEGY BY THE WICKED ("IN THOSE DAYS, BUT SOME STILL ARE") SPANISH, ENGLISH EXC. AS A RESULT OF RESISTANCE AND DISAPPEARANCE OF NATIVE AMERICANS(SOME WHO DIED OR FLED), THIS LED TO THE ENSLAVEMENT OF AFRICANS. OBVIOUSLY, THE AFRICANS HAD NO PLACE TO GO(BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT USED TO THE NEW WORLD LAND LIKE THE NATIVE INDIANS WERE). AS A RESULT, THEY WERE STUCK WITH SLAVERY UNTIL IT ENDED IN THE 1800S. THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE HERE AS TO HOW THE AFRICANS WERE TREATED. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS THAT AFRICANS WERE IMMUNE TO DISEASES LIKE SMALLPOX, THAT WHY A LOT OF THEM ARE STILL HERE TODAY. EVENTUALLY, THE EUROPEANS HAD THE CHANCE TO END UP BEING THE MOST POPULATED GROUP IN THE AMERICAS, BECAUSE THEY HAD THE CHANCE TO SETTLE DOWN and TAKE MORE LAND, WHILE THE NATIVE AMERICANS WERE EMBROILED IN WARFARE, RESISTANCE, AND DISEASE, WHILE THE AFRICANS WERE ENSLAVED. THAT'S WHY THE NATIVE AMERICANS ARE NOT COMPLETELY OBLITERATED, BECAUSE THEY RESISTED, ALL THAT HAPPENED NOW IS THAT THEIR POPULATIONS ARE LESS TODAY BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTS THEY WERE FIGHTING (IN THE 1500S AND BEYOND) WITH STICKS AND BOWS AND ARROWS VERSUS GUNS, CANNONS, AND DISEASES THAT THE EUROPEONS HAD.

Needs Writing Cleanup
I attempted to cleanup some of the writing, especially in the Catalan theory section, but I don't have time at the moment to really go over it. Attention should be given to the writing quality throughout. I found and fixed some spelling errors, fragments, and organizational issues, but more errors and writing issues in general plague this article. Danahuff 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Catalan theory is incorrect when it says that Cristoval Colon always referred to himself as Christobal Colom. The Catalans were the ones who referred to Colon as Colom but the Admiral NEVER, EVER reffered to himself as Colom. It was always Colon because it is the same as Kolon the Greek for member. Colom is Catalan for Pigeon. The facts are the facts. 213.13.247.195 05:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Manuel Rosa http://www.unmaskingcolumbus.com

Japanese theory
He wasn't portuguese, greek, or catalonian. Some new investigations of the university of tokio demostrate that his handwriting have a lot of similarities with japanese.

Just caught some vandalism AGAIN, the article needs semi-protection NOW
At this edit on 23 June 2006, almost all of an entire section of this article disappeared AND NO ONE CAUGHT IT. Only because I checked the article today, I realized that someone had deleted my photo of the freeway sign honoring Columbus FOR THE SECOND TIME. I'm putting the photo back, but let's get our act together, people! We need an admin to impose semi-protection on this article immediately to get the vandalism under control. --Coolcaesar 02:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Other comments
>.... Unfortunatly Morison was more of a novelist than a historian and his book served only to carve in stone an error of CCs nationality carried forward by others. But it is still an error. I have little confidence in an author who canot translate "pajaro puerco" into its porper meaning of "dirty bird" but instead traslated it as "flying pig". This simple and small example shows the caliber of Morison's work. 213.13.247.3 01:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Wasn't Colombus sick when he died? There is a lot of facts missing about CC. One thing that needs to be mentioned was the mutiny. Some of Christopher Colombus' men rebelled and CC had to put down a revolt. Plus there was another incident where some of the spanish settlers died from starvation and tropical diseases, and when the tainos refused to feed CC and his crew, CC lied that he would steal the light from the sun. The next day, there was a solar eclipse and the tainos got scared and fed him. Plus there needs to be mentioned that Christopher did prostitute some taino slaves.


 * Columbus was very sick when he died. He was in bed for a year or more. He was a very old man, there are documents from the kings of Spain and Portugal giving him special privileges because of his age and sickness.

Spin off origins
My suggestion would be to start a new article about birthplace and nationality theories. It appears to me that there's as much or more on this subject than on the four voyages and it makes an important article awfully unwiedly to my eye at least. There's enough debate an interest on where he came from to merit its own article IMHO. EikwaR 06:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Colombus as a villain?
This is the most unbelievable article I read in a long while now. Colombus is no villain. He is the man who discovered America. He does not have anything to do with Indians or slavery. I am asking my fellow Wikipedians to review this position. I will remove the part in the article that is taking such a uneducated point of view. Let us keep Wikipedia bias-free. Thank you, please comment if you wish. (LonghornJohnny 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC))
 * "He does not have anything to do with Indians or slavery." is false – you are simply ignorant of the historical facts. In any event, the question is, does this article comply with our NPOV policy or not.  If you think it is non-cmpliant provide specific examples. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

UH ... YES HE DID! Did you know he deliberatly massacared a Taino village? First one of the Spanish commanders raped the wife of the village head, then Taino decided they'd had enough and they revolted.

"This is the most unbelievable article I read in a long while now." The only thing unbelievable is your comment. You need to look past what you learned in the 3rd grade about Christopher Columbus. About 90% of the native population were wiped out after Columbus reached the "New World". The native people were massacred, tortured, and enslaved. These are things you learn about in courses taken at universities.

I agree that Colombus is a villian, because the only reason he came to the Americas was to steal gold from the American Indians in the Caribbean. Plus, Columbus ran into America, he did not discover it. Columbus still thought he was in Asia when he explored the Caribbean, that's why he kept forcing the American Indians to dig up gold wherelse there wasn't any. However, this does not excuss him for anything bad he did. Colombus even had a rule that anyone who did not give him gold would have their hands chopped off. Honestly, anyone who say's Colombus is not a villian is either not a human or they are glorifying a shadow of something not on Earth. I think we need to open are minds and stop talking nonsense!

Discovering America does not excuse the horrific crimes that Colombus committed. Hitler, after all, improved Germany's economy. That doesn't make him any less of a monster.--CyberGhostface 20:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "I agree that Colombus is a villian, because the only reason he came to the Americas was to steal gold from the American Indians in the Caribbean." That's a pretty amazing statement considering that he thought he was going to China. Fan-1967 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Article in disgraceful state
This article has a mass of theories in its "introduction" instead of a normal lead in. I have removed all these. In addition, the article is in dire need of a section on Columbus' early life.--Fil e  Éireann 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Columbus Evil!?
I think so, but what are your opinions and why? Please say! 71.199.244.231 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely irrelevant to the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Colombus is not evil. He is the man who discovered the new world. He did not take part in killing the Indians. He established a good relation with the Tainos and traded with them. He is not guilty of what happened after he made his discovery. (LonghornJohnny 15:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

An Encyclopedia does not say what the world or people are. It says what relevant sources say it is. It does not judge. It presents facts and judgements made by others. The Ogre 15:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think both perspectives should be added (if we have and hero, we should have the other side or neither), if those views are facts (such as in Venezuela). As for the evil ones, remember that most people living in the Americas are the evil ones, because they are the descendants of the people who killed the indigenous peoples and still live in "their" lands, not a "poor" explorer. Putting the responsibility on Columbus must only occur in an idiot's brains, so that should not be added to an encyclopaedia article.--Pedro 16:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well take it into consideration that the situation in Venezuela is quite radical. The president Hugo Chavez is a radical man and it should be no suprise that he stands against everything that is democratic. Of course he will try to spread hatred against Colombus because he symbolizes Europe in his eyes. I would agree to delete both "Colombus as villain, and hero" articles. It is assumed that people have different opinions about certain historical figures. We do not need to discuss every single stand that some might take. (LonghornJohnny 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Pedro and Longhorn Johnny, please familiarize yourselves with our policies before wasting space here. This is not your blog. This is for discussing improvements to the article and all improvements must be in conformity with our core policies. Take your personal opinions to your own talk pages please. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All right Slrubenstein take it easy. We're discussing the future of a part of this article. I believe, that is serious enough to talk about on here. Nobody is wasting space. If we come to an agreement, it will be worth it. And that will be a major improvement within "our core policies." So instead of bossing us around, give your opinion about this topic or contribute to the article in other ways. Thanks, (LonghornJohnny 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

My "opinion" is simple. Tell me what part of the article, specifically, is in violation with NPOV, NOR, or Verifiability? And tell me what, specifically, you would do to bring the article into compliance? If you cannot answer either of these questions with specific answers I doubt your claim to be working at improving the article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about the part that talks about Colombus as a villain. I believe it should be removed because everyone has some things against famous historical people. Pedro said that if we remove "Colombus as a villain" we should also remove "Colombus as a hero" to be fair. I am fine with that. You could have read what everyone said by simplt scrolling uo a little and reading it. Anyway, that's my position but since than changes have been made and now the article looks different. (LonghornJohnny 20:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

This is at least the third time you have evaded my basic question: how is this part of the article in violation of any of our core policies? "because everyone has some things against famous historical people" is no answer – tell me which of our policies says this is a reason for deleting content? I have asked this question patiently several times and since you refuse to answer at this point I wonder if you are just BSing me. I repeat: how is it in violation of our policies? Be precise and accurate. Otherwise stop wasting my time.

I think the idea is that this section is just on how people view COlumbus. Axctual accounts of what he did to and said about Indians ar or should be in the account of his voyages. Everything should have a verifiable source of course. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 03:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just read the Hero or villain section for the first time – there is nothing in there to indicate that Columbus himself might be remotely responsible for any wrong-doing. All I see are suggestions that people attitudes towards him contributed to some unmentioned wrongs some time in the future. What's up? I recall some stories, but not well – and have long wondered why the 500 year celebrations were almost non-existent. Must I read the whole article? Shouldn't the section at least mention SOME detailed charges?--JimWae 19:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Villain is not the right word. That is reserved for judgements about people, not the legacy that results. If there are specific charges (as I think there could be, re slavery, harshness, etc), they need to be mentioned here. Does the Inquisition make Jesus a villain? --JimWae 03:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair points. Are you proposing just changing the title of the section, or the contents?  I have no objection to the former but would want more discussion concerning the latter. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the subsection title toMixed Legacy. However there are some problems with:
 * Some, however, have argued that the responsibility of contemporary governments and their citizens for allegedly ongoing acts of genocide against Native Americans are masked by positive Columbus myths and celebrations.

It implies there are substantial grounds to believe "acts of genocide against Native Americans are ongoing", and that somehow these acts are masked by "Columbine" celebrations. Both claims are poorly supported --JimWae 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim, it doesn´t matter whether the claims are well supported or poorly supported. What matters is that this is a significant view and it is held by many (and the use of the word "allegedly" even brings in the view that this claim is false).  I have provided a source.  The section claimed that opposition to CD is politically motivated, but it didn´t say anything about the so-called political motives (anti-Italianism?).  The quote I put back in (1) represents an established view, (2) makes the section more balanced, and (3) explains the political motives of the opposition. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Blockade?
I think that one portion of this article is an oft misquoted mistake. It states that "Columbus had planned with Isabella to set up trading posts with the cities of the Far East made famous by Marco Polo, but which had been blockaded, as described above." The Portuguese Blockade wasn't in place until c. 1507–1508 and Columbus' voyages occurred far before that time. How could he be searching for a new passage around a bloackade that didn't exist?

Catalan Theory
The article states that: "The true identity of Columbus is still not known, although it is generally accepted that he was Italian due to the fact that he maintained his Italian ethnicity throughout his life." But this is not true. Columbus never called himself an Italian (or Genoese, etc.). Unfortunately, the link provided as a reference does not work. This should be corrected. It is not possible to provide a citation for something that does not exist. Those who say that that document exists should provide that reference. They cannot.

>.... I really wish that we would research our facts before making silly insertions such as that in the Catalan Theory that CC throughout his life called himself Christobal Colom. This is a complete lie. CC never once wrote his name down not even on his Last Will and Testament where he signed simply Christo Ferens. The documents that can be shown to point to what others in Spain called him are letters from the kings, letters to his family and friends and they all say COLON. I have not seen one that calls him COLOM. Furthermore his own Book of Priviledges says Colon very clear. 213.13.247.3 01:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Why is the Catalan theory, which seems a bit far-fetched, listed before the Genoan origin, which has multiple sources to back it up and stands as the accepted version of Columbus's ? --Eileen R 205.206.70.97 22:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no accepted version of CC origins. Very few people accept him to be Genoese, yet it is the most quoted theory, and you are right in that way.

Duplicate photo
The article contains the same photo twice, captioned: "Columbus' tomb in the cathedral of Seville. It is borne by four statues of kings representing the Kingdoms of Castile, Leon, Aragon, and Navarre." The photo appears first in the section titled "Later Life" and further down, in the section titled "Mixed Legacy". I'm refraining from being bold, not having contributed to the article, and will leave it to others more knowledgeable to handle the issue. DonFB 07:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Genoese Navigator
At the top of the article we say "was a Genoese navigator and admiral whose four transatlantic voyages in the service of Spain". This is incorrect CC was not a Genoese navigator since he never sailed for Genoa and he was an Amdiral of Castile. Furthermore there has been ongoing debate on whether he was ever from Genoa. We must not ignore this. By stating right up fron that he was from Genoa we are furthering the confusion. Let me remind all that in 1601 the Court appointed Historian, Herrera wrote “qual sea la mas cierta descendencia en el Consejo Supremo de las Indias, adonde se litiga se determinara”: What is the most certain lienage [of CC] in the Supreme Council of the Indias, where it is being litigated will be detirmined. This does not sound like there was any concensus in Spain even 91 years after CC died about his true origins. 213.13.246.254 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa, Historian of Medieval Iberia
 * You misunderstand the use of the word "Genoese." Moreover, you are replying on oriignal research.  None of what you write is appropriate for the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

>... Slrubenstein, is all research NOT original? I am glad to remain silent as long as the article reflects the reality that the Genoese theory is just that a theory that has from day one been based on contradictory evidence. I have no problem when we leave the doubt in place. After 15 years of researching CC I have not found any uncontested proof that he was from Genoa. Please show where is the proof that is solid 100% or maintain the artcile turhful. 213.13.246.254 22:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Response to "blockade" "Blockade?

I think that one portion of this article is an oft misquoted mistake. It states that "Columbus had planned with Isabella to set up trading posts with the cities of the Far East made famous by Marco Polo, but which had been blockaded, as described above." The Portuguese Blockade wasn't in place until c. 1507–1508 and Columbus' voyages occurred far before that time. How could he be searching for a new passage around a bloackade that didn't exist?"


 * I am completely surprised by that Marco Polo reference. As you say, the statement is inconsistent, but let me add that Marco Polo never existed (Larner, John. Marco Polo and the Discovery of the World. Yale University Press, 1999.) The story is a fraud. It's author (self named "copist") even stated that he destroyed the original book. No Marco Polo ever visited China. If Marino Sanuto, a venetian, does not care to mention Marco Polo in his description of travel to oriental places, why should the spaniards care about him? Let's forget Marco Polo story for CC article.

What about the Ottoman sacking of Constantinople? That severly hindered trade to the middle east to anyone but Moors. New routes were necessary.

The problem is identifying the "blockade". There has been plenty of research to suggest that overland trade was affected. See Fall of Constantinople for reference. However, this article seems to be referring to a naval blockade that would lend itself to a need for new routes by sea (Marco Polo reference). I have never seen anything that has definitively established that there was a naval blockade in place at the time of CC's first journey. There were already established sea routes to Asia and I can see no reason why there would be a need for "new routes" around a blockade that didn't exist.

> ......

Whether or not Marco Polo was a real person does not deny that the book was real. CC owned a copy of this book and so did the king of Portugal (in manuscript form since 1428). It was then printed in Portugal by Valentim Fernandes in 1502. So one canot say that the book of Marco Polo, which talked about distances between places in Asia and place names like Java, Malabar, and Cipangu is irrelevant to CC's mission to India.213.13.247.3 00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Pic of the Nau Santa Maria
We have now a link to a replica of what is billed as Colon's captainship Santa Maria. But this replica has the cross of the Portuguese Ordem de Cristo on its sails. It is again an error, although not critical to Colon's history, that demonstrates how many of these experts really don't know what they are doing. If the Santa Maria really had such crosses on its sails then it was a ship belonging to Portugal and sailing for the Portuguese Military Order of Christ (Portugal). 81.193.9.43 22:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa
 * The flag is correct. It is the flag of the aragonese military army.
 * You can see it is just the Saint George flag here (The text reads "flag of the military branch"):
 * http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imatge:Banderadelbra%C3%A7militar.png
 * But with a more elaborate design, such as here:
 * http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/mx_1521.html
 * It was used in military uniforms too:
 * http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/images/1519hernancortez.jpg
 * The city of Veracruz has it's name in honor of that flag. See how they are completely confused about the origin of that name:
 * http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/mexico/Michoac-n-Zacatecas/Veracruz.html
 * Because Veracruz comes from the catalan Vera-Creu (Red Cross), Here you can see an old catalan poem with that use of the word "Vera", not currently used anymore:
 * http://www.rialc.unina.it/0bis.aujats_senyors.htm
 * Where the a verse is: "Aygua es vera ans que sia fixada;" (The water is red unless cleaned). The poem is constantly repeating the red color in different ways, so no doubt can exist; I thought it is a good example.
 * Obviously, the word Veragua means red water. You can find several examples along the Caribean coast.

> ..... I think you are seriously mistaken when you call it a "flag" and say the "The flag is correct. It is the flag of the aragonese military army".

There is no flag it is a cross on the sails of the caravel and this cross has nothing to do with the arogonese military. It is strictly the emblem of the Order of Christ in Portugal. Furthermore you are mistaken in the links you present. Th Military uniform although not very clear is the Cross of Santiago and your Veracruz is incorreclty translated to "Red Cross" it is correctly translated to "True Cross" Vera is feminine form of Vero.


 * The latin translation you provide makes little sense for Veracuz and no sense at all for Veragua. It would be the only example of using latin in the names given to those new places. It's just too far fetched. On the other hand, in catalan language "vera" means "red". This alternative translation is, at least, consistent in its use and also with that red cross which might be, after all, not an error.
 * Is the use of the word "Veragua" consistent with a place with red waters? Check it. The place was known for its mines.

>.... It is incredilbe how you come here with your version of the facts without knowing one iota of the history of Portugal and yet you insist like other misinformed historians that you are correct. The name Vera Cruz has NEVER been used to mean "Red Cross" but yes to mean "True Cross" this is also why Pedro Alvares Cabral name the new land Vera Cruz but than again you may not even know who Cabral was nor what lands he named Vera Cruz. As for Veragua I have no comment because unlike you I won't make up a meaning for why it was called Veragua who knows maybe it stands for 'Ver Agua'.213.13.246.254 16:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa


 * Diego de Landa, in the "Relación de las cosas de Yucatán": "y que llegado Cortés a la Nueva España comenzó a poblar y al primer pueblo llamó la Vera-cruz conforme al blasón de su bandera;" Translation: "Arriving Cortés to New Spain he began to populate it and named the first village Vera-cruz, according to the sign of his flag". Additionally I did not concoct  a meaning for every case (as you do), but theorized it to be the same meaning everywhere. At a minimun, it is more consistant.


 * OK so you theorized. I did not theorize, I gave you the correct meaning of the Latin words Vera Cruz. You can't make the leap between the arms of his flag "al blasón de su bandera" to mean that these arms were a "Red Cross" to be correct you must research what were the arms of the flag Cortés used.


 * You theorized it is latin. I gave you the correct translation from catalan, not form latin. About the flag used in America, you can see it here http://www.navego.com.ar/images/senyera.jpg


 * Honestly trying to help you see the facts as they really are is a waste of time since you have crossed over into a fantasy that the words Vera Cruz mean Red Cross. Your own link that you posted here: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/mexico/Michoac-n-Zacatecas/Veracruz.html clearly says that Cortes named it Vera Cruz (True Cross).' As for Ver Agua' it could means 'See Water' but I don't have any documentation to prove it since I never read where CC got the name from.Colombo.bz 05:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless the replica of the so called Santa Maria is not correct in using the crosses of the Ordem de Cristo on its sails. The Ordem de Cristo was strictly a Portuguese militia (as can be seen by the Portuguese red and green flag on the replica) and would not have been sailing for Castile, they hated Castile.213.13.247.3 01:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa still Unmasking Columbus


 * While using a flag on a large or small fabric is a matter of customs that we don't know well, evidence cannot be dismissed so lightly. There are lots of mentions to the "flag of the cross" in CC History and other episodes of the conquest of America. This is consistent with the red cross in the sails, and king Ferdinand was the king of Aragon and the red flag was the flag of the aragonese military. Why should we consider it a portugese flag? The red cross is the english flag too, for that matter. At that time Aragon had lots of ships while Castille had close to none. The conquest of Granada by Castille was made a few years before using aragonese ships, for a reason.

>.... Maybe for you, who I suspect are without any idea of how sacred a country's colors or 'standard' is, say that is "a matter of customs that we don't know well". Maybe you don't know well the menaing of a flag or an Order's symbol but I do. And no matter how hard you insist that the red cross on the replica of the Santa Maria shown in the article is a cross of Aragon it is not. It is an exact replica of the Cross of the Order of Christ whihc was never used in Aragon. Indeed they could not use it it was not theirs. The standard that CC used was a cross with an F and a Y for Fernando and Isabel. If CC used the Cross of Christ on his sails, to put it in some form you cna understand, it would be like the quarterback from the Dallas Cowboys wearing a uniform from the NY Jets and therefore he would be a NY Jets quarterback even if he was playing for Dallas. 213.13.246.254 16:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa


 * You said "Never used in Aragon". Sorry to contradict you. It was used for centuries. We even know its origin. From the letter by Pere el Cerimoniós (king of Aragon) to his brother Ferran, "...havem ordenat que totes les companyies de cavall tinguen, el dia de la batalla, sobresenyals a senyal de Sent Jordi. E així, manam-vos e us pregam que façats fer per vos matex e semblantment féts fer a cascú dels vostres los dits sobresenyals, que sien blancs de tot ab la Creu vermella". Translation: "I have ordered that all companies on horses wear at the day of the battle the sign of Saint George. I order to make for you and for all your people such signs that should be white with the red Cross".


 * Again you misunderstand what you are arguing. I never said that Aragon did not use a red cross. I said that Vera Cruz means not "Red Cross" but "True Cross" and I explained that the cross on the sails of the Santa Maria shown on the article is the cross of the Portuguese Order of Christ something you are completly out of touch with. Now I grant you that the cross of St. George is a red cross on a white field. True. But this is not the cross on the sails of the caravel shown as the "replica of the santa Maria". Those crosses are very clearly the red and white double cross of the Order of Christ. You should first familiarize yourseof with the history of this order before insisting that the cross was the saem as the cross of St. George it is not the same thing.213.13.246.123 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa – still Unmasking Columbus.


 * Be careful not to violate NOR. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)






 * I am sorry to have to say that your arguments are self contradictory. You say that it doesn't make sense to use a symbol in a sail, yet you state that the portuguese did. You say that it would be stupid to use the same symbol as another nation yet the english did. And this is all that you say, because for the other evidence you cannot dismiss so "easily" you just ignore it. The cross in those sails has been there for all the representations that we have. Instead of inquiring about its origin (maybe the origin was an error, this is possible), you mark it as an error... because it dosn't fit your theory. The history of CC as has arrived until us contains lots of contradictions. Any theory should try to explain these contradictions because there are too many of them to be "a few errors". Even the theory that CC was trying to hide who he was is against evidence, as has been shown. You cannot ignore the parts that won't fit your idea because it would be possible to prove anything in this way.


 * It is really a sad state of affairs when someone canot see the clear evidence that is presented and insists on maintaining a stance that is contradictory to the proof this can only be due to ignorance or to misinformation. In this age of information I fail to see how one can be so misinformed. The crosses shown on this replica were never used on the original Santa Maria unless CC was sailing a ship of the Order of Christ in Portugal. I have tried in every post relating to this man's history to be clear on what the evidence is and on where the misinformation came from. I admit that in some cases it is harder to grasp but on this of the caravels of the Order of Christ it is so cut and dry that I don't understand what I can do to correct your wrong assumption so I am updloading a photo I took of the very same caravel in Madeira where you will see that the cross is that of the Ordem de Cristo. I will also include a cross or flag of St. George in hopes that you are not so misinformed that even with this you will insist that the cross on the sails of the Santa Maria replica are actually those of St. George. Colombo.bz 18:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa – not all knowing but I can learn what I don't yet know.

Please help
Somone has done great damage here. Please help tpo restore proper contents – simple roll back is not going to help! --Bhadani 15:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I restored to this version at 13:51 today. Looks like it was OK. I'll look to see if there were any legitimate edits after that to include. Fan-1967 15:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is Manuel Rosa?
He's edited this page a lot, and identifies himself in this discussion as a historian of Spain. Yet, his edits are very biased to his own theory, stating things as facts that are simply his theory. For example,

'''However, historian Manuel Rosa writes in Unmasking Columbus that Colon and Colom are not the same names nor do they have the same meanings. Columbus is Latin; Colombo is Italian; Pombo is Portuguese; Colombe is French;and Colom is Catalan. All these translate to dove or pigeon, but none of these were the name of the discoverer since Fernando Colon says that Colon in Greek means member. Therefore the name Colon was a stand-in for the Greek Kolon chosen by Christopher to mean member, and none of the above names for pigeon (dove) are correctly applied names. The name Xpoval Colon was only assumed in 1484 when Christopher fled from Portugal to Castile and was not his real name.'''

Googling "Manuel Rosa" and "Columbus" brings up Rosa's own web page, a few places where you can order his book, and lots and lots of forums where he's been posting about himself. Also, the revelation that Rosa is not a recognized historian in the field, but a contract worker for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

I see absolutely no reason for Rosa's theories to be included here, unless in a 'short' paragraph about non-majority theories about Columbus. --Eileen R 02:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Eileen, the quote you use here is not theory. It is simple dicitonary meanings of the word in different languages to show how worng those who insist on calling CC by Colombo instead of his real name Colon are. The words Colombo and Colon have two different meanings.213.13.246.254 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa
 * Manuel Rosa, if you use simple dictionary meanings in order to make an original argument 8and on your website, you claim it is an original argument) then you are violating our NOR policy. This is the issue. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Eileen, I am inclined to support you. Please first review this policy  and this guideline Vanity guidelines and if you feel confident that these support you, revert away. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Eileen, I have not put forth a theory. I have only explained the real facts of history as they are. If you can point to one thing that I have written on this site and prove that it is wrong by showing me facts, I will gladly retract. So far everything I have stated is backed up by real facts in history. I may be contracted to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences but I can read and understand English, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Italian, Russian, French and Latin... when you can read as much as I have done in the past 15 years about this CC you can get a whole picture of the history. Soon it will be proven that the Genoese was a cover-up story. But for now if we can just stick to the KNOWN facts about CC I will be happy. 213.13.246.254 22:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa


 * By "theory" Eileen means an explanation of facts. So far I have seen no evidence that you are a credentialed historian.  Your book is not available on Amazon.com.  If it is a vanity publication, then your work should not be used in this article following our vanity guidelines.  have you published any peer-reviewed articles in academic history journals?  Has your book been reviewed by any academic history journals? If your work does not meet our standards for a reliable verifiable source, then putting your "explanations" in the article violates NOR. You can read whatever you want to in as many languages, and believe what you wish.  An editor of Wikipedia is still bound to comply with NOR policy.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, I am a historian of CC's life 15 years now and I am involved with DNA tests of CC and although my Portuguese language book is not available in Amazon.com it will be there in 1 short month where you will see the falsified 1998 Testament. Feel free to edit, delete, remove whatever you wish. It is not furthering the truth. 213.13.246.254 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa
 * Manuel, first, please use colons like everyone else to indent your remarks. If your keyboard does not have a colon, cut and past from above.  Second, would you be kind enough to tell me where you received your degree in history, and what professional organizations of historians you belong to, and in which peer-reviewed journals of history you have published in?  If you do not care to present yourself as an expert, of course, you need not answer any of these questions.  But if you wish to present yourself as an expert, please do. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)




 * Mr. Rosa, your contributions are welcome, but please note that Wikipedia has stringent policies related to what we can include in articles. In particular, I would invite you to read the policy of Verifiability. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will not edit the article anymore since I am unfamiliar with all of the policies here. I first found this site many months ago when I noticed someone had quoted me in the article and afterwards I tried contributed to bring more truthfull facts to it since many historians like Morison are severely misinformed. I will refrain to discussing here what I see incorrect instead and let someone else decide what to add or delete from the article. It would be a good idea to state that the Santa Maria shown is not a replica of CC's ship but is a instead a Portuguese ship of similar size and form as CC's.213.13.246.21 10:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa