Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus/Archive 6

This has to stop
Following on from my earlier comment above (and you did ask for comment so I hope I am not offending anyone here by reiterating it) this needs to stop. Having tried to read your arguments above it's near-impossible to follow - I honestly can't tell who wants to insert or remove information and what the disputed content is so I have no idea who is right here. It might be helpful if you could briefly summerise exactly what you are arguing about.

Anyway my comment is this - you clearly can't agree so you both need to stop editing this page. It is protected right now but, once the protection expires, I'd wager you'll both start edit warring again and that will just end up with one or both of you being blocked. So take a break. The guy died 500 years ago. This is not that topical or a fast moving subject so there is no reason you both can't just walk away from it for a while. Let things settle for a month, maybe someone else will make some changes to the disputed information. Then you can come back and work on it again. Right now you are both just filling up the talk page and making it impossible for anyone else to work on the article. Robinr22 (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * * "Columbus was Portuguese", according to the amateur historian Manuel Rosa.
 * All historians agree that Columbus was born in Genoa.
 * I've talked with numerous scholars from Italy and Abroad.
 * Mr. Manuel Rosa, IT analyst at the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, without entering into the merits of the question, your system of historical elaboration and method of work will be immediately invalidated. (In the academic field). --Davide1941 (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm still confused. Simply listing bullet points doesn't really provide enough information. Do you disagree with the idea that there is a theory that Columbus was Portuguese? Or do you accept there is a theory, but disagree that Manuel Rosa is a reputable source for it? I have to say though, it is clearly not true that all historians agree that Colubus was born in Genoa and your own personal research with scholars in Italy and abroad has no place in Wikipedia. It makes no difference what you personally believe - what matters is that information can be verified with reliable sources.


 * That said, sources do need to be reliable and I would certainly have qualms as to whether Manuel Rosa is a reliable source. I can find almost nothing about the book he wrote, its publisher or about him, other than a few biographies that say he works in IT. He isn't linked to an institution in an academic role and seems to have no other published works on other historical topics or any other topic for that matter. Consequently, as he is the only source for the Polish theory, I'd remove it entirely. One single source that is, at best, of questionable reliability doesn't seem enough to meet the test for inclusion. However there seem to be other supporting sources for the Portuguese theory so I would leave the section in, but remove Rosa as a source and any information that is based solely on his theories.


 * I really can't reiterate enough though that repeatedly providing detailed lists of information proving why you are right and the other guy is wrong, stating "your changes will be reverted" and including personal research and opinions helps no-one. It makes it difficult to identify the issue at dispute and is pretty disruptive. If you can't agree on something then stop and ask for outside assistance to reach a consensus. Robinr22 (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Robinr22, the info I wanted to add to the Portuguese Theory in the article was the following sourced material:


 * "Columbus is identified as Portuguese twice in Queen Isabel's court document in 1487." SOURCE REFERENCE: Antonio Rumeu de Armas in the book "El «portugués» Cristóbal Colón en Castilla." (The "Portuguese" Cristóbal Colón in Castile ) Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana, 1982
 * "His only note written in Italian - of merely 57 words - is in a macaronic Italian embellished with Castilian and Portuguese" SOURCE REFERENCE: - CONSUELO VARELA in Cristóbal Colón y la construcción de un mundo nuevo, Estudios, 1983-2008, ARCHIVO GENERAL DE LA NACIÓN, Santo Domingo, República Dominicana, 2010
 * "In his Castilian is found clear Portuguese... Definitely, the Admiral used a norm that was more Portuguese than Italian" - Consuelo Varela y Juan Gil, Cristóbal Colón, Textos y documentos completos, Edición de Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997.
 * "New World toponyms were clearly from the Portuguese African conquests Cabo do Monte, Cabo Verde, Cabo Roxo, Cabo das Palmas, Río do Ouro, Porto Santo, etc. amongst many others so clearly Portuguese like Valle del Paraíso." Cristóbal Colón, Textos y documentos completos, Edición de Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997.
 * "Here is a point not sufficiently explained, because it is NOT CREDIBLE that a mariner [former wool-weaver], not matter how much he pretended to be a noble, would learn to read and write Castilian in Portugal". SOURCE REFERENCE: - Consuelo Varela y Juan Gil, Cristóbal Colón, Textos y documentos completos, Edición de Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997.
 * "The 21 years of residing amongst Andalusians and Castilians (from 1485 to 1506) were unable to remove the Portuguese from his speaking and his writing" SOURCE REFERENCE: -Ramón Menéndez Pidal, La Lengua de Cristóbal Colón, 6ª edición, Madrid, 1978
 * "In his classic study into the language of Colón, Menéndez Pidal has pointed out, with reason, that his Castilian texts have a very clear Portuguese tendency, especially noticeable in the spelling and phonics." SOURCE REFERENCE:- Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997.
 * "In Portugal Columbus learned his language as well as to express himself in Castilian. A Castilian, that was much more Portuguese than Italian, which he employed with masterly skill. And in Portugal he learned the practice of handwriting: his handwriting is typically of Portuguese form." - SOURCE REFERENCE: - CONSUELO VARELA in Cristóbal Colón y la construcción de un mundo nuevo, Estudios, 1983-2008, ARCHIVO GENERAL DE LA NACIÓN, Santo Domingo, República Dominicana, 2010
 * In Portugal Columbus learned his language as well as to express himself in Castilian. A Castilian, that was much more Portuguese than Italian, which he employed with masterly skill. And in Portugal he learned the practice of handwriting: his handwriting is typically of Portuguese form. - - SOURCE REFERENCE: - CONSUELO VARELA in Cristóbal Colón y la construcción de un mundo nuevo, Estudios, 1983-2008, ARCHIVO GENERAL DE LA NACIÓN, Santo Domingo, República Dominicana, 2010


 * This is the material I added and editor Davide1941 continuously removed. I feel it should be added to the Portuguese Theory since it forms part of the basis for the authors of that theory.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the sources, I am afraid I would have to agree that they shouldn't be included. They are certainly reputable but they, in my opinion, violate WP:NOR. Only the first one actually states "Columbus was Portuguese" with the others merely stating that he had Portguese characteristics. Now I agree that they point towards him being Portuguese but, as the sources do not specifically say that, you are synthesising the information to form a conclusion not specifically stated in the sources. This makes it original research and so shouldn't be included. If you still want to include the sources then you would need to find another source that looks at the content you've referred to and specifically states a conclusion that he was Portuguese. Hope that helps Robinr22 (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Robinr22 - thanks for the clarification. All in due time.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

" Having looked at the sources, I am afraid I would have to agree that they shouldn't be included. They are certainly reputable but they, in my opinion, violate WP:NOR. "

Correct.


 * " The document describes the person as Portuguese twice but his name is empty. However, Antonio Rumeo De Armas in his book identifies the person, whose name is omitted, as Christopher Columbus by matching it with the payment receipt in Alonso de Quintanilla's ledgers. " El «portugués» Cristóbal Colón en Castilla." (The "Portuguese" Cristóbal Colón in Castile ) Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana, 1982. Antonio Rumeu de Armas.

Yes, but... It should be noted that Antonio Rumeu de Armas thinks Columbus was Genoese but so influenced by his years in Portugal that he could have been mistaken for a Portuguese by Spaniards. This information must be included. --Davide1941 (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it should be noted, that all historians have been "so influenced" by hearsay that they accepted some genoese wool-weaver's documents and they are unable to see the facts of the portuguese life of Colón and thus have been "mistaken" that a Portuguese speaking Admiral could at the same time be a non-Genoese speaking wool-weaver.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This is exactly what can't happen. You are arguing about the accuracy of the information in the article when the only, and I mean only, thing that matters is whether the information can be supported by a reliable source. If it is, it can go in. If it isn't then it can't. Whether you personally think the information is accurate has nothing whatsoever to with Wikipedia and discussing it is not an appropriate use of the talk page. It says this right at the very top - it's the first thing you see when when the page loads. Seriously, become an academic if you want to have that kind of discussion. Robinr22 (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Include: as long as the article is devoted to Origin theories of Christopher Columbus and both editors agree, that the Portuguese theory "emerges every now and then" (from whatever historians, dilettante or not, this is of no importance), this theory should be attributed with a due weight, namely it should be briefly described in the end of the article and attributed as minority view. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies.


 * Columbus was born in Genoa in 1451. Questions and alternative theories about Columbus's origins have long located his birth and upbringing in places as varied as Portugal, Spain, and north Africa, but the evidence, including 453 legal and commercial documents, overwhelmingly places him in Genoa, the son of Domenico Columbus, a weaver, tavern keeper, and local politician. Bartolomé de las Casas (Las Casas's father and several uncles accompanied Columbus on his second voyage), later a remorseless critic of the explorer, plainly states that "Christopher was universally acknowledged to be Genoese by birth."


 * The evidence of Columbus's origins in Genoa is overwhelming: almost no other figure of his class or designation has left so clear a paper trail in the archives. The modesty of his background makes his life intelligible.


 * Patrocínio Ribeiro, José Mascarenhas Barreto or Manuel Rosa ... There is only some mention of a few of the innumerable dilettantes. On the other hand, the world's leading experts on Columbus, all agree in recognizing Columbus's Genoese origin.


 * The leading North American authority, Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison, writes: The story starts in Genoa with the Discoverer's parents.
 * The leading South American authority, the Argentinian Diego Luis Molinari, writes: Christopher Columbus, Genoese, discovered America.
 * The leading European authority, Professor Paolo Emilio Taviani, writes: It is historically certain that Columbus was of Ligurian stock.
 * The greatest of all Spanish historians, Antonio Ballesteros Beretta, writes: ... No one can cast the least shadow of doubt on his being from Genoa.
 * The greatest French historian of his generation, Roger Caratini, writes: All serious scholars and documents agree, that Columbus was the son of a Genoese weaver...

These are the greatest Columbians

As a last decisive blow to Rosa's imaginative and arbitrary construction, I quote Ballesteros' severe concluding judgement: "All the arguments that deny the Genoese origin of Columbus are based on suppositions or fanciful guesses." --Davide1941 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All of this makes a wonderful argument to state that Columbus was born in Genoa in the Christopher Columbus article. This article instead is devoted to Origin theories of Christopher Columbus (or minority views in terms of WP:NPOV), so fringe theories which have or used to have significant amount of followers, regardless of their scientific value and correctness, should be included. The actual origin of Columbus is not important for the scope of this article. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Manuel Rosa presented his thesis on the discovery of America relying, as always, on suppositions and interpretations of texts. His fiery imagination spurs him on to endless interpretation. He searches and probes, and from the flimsiest thread in an ancient document he constructs an edifice, solid only in outward appearance, for his "Colòn".
 * The adult Columbus appeared in Genoese records in October 1470 in connection with a commercial transaction. "In the name of our Lord, " it begins, "Christopher Columbus, son of Domenico, more than nineteen years of age, and in the presence of, and by the authority, advice and consent of Domenico, his father, present and authority, advice and consent of Domenico, his father, present and authorizing, voluntarily ... confessed and in truth publicly recognized, that he must give and pay to Pietro Belesio of Porto Maurizio, sono of Francesco, present, forty-eight lire, thirteen soldi and six denari di genovini, and this is for the remainder owed for wine sold and consigned to the same Christopher and Domenico by Pietro." Domenico promised to guarantee his son's obligation in the presence of several witnesses including Raffaele of Bisagno, a baker.
 * My object is not to remove the various theories... but improving wikipedia with reliable sources.
 * Reliable sources, not suppositions, original researches, interpretations of texts, or imaginary delusions. --Davide1941 (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop flooding this page with references to the opponents of this fringe theory. All those kilobytes of text You've posted in this discussion are only relevant to the Christopher Columbus article. The article in discussion is not about the origin of Columbus, it is about theories! And this theory has enough reliable (in terms of Wikipedia policy, not science) sources. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. --Davide1941 (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I cannot find any independent reliable sources paying attention to any of the various Portuguese theories, which makes them thoroughly non-notable. We must not rely solely on primary sources and self-published websites. --Lambiam 19:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To the editor wishing to include claims that Columbus was not an Italian, this is not the place to handle these topics. If you think it's a reasonable theory then you should be convincing experts of that. When you accomplish that, then we can change this article to reflect that historians have a question on it. Right now it just looks like WP:FRINGE beliefs, and those cannot be given WP:UNDUE weight in articles. DreamGuy (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia we also report on fringe theories (Jesus bloodline, Modern geocentrism, Shakespeare authorship question, ...). When such fringe theories are notable, there is no reason not to report on them, as long as we do it from a neutral point of view. But we must have a not-too-low threshold for inclusion; otherwise it is on open invitation for everyone to come and push their favourite fringe theories here. With respect to the Portuguese origin theories, the issue is not whether mainstream historians are convinced of any of them (they are not), but whether any of these theories enjoy sufficient notability that we should report on them here. --Lambiam 21:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We aren't actualy reporting. We are writing an encyclopedia. A report may include theories of all kinds for nearly any reason. What we are doing is simply documenting in a disintrested and neutral manner the subject as viewed through mainstream, published reliable sources. The difference is very large. What has to be done is to step back and ask yourself (both parties), "Do I think or know I am right...or, am I going from the all the reliable sources and documenting the information in a neutral manner with due weight? If the answer is you think you are correct. Maybe it's time for a wikibreak and let others deal with this on the article mainspace.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Polish Theory Piggybacks on the Portuguese theory
Aired Saturday on Polish TV Krakow, Columbus was ours say the Polish in TV video documentary.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Nick Baltahzar discusses the Portuguese Theory on Belgium TV documentary on Columbus ( youtu.be/pYwv6U8Ngmo ).Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The name if the island is Madeira, not Madera. The book "La historia nunca contada" may have a spelling error. Isn't it instead "A história nunca contada?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.51.244 (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Galician hypothesis?
Some of the evidence given to support the Portuguese hypothesis is based on language (as mentioned above, plenty of toponyms given by Columbus seem of Portuguese resonance whilst none are Genoese. I understand that from the casual observer's perspective, Galician is an inexistent language and hence any departure from Castillian will be tagged to Portuguese but there's at least one serious proponent for the Galician alternative explanation (Alfonso Philippot).

I find it striking that one of the most apparently (to my untrained eye) complete theories around Columbus' origins is not listed here. I understand that this is not a History forum to discern the validity of each claim and that the proponent does not spring from academic circles but 20+ years of work and a 700 book to show for might provide some grounds / interest to include this "Galician" hypothesis in this wikipedia page.

Some of the cornerstones of this hypothesis:
 * Well recorded existance of the "Colón" surname in the southern coasts of Galicia before the emergence of the historical figure.
 * Toponyms given by Columbus on his journeys relate directly to those used to mark distinct parts of the Galician coasts - Punta Lanzada, Santo Tomé, etc.
 * Nobility of the proposed person's family and strong naval ties (Lords of Soutomaior).
 * Strong family ties between the proposed nobleman's wife and those who tried to aid Columbus in Portugal.
 * Strong coincidences between Columbus' coat of arms and that of the Soutomaior family.
 * Galaico-Portuguese (very close languages that had split just a couple hundred years back) texts authored by Columbus.
 * Participation of the proposed nobleman in uprising against the Kings of Spain. This would explain the fact that he first proposed the trip to the Portuguese Crown and the need to conceal his identity from the records in his dealings with the Spanish Crown.

Since I'm a newbie, I didn't want to edit it myself before discussing this idea in the talk page. --Bakshish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.15.37.209 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Balance is not a trick
From Wiki Essay Pulling a rabbit out of a hat

Neutrality is an important aspect to any encyclopedia. The balance between viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in sources is necessary. "When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Balance. Sometimes an editor will attempt to state that there needs to be a balance of all view points. No, that is not actually true. As stated, balance is in regards to EQUAL opposing view points. We do not attempt to elevate a lesser point of view found within a fringe theory. Currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. As editors, we should not be taking a stand for or against. We either omit them or describe them in their proper context to established beliefs. Giving "equal validity" --Amadscientist (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is so large that the arguers forget that the article is called "Origin theories of Christopher Columbus". The most part of the sources state that he was Genoese. It's true, but HERE we are trying to write an article about fringe theories about the origin of Christopher Columbus. In this discussion page we shouldn't discuss if he was genoese, chinese, indian or zimbabwean. We should discuss if there are people defending that he was not genoese who are those people and what are the proves they present.Japf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

ALL sections on this page need to be expanded. There's a myriad of facts on the Italian, Spanish and Catalan wikis that is missing from here.
I am surprised that nobody is aware that Spain, in its current state, simply didn't exist back then. Instead there were two absolutely different countries united by a marriage of their respective King and Queen. The countries were vastly different in everything ranging from culture and language to administration, seafaring and industrialization. Castilla and Catalonia were two absolutely different nations just like France and Germany are today. Despite that they were "technically" united, the catalans never accepted the king imposed on their lands by Castilla and the two nations were in fact almost constantly at war.

So, to the point: During this era, the word "foreigner" was in fact "Genovese", which even extended to newly converted jews. This expression reaches levels of absurdity when there are notes about Columbus saying "he is Genovese, but we don't know from where". Thus technically being a citizen of both countries, he was a complete alien in one of them, thus systematically labelled "Genovese", until it stuck.

There is a whole boatload of normal, understandable and logical proof to 1. Why Columbus cannot actually be Genovese, mainly because the genovese son of a merchant that never had been in a boat before was suddenly given royal titles and control over an entire expedition, or that his Italian skills were effectively nonexistant 2. The catalanity of Columbus, as for example this little pearl from the Colombian National Lirary - http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitxer:Encatalan.jpg - that clearly states that a letter from Columbus to Lluís de Santàngel was written in Catalan.

The biggest problem here is that we have overwhelming evidence of various Spanish censors that systematically have translated and erased all sorts of written books and documents from Catalan to Castillan for centuries and even, as a country, took the Catalan national flag just to brand the immense naval Catalan history as theirs (check images from those times, Castillan and Catalan naval flags are completely different until Castilla effectively appropriated the Catalan one as its own and history looks full of Spanish-only ships with two different flags). These are all facts and in light of such understanding it's easy to see why a "Genovese" version would be supported and facts to how such a person could walk in and out of both Castillan and Catalan royal courts like it was nobody's business would be ignored.

This version is also heavily supported and aggregated by the Portugese theory, since Joan Cristòfor Colom, the Catalan admiral, rebel and ruler was part of a powerful family with blood ties directly to the Portugese court, which coincidentally also was fighting against Castilla at that time. Cristòfor Colom conveniently spent many years in Portugal and married Felipa de Coïmbra, which strenghened his family powers.

This version is also heavily supported by the Gallician and Balear theories since the Colom family had quite an extensive reach and had a powerful presense in both of these. They had fought with Castilla for generations and even had blood ties to the Danish royal family, which I believe is the anchor point of another theory that can be aggregated without any problems.

In any case, the kicker is that the Genovese theory is full of plot holes and impossibilities that simply don't fit together, which is why there is a page on the origin of Cristofer Columbus to start with. It can still be any of suggestions above or any combination thereof, not to mention all other possibilities.

I find the investigation process exciting and very interesting as it gives us a lot of understanding of the world from those days. However, this page (especially the English version) has a grave problem, which essentially leads me to believe that user Davide1941 should take a break frow Wikipedia in its entirety. As I see it, his presence only hampers the very essense of the wiki ideology - which is bringing all facts from all sides of a scientific debate to the table and present them as they are, including both evidence and critism where possible. If people over at the quantum theory pages debating the origins of everything that is can be civil, how come we have some fanatic totalitarian that rules this article as "his"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.116.240.25 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A debate about his origin is absolutely inappropriate here, this is not a forum. Discuss what sources you think we are missing, by all means, but don't debate the origin and don't attack other editors. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So, to the point: During this era, the word "foreigner" was in fact "Genovese", which even extended to newly converted jews. - says the anon above. That's interesting if true. Sources for that assertion? 192.12.88.41 (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Quick note for our anonymous user: the reference to the letter to Santangel is to the Columbus letter hurriedly arranged for publication in Barcelona by Aragonese officials, which contains a number of "Catalanisms" in its spellings. The letter is not, however, in Catalan, as can be immediately seen from the original fascimile and transcript.  Walrasiad (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Correction suggested
In the Catalan theory, the following is written:

''Throughout Columbus's life, he referred to himself as Christobal Colom; his contemporaries and family also referred to him as such. It is possible that Colom is the shortened form of Columbus used for the Italian surname Colombo (which means "dove"). Colom can also be a Portuguese, French, or Catalan name, and in the latter means "dove"''.

This sentence contains several mistakes that should be corrected. He never referred to himself as Colom in any document but Colon which are two very district words and meanings. Neither Colon no Colom are Portuguese names. Colom however is a Catalan name which means Pigeon, the same a Colomb in French, Pombo in Portuguese and Colombo in Italian and Columbus in Latin. However, the "Colon" used by the discoverer was borrowed from the Greek κῶλον, as in the semi-colon, meaning Member, as his son, D. Hernando Colon explained. Therefore I suggest someone make the appropriate corrections. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Kolumbus was Polish after all
As Manuel Rosa had been saying for years, Kolumbus was Polish after all... "His development also met with approval by historians. Sometimes taking a dispute with the assumptions contained therein, they remain extremely impressed by the sources of hard work, made by the author of twenty-one years of research."Kolumb1444 (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So who were these historians? Let's see who they were and exactly what they said. A press release from Rosa's publisher on the company's website isn't exactly impressive, they are, after all, trying to sell his book. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that one who read his books and not contest Rosa's information is telling. Does anyone who read the book not agree with it? it is the questionKolumb1444 (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You could find out if you could find a review of it in a serious journal. But you can't - because it's not considered serious scholarship. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't find any book review but only Student at the Institute of History, Warsaw University History Magazine interview by Google translation http://histmag.org/?id=6695 - Also found here that With substantial volume editors responsible Assoc. Maciej Forycki of the Institute of History University. Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan and World renowned professor at the University of Lisbon, Joaquim Verissimo Serrao, author of the foreword to the book Rosa, agree with the theses without reservations. As Professor James T. McDonough, http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/palio/html.run?_Instance=cms_naukapl.pap.pl&_PageID=1&s=szablon.depesza&dz=ksiazka&dep=390015&data=&lang=PL&_CheckSum=1402299582 anyway i leave it to other to look and edit.Kolumb1444 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The first article calls him "professor of History at Duke University" which he isn't - so thats less credibility right there. The last link doesn't mention any professor McDonough. The author of the foreword is also of course not a critical reviewer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

President of Portuguese Academy of History finaly agree with historian Manuel Rosa and admitting Columbus was Portuguese http://da.ambaal.pt/agenda/?id=691 - again the Rosa was right he write that Cristóbal Colón son of poland king and portuguese noble dame.Kolumb1444 (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a distortion of what the article says, which is "Regarding the possible origin of the Portuguese navigator, and Cuba, advocated by the Association Christopher Columbus, the historian believes, or Columbus "was Portuguese, or came very new to Portugal", but admits he does not have data to substantiate any of these hypotheses". Note the 'came very new to Portugal'. Please try to present sources more accurately. Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Lady President of the Portuguese Academy of History, in a more correct explanation of the newspaper article, because google mixes somethings up, she said that "Columbus was Portuguese or, if not, then Columbus must have come to Portugal VERY YOUNG" - what her explained in the conference of Cuba, May 19 is Columbus had Portuguese language as his mothertongue and that for his to not speak Italian and to base Castilian writing of his on the Portuguese language, he was Portuguese or other option lived in Portugal since a very young days. Either way, the historian Rosa is right. The research of his was been accepted by the toppest organization of Historians in Portugal. Thus Cristóbal Colón, Almirante e Viceroy is the impossible to be the Colombo weaver!!!Kolumb1444 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting the issue - even if the Maria Manuela Mendonça had accepted the theory (which is not completely clear from the statement in the Diario de Alentejo piece) that does not mean that the organization she represents has accepted it, and even if it had that doesn't mean that the rest of the world's historians have. When this starts appearing in peer reviewed history journals we'll see. The theory is already included in the article. Untill you have evidence that it has become the most accepted alternative origin theory based on high quality sources this has no relevance for the article. I must remind you that the article is not a forum for discussion of the topic - only for improvements to the article. Unless you have suggestions for improvement of the article please don't continue to post this kind of stuff.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Genovese Marrano?
While Jews were apparently banned from Genoa in the 12th century, Jews could very well have migrated to that city and hidden their religion under Catholic disguise - and, over centuries, gotten good at it. Some might have forgotten their origins; others could well have remembered, and traditions could persist for centuries. Anyhow, while the aforementioned hypothesis is original research, it shows how a Marrano origin could be reconciled with the evidence that Columbus was Genoese and publicly Catholic. Columbus's family might, for all we know, have come from the Iberian peninsula, when Jews still lived there in the open, to Genoa, which banned Jews, and thus had to become proto-Marranos (which could explain Columbus's fluency in Spanish). Charles Garcia's hypothesis might then be plugged into that narrative. 192.12.88.41 (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice "theory", however one should be aware that Isabel and Fernando helped to hide Columbus's identity and therefore, the Jewish argument falls. Furthermore in 1484 when Columbus moved to Spain along with the Jew Don Isaac Abravanel because of the treasons against King John II or Portugal, Spain was not yet persecuting Jews and Abravanel never hid that he was a Jew and was in fact employed but the Spanish court. So Columbus being Jew to hide from Isabel and Fernando is as much fantasy as it was him being Genoese.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jews not persecuted in Spain in 1484? Oh come now. They hadn't been expelled. But there was this small detail called the Inquisition. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Conversos were persecuted but Jews (those who did not convert) were tolerated and had lived in Spain and Portugal since before Spain and Portugal were independent kingdoms. They were not "persecuted" in the sense that they were not forced into Christian conversions. Prior to 1492, they had their own communities called Judarias where they owned their homes, shops and lived. They were required to remain inside their "community" from sundown to sunup. They were not allowed to marry Christians. They were allowed to intermingle and do business in the kingdom. The persons who were persecuted were the "converts" who took on the Christian faith for personal gain only but who continued secretly to follow the Jewish religion an that only begun Spanish Inquisition in September 1480. In 1492, after the conquest of Granada, Spain decided to expel all the Jews. This did not mean they were expelling the "conversos" who were now Christians and Jews who wished to convert were allowed to stay. Therefore it makes no sense that Columbus would "convert" in 1484 to hide that he was a Jew, when Jews were not being persecuted but conversos were. In fact another person who escaped with Columbus from Portugal at the same time, was Isaac Abrabanel who never hid that he was a Jew and even worked for Isabella and Fernando until 1492. Furthermore Columbus always put a cross at the top of his letters, even to his son, held the Christian religious services like a professed monk, wanted to evangelize the New World and the recapture of Jerusalem was a dream not only of Columbus but all of Christianity.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggested correction
"Many historians, including a distinguished Spanish scholar, Altolaguirre, affirm the document's authenticity; others believe it apocryphal.[nb 2] The fact that it was produced in court, during a lawsuit among the heirs of Columbus, in 1578, does not strengthen the case for its being genuine.[4]"

This document was not produced in 1578, but circa 1588 and it was not the "heirs of Columbus" who produced it but a Genoese pretender named Baltazar Colombo. Thus the article should be corrected. Further we should note that Altolaguirre affirms that if a confirmation found by Navarrette is true than the document must be accepted as genuine. That is different from "affirm the document's authenticity".Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Assereto Document is a forgery
We now can show that the Assereto Document is a forgery. not only is it nor notarized, dated nor signed by anyone, but it is actually composed of several documents witha t least three different handwritings....anyone with one good eye can spot the forgery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QtQJk53P5k nice going by the Italian Mussolini (Duce of Fascism)'s government to falsify history but today we are free to seek the truth.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The version comes from "Christopher Columbus: the grand design" and is written by Paolo Emilio Taviani, who is the main Italian biographer of Columbus. The highest authority. --Aries no Mur (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean Taviani's ORIGINAL RESEARCH can be utilized as a Source, but Rosa's cannot?Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism: Portuguese hypothesis
1) Proponents of the Portuguese hypothesis also point to a court document which stated that Columbus' nationality was "Portuguese"

(Rumeu de Armas, Antonio. "El «portugués» Cristóbal Colón en Castilla." Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana, 1982. p. 29.) It should be noted that Rumeu de Armas thinks Columbus was Genoese but so influenced by his years in Portugal that he could have been mistaken for a Portuguese by Spaniards. See also: Phillips, William D.; Phillips, Carla R. "The worlds of Christopher Columbus." Cambridge University Press, 1992. p. 283. This is an original research.

2) In Martin Waldseemüller's 1516 Carta Marina there is a note of correction by Waldseemüller where Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci are described as "Captains of Portugal."

On a section of the map showing the Caribbean, in 1507, Martin Waldseemuller had written, with throwaway casualness (and in much smaller print): "These islands were discovered by Columbus, an Admiral of Genoa, at the command of the King of Spain." See also: ("Columbus." Oxford University Press, 1991.)

In 1516 world map (the Carta Marina), Waldseemüller had written:

" After the bold citizens of Venice, the great pontiffs Clement IV and Gregory X, and after both Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci, captains of Portugal, published the accounts of their discoveries many things were added to our knowledge. "

The text does not say that Christopher Columbus was a Portuguese, in fact Amerigo Vespucci was born around 1454 in Florence. The text says that both were "captains of Portugal." This is a controversial interpretation of primary sources. --Aries no Mur (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Official" Columbus vs. Cristóbal Colon
There comes a point when anyone looking into the Columbus story runs across several impassible roadblocks and those prevent any further investigation. The first one is the name Colon used by the navigator which was corrupted to Colombo by many, the second is that Colon hid his past so that nobody would ever be able to identity his true identity. Therefore an "official" Columbus was agreed upon by world academics but that story leaves many pieces out of the puzzle, invents many pieces and denies other pieces even though there is proof of them. In answer to "Dougweller Let's see proof of this on the talk page, and why "official" and why in scare quotes?" regarding the silliness of the idea that Colon was considered "Portuguese" by Queen Isabel's court simply because he had lived in Portugal for so long that he was confused with the other Portuguese who went to Spain, one needs only to gander at the official tale. The official tale states that the peasant Colombo arrived in Portugal from a shipwreck in August 1476 without a penny to his name and ran away to Spain in end of 1484 afraid that King John II would detain him. FISRT: 1476 to 1484 is only 8 (eight) years. No one living in a foreign country can be mistaken as a native after only 8 measly years. SECOND: any peasant arriving in any kingdom from a shipwreck without money or any other resources would NEVER marry a noble-lady in just 2 years and certainly it would be below any King's caring whether or not he ran away to another kingdom. Conclusion: we are dealign with two distinct personalities: One Italian Colombo peasant wool-weaver and one Portuguese nobleman with close ties to King John II. Furthermore the Last Will of 1498 is a forgery created 80 years after Colon died and the Assereto is another forgery created in 1904. False documents do not make for a true history.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 1476 to 1484. No one living in a foreign country can be mistaken as a native after only 8 measly years.


 * This statement is false. Most historians place Columbus's arrival in Portugal between 1470 and 1473. He wrote that he had "served the king [of Portugal]" for fourteen years before coming to Spain. By one of his own calculations he had arrived in Spain around 1483; therefore he would have arrived in Portugal around 1469. There appears to be general agreement that he had been in Spain for approximately seven years before 1492, the year of the discovery. This would have had him arriving in Spain around 1485. Deducting his own claimed fourteen years in Portugal, we have him arriving there at the latest around 1471. Furthermore, Columbus married a Portuguese woman and lived in Lisbon and on the island of Madeira. The only evidence of a Portuguese Columbus, is an error in good faith of those who wrote the document. See also: "The Discovery of America." Harrisse (Op. cit. tom. ip 263.)


 * Assereto is another forgery created in 1904


 * For Paolo Emilio Taviani the document is authentic. See also: "Christopher Columbus: the grand design." (Taviani, Paolo Emilio. P. 18.) It is important to bear in mind that at the time when Assereto traced the document, it would have been impossible to make an acceptable facsimile. Nowadays, with modern chemical processes, a document can be 'manufactured', made to look centuries old if need be, with such skill that it is hard to prove it is a fake. Fifty years ago this was still impossible.


 * Every other historian, without exception, agrees that the document is genuine. See also: Jacques Heers, Samuel Eliot Morison, Juan Manzano y Manzano, Diego Luis Molinari, Antonio Ballesteros Beretta and Consuelo Varela Bueno to name a few. --Aries no Mur (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Aries no Mur: Historians agree that the weaver from Genoa arrived in Portugal August 1476 not 1470, but Thank You for supporting what I have been saying here. Without you knowing it you have affirmed that the man who discovered America COULD NOT BE the wool-weaver from Genoa son of Domenico of Quinto. You see the Raccolta Documents prove that the Wool-Weaver's son was still living in Genoa and not in Lisbon in 1470 and 1472. Furthermore the man who discovered America NEVER was called Colombo but Colon. Historians and chroniclers, however, have corrupted the truth but their invention of facts that are not documented. For instance, Peter Martyr ALWAYS called the discoverer as COLONUS (from the Greek κόλον) while Italians and English speakers always called him by the wrong name of Colombo and Columbus (which means Pigeon and not κόλον). Furthermore, many writers, including Morison and Tavianni have drastically invented and embellished without any proof. Event the first English translation of Peter Martyr's Opera. Legatio Babilonica Occeanea Decas. Poemata done by Richard Eden in 1555 Martyr's words were falsified by the statement "otherwise called Columbus". Peter Martyr wrote: "Christophorus Quidam Colonus Ligur Vir Regibus Proposuit..." while Richard Eden wrote "Christophorus Colonus (otherwise called Columbus) A gentilman of Italy, borne in the citie of Genua, perswaded Fernando and Elyzabeth..." As has been the case with most writers, Richard Eden, INVENTED this (otherwise called Columbus) A gentilman of Italy, borne in the citie of Genua as if Peter Martyr had written it, which Martyr HAD NOT. If Cristóbal Colon had been living in Portugal in 1470, THEN he NEVER could be the same weaver "Colombo of Quinto" and this is what Manuel Rosa has consistently stated in all his works declaring that the history of "Columbus" was a well-woven fable without any proof whatsoever. And the Assereto document is false, just have a look, The document speaks for itself.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Historians agree that the weaver from Genoa arrived in Portugal August 1476 not 1470

This statement is false. See also: Davidson, Miles H. "Columbus then and now: a life reexamined." Page 36. ''The actual date for his arrival in Portugal can be placed, with any degree of certainty, only within a time frame of the two years of 1470 and 1471. Columbus stated that he lived there for fourteen years, until either 1484 or 1485.'' I respect your opinion but it is the wrong opinion. Bye. --Aries no Mur (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only is it the wrong opinion, but it is also the wrong place to post it. Colon-el-nuevo, the next time you make a soapboxing post like this one that is not backed up with reliable sources I will not only delete your comment, but report you for persistent disruptive editing. STOP IT. ikipedia is not a place for you to publish your original research, or promote fringe research by others.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maunus The main Columbus article says that (...In 1473 Columbus began his apprenticeship as business agent for the important Centurione, Di Negro and Spinola families of Genoa. Later he allegedly made a trip to Chios, a Genoese colony in the Aegean Sea.[20] In May 1476, he took part in an armed convoy sent by Genoa to carry a valuable cargo to northern Europe. He docked in Bristol, England;[21] Galway, Ireland and was possibly in Iceland in 1477. In 1479 Columbus reached his brother Bartolomeo in Lisbon, while continuing trading for the Centurione family...) Thus by Wikipedia's own article, he only got to Lisbon in 1479. If the discoverer had arrived in Portugal between "1470 and 1471" than the discoverer is completely incompatible with the Raccolta documents which show the peasant Colombo weaver still living in Genoa in 1472. But most historians claimed that Columbus arrived in Portugal from a shipwreck in 1476 although a few historians noted that the 1476 date was incompatible with the discoverer's own accounts of his life, the majority still accepts that it was 1476 when he arrived in Portugal. Again it seems that the theory presented in the Raccolta documents that the discoverer was the wool-weaver from Quinto was wrong and the article should be edited to reflect that. It is not compatibel to show documents stating that the Colombo from Quinto was working and living in Genoa and Savona and then claim that he was already living in Lisbon in 1470. The article should be edited to reflect that. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And it will be when you provide 1 reliable source stating that most scholars have gotten the 1476 date wrong. I am not taking your word for that, nor should anyone else. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ʍaunus, don't get confused. When I contested Aries no Mur's claim that CC arrived in Portugal in 1470-71 saying that the majority of historians give the date as 1476, you wrote that that "Not only is it (the date of 1476) the wrong opinion, but it is also the wrong place to post it." Now you want me to show that "Most scholars had gotten the date of 1476 wrong"... I think that is a task you should request of Aries no Mur since that is the editor who claims the date of 1470-71. To me these dates are irrelevant since CC was Portuguese-born, his date of arrival in Portugal is in the 1448 time period. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese hypothesis
In the Portuguese hypothesis have been reported some of the most important contemporary historians (as Consuelo Varela) to support of the Portuguese theory. Therefore, they should agree also in laboring to promote it. Varela, Consuelo. Christopher Columbus and the Mystery of the Bell of the Santa Maria. 2008, p. 13.

She writes: "...new and bizarre conjectures, is that of the origin and birth date of Christopher Columbus, despite the fact that all chroniclers of that period wrote that he was from Liguria in northern Italy."

On other pages, the Spanish historian, writes that the evidence of Columbus's origins in Genoa is "overwhelming".

Question. This action is correct or is yet another original research ? --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

ORIGINS
The main support for the “genovesity” of Crhistopher Columbus is the called document Assereto of 1479 (called like the one who discovered it in 1904, Hugo Assereto), which carries us to Cristóbal Columbus that supposedly was born in Genoa (Some historians affirm that it was born in other other Italian cities). But any serious historian or good fan to the topics of history must admit that still the doubts persist on this theory or affirmation. To say that it is a closed topic only reflects the interest for the permanency of the current version of these origins for simple convenience, something imprudent in a topic so doubtful and discussed like this one.. This is one of the doubts or contradictions of the official version or commonly accepted version: Fernando II of Aragon or Fernando the Catholic was born in Sos of the Catholic King on 10 March 1452, that is to say, would be younger that Cristopher Columbus whose birth supposes happened in Italy in 1451. It is known that from the year 1494, it was prohibited to all the citizens of the realm (Castilla and Aragon), employ mules like animal of transport for people. As what pretended was to increase the number of horses in the realm, The king gave example stopping to ride mules, as usually it did it. In 1504 (It is supposed that Genoa's Columbus had the age of 53 years) Cristopher Columbus, requests to the king Fernando dispenses to be able to travel riding a mule since his age prevents him travel riding in a so nervous animal like a horse. Registered in the Archive of Simancas and in date 23 February 1505, exists a cocument of the king Fernando conceding to Cristobal Colon licence to ride a mule by any parts of these realms. The King says: “By what am informed that you the Admiral Cristóbal Colon are indisposed of your person by some illnesses that have had and have, and you can not ride a horse without a lot of damage of your health: therefore, observing the aforementioned and your old age, by the present I give you licence so that you can ride a mule by any parts of these realms [...] Date in the city of Toro to twenty and three February one thousand, five hundred quinientos and five. A king aged of 53 years and who still consideres himself like a active person speaks “Your old age” referring to somebody that practically has his same age?. It is logic to recognise that something does not agree in all this, something goes wrong, but it has certain verisimilitude if we believe like certainly that Coumbus died in Valladolid in 1506, having 70 years, "senectute bona" or "age of seventy years" because this way the contemporary historians had written it. That is to say, he dies on the following year of which the king Fernando was granting license to him for not to ride horses in his trips. The King Fernando died on 23 January of 1516 in Madrigalejo (province of Cáceres), when it went to assist to the chapter of the orders of Calatrava and Alcántara in the Monastery of Guadeloupe

Although they persist the doubts on the origin of Cristóbal Columbus, little by little the theory of his catalanity goes earning followers like Charles J. Merrill, Gerard Garrigue, Estelle Irizarry, without mentioning to the ones of Spain. They exist basic and simple doubts on his "genovesity" like that a son of a wool weave had familiar heraldic shield which expanded the king Fernando, when the heraldic shields were conceded to noble people by the king, his Courts or Real Chancelleries. The title of Admiral in the crown of Aragon (initially in the one of Castilla did not exist, conceded the one of General Captain) was reserved to the royal family, as well as the title of Viceroy or "Visorey" of the crown of Aragon. It results incredible that a son of trader by prosperous that it was, plant in front of one of the most powerful kings of his time and in return to loan him a service demand him those titles. On the other hand, if it was genovés of Génova, it is necessary to remember that the Spanish laws forbade of form expresses that any foreigner had any public charge. It is not an opinion without foundation the theory of the catalanity of the discoverer in the person of "Joan Colom i Beltran". The same brothers, the same stay in Portugal after a shipwreck, the fact that it was a prestigious sailor. That it had to escape for struggling at the side of the counts of Urgell against the Trastamara family (the family of de king Fernando). There was thought that he had died according to a document in 1472, maybe appears again with name and signature in documents of 1484, 1487 and 1490 that still conserve. He married Felipa de Coimbra the youngest daughter of Pedro of Portugal, First duke of Coimbra and of Isabel “of Urgel and Aragon”, daughter of the count James II of “Urgell”. Maybe of his stay in Portugal come from the words of portuguese influence that can be read in his writings, combined with words of catalan influence They have not found words of Italian influence in his writings, and when it has tried to write in Italian, it has done it of almost ridiculous form remaining demonstrated his ignorance of this language It signed many of his writings with a "J" crossed by a "S", that all linguists knows that it means "Joanness" or Juan or Joan (Juan in Catalan language) maybe Joan Colom i Beltran? Had with his brother a business of cartography in Portugal, his maps reflect the form to do of the Catalan cartography, which learnt according to some during a long stay in the Balearic, maybe Ibiza

Note: I apologize for my bad english — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikibcnes (talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

little by little the theory of his catalanity goes earning followers like Charles J. Merrill, Gerard Garrigue, Estelle Irizarry, without mentioning to the ones of Spain

Hi Mikibcnes :)

The vast majority of Spanish historians think that Christopher Columbus was Genoese. Examples include: Ballesteros Beretta, Manzano, Navarrete, Munoz, Duro, Asensio, Altolaguirre, Perez de Tudela, Manuel Alvar, Ciroanescu, Rumeu de Armas, Morales Padron, Muro Orejon, Martinez Hidalgo, Emiliano Jos, Demetrio Ramos, Juan Gil, Ballesteros Gaibrois, Milhou, Serrano y Sanz to name a few.

The most important contemporary Spanish historian, Consuelo Varela, has defined the theories that deny the Genoese origin of Columbus as "bizarre conjectures." But the overwhelming weight of evidence and the opinion of almost all serious scholars support the statements made by his early biographers and by contemporary commentators.

Happy reading ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus#Confirmation_of_the_Genoese_origin_from_contemporary_European_writers --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is true. Consuelo Varela has written that the Discoverer was Genoese. The Spanish historian has often worked with Paolo Emilio Taviani.

See: --Aries no Mur (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Consuelo Varela and many other people have written that the discoverer was "Genoese" that does not make it true and the discoverer not once said where he was born. A lot of invention has been written and one must not get confused between invention and fact. Here is one very interesting fact:
 * This is what is written in Peter Martyr's book: PETRI MARTYRIS... Christophorus Colonus Ligur vid, Fernãdo & Helisabethae Regibus Catholicis proposuit... (De Orbe Novo, (1530).
 * Here is what Richard Eden (the first English translation) translated it to: WRITTEN BY PETER MARTYR... Christophorus Colonus (other wise called Columbus) A gentilman of Italy, borne in the citie of Genua, persuaded Fernando and Elyzabeth, catholike princes... (Decades of the New World (1555) translation of Peter Martyr)
 * this phrase: (other wise called Columbus) A gentilman of Italy, borne in the citie of Genua was inserted by Eden without proof nor warning the readers that Peter Martyr did NOT write this. And like this, there are thousands of examples of writers inventing and inserting information where it is not on the original document and then others utilizing that invention as proof when there is no proof. Taviani did the same thing and he left our the Portuguese life of the discoverer, a life which completely negates a peasant birth. Reasonable people accept the doubt.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2012(UTC)

For Mikibcnes

Of course, all this information is false.

Primary sources:


 * http://books.google.it/books?hl=it&id=jGDNHKpQtowC&pg=PA90&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * http://books.google.it/books?id=vAUVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA81&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * http://books.google.it/books?id=mZAu2Y0EWY8C&pg=PA76&lpg=#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * http://books.google.it/books?id=sO1FAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA17&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false

Etc.

Don't take Colon El-Nuevo's word for that. He is prone to make arguments like this based almost exclusively on controversial interpretations of primary sources, and his favourite historian the IT analyst Manuel Rosa. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are very interesting. I quote you two sources and instead of you showing what the two sources say, you show me sources that have nothing to do with the sources I quoted. Nice try.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Consuelo Varela, the most important contemporary historian of Spain, Professor of the University of Seville writes: "...new and bizarre conjectures, is that of the origin and birth date of Christopher Columbus, despite the fact that all chroniclers of that period wrote that he was from Liguria in northern Italy." She, implicitly, considers all testimony of contemporaries of Christopher Columbus, as trusted.

The Historians:


 * Miles H. Davidson
 * Felipe Fernández-Armesto
 * Washington Irving
 * Samuel Eliot Morison
 * William D. Phillips, Carla Rahn Phillips
 * Paolo Emilio Taviani
 * Mario Di Giovanni
 * Consuelo Varela
 * Gianni Granzotto

Etc.

With the greatest of respect... tell it as it is. I would like a reliable source that confirms his point of view. Where is the source? Thanks. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Gianni Granzotto and Washington Irving were not "History PhD.s" therefore their contributions are as valid as Manuel Rosa's.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Washington Irving "an American author, essayist, biographer and historian of the early 19th century."
 * Gianni Granzotto for his book "Christopher Columbus" won the Literary Prize in 1984. The book has been translated into many languages ​​and is used in Universities:

But we should not dwell on these details, should we ?

Your author is not a historian but a "history buff" is different. Why didn't you answer my question ? Reliable sources of important contemporary historians. Where is the source? Thanks. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what source you need, The source is the books themselves: in Peter Martyr's book it reads "Christophorus Colonus Ligur vid, Fernãdo & Helisabethae Regibus Catholicis proposuit..." (De Orbe Novo, (1530).
 * Richard Eden (the first English translation) it reads "WRITTEN BY PETER MARTYR... Christophorus Colonus (other wise called Columbus) A gentilman of Italy, borne in the citie of Genua, persuaded Fernando and Elyzabeth, catholike princes..." (Decades of the New World (1555) translation of Peter Martyr) - Richard Eden added text that had NOT been written by Peter Martyr.


 * Pg Folio iii- 10th line down is very clear what Martyr wrote: http://books.google.com/books?id=QUPN8QiZEuYC&ots=jL7WWTvRMd&dq=De%20Orbe%20Novo%20Petri%20Martyris%20ab%20Angleria&pg=PT22#v=onepage&q&f=false


 * Pg 65, beginign fo 2nd P.: http://books.google.com/books?id=VHoKAQAAIAAJ&lpg=PR9&ots=DxOPZgTvln&dq=%22Richard%20Eden%22%20Decades%20of%20the%20New%20World%20(1555)&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q=%22Richard%20Eden%22%20Decades%20of%20the%20New%20World%20(1555)&f=false


 * And like this example, Rosa says there are thousands of insertions and conversions of text to make Cristóbal Colon look like the same guy as Cristoforo Colombo. In fact Rosa is the most coherent historian of this subject, and I have read a lot of authors, you should attend his lecture at Umass Dartmouth 25th of this month. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I read two versions. This would be an evidence ? The document (Martyr) confirms the Genoese origin of Columbus with these exact words: "Christophorus Colonus Ligur vir" (= "Christopher Columbus, man of Liguria"). In the second Decade of his De Orbe Novo book I: "Christophorum Colonum ligurem" and book VII: "Christophoro Colono Genuensi". Rosa found hints of Portuguese origins in the admiral's name, in his coat of arms, and in his symbols and signature. A house of cards. I repeat my opinion: he is not a serious author. Bye. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Daedalus, one MUST be careful. I stated that Richard Eden had inserted (invented) text that was not in the original. Eden put words in Martyr's mouth. You do not accept this is what Eden did? Then show us where Martyr WROTE: (other wise called Columbus) A gentilman of Italy, borne in the citie of Genua - You also write that Peter Martyr «confirms the Genoese origin of Columbus with these exact words: "Christophorus Colonus Ligur vid» - wrong, it is NOT what Martyr says. What Martyr says is that COLONUS was Ligurian, which is not the same as being Genoese, in case you did not know. Also by saying Ligurian, it does not automatically mean that COLONUS was born in Liguria. Do you know how many Irish, Italians, Mexicans, and countless other nationalities, are actually born in the USA? Did you ever hear of anyone saying "Hey, I am Italian" when in fact they are already second generation Americans? Would you still consider a person an Italian even if they are born in the Bronx, just because they declared they were Italian? - What Rosa found were facts that deny the current history and he presented that so convincingly that all historians who have read his work agree with him, including the current president of the Portuguese Academy of History. If you want to know the correct history you need to go read the unadulterated documents NOT their translation. The adulterated translations created the house of cards of a Genoese Colombo, wool-weaving peasant while the navigator Colon, was a nobleman.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Assereto is a Forgery
The italians presented to the public a document that had been modified from its original form, they cut out blank pages and moved pages together to make it look like one continues document. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all of the time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QtQJk53P5k. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Manuel Rosa is not a reliable source. He is not a historian. Wikipedia:No original research --Aries no Mur (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Aries no Mur- Manuel Rosa has succeeded in proving that the history of a Colombo wool-weaver was trash. I have read his books and you have not. Furthermore, Manuel Rosa's books have succeeded in convincing those academics who read them. You have not read them. And to top if off, Manuel Rosa shows in all his books where the fantasy history of a Colombo wool-weaver becoming a great Admiral and Vice-roy started and who forged what documents. Not one of the Professors who read Rosa's book have come out against it, and many have come out and said they support Rosa's conclusions. You tell me how your ignorant wool-weaver, Cristoforo Colombo, son of another poor and failed wool-weaver named Domenico Colombo, who could NOT EVEN read and Write in Genoese, manage to learn and read so much that he wrote his own extensive "BOOK OF PROPHECIES" based on all the following authors, which the great discoverer Cristóbal COLÓN had read:


 * Works and Authors quoted by Cristóbal COLÓN in the Book of Prophecies from the Bible (Genesis, Exodus,Deuteronomy, I Books of Kings, Esdras, Judith, Esther, the book I Maccabees, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Wisdom, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Zechariah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Revelation, Romans, Corinthians, Thessalonians, Second Letter to Timothy, Letter to the Hebrews);


 * Works and Authors quoted by Cristóbal COLÓN in the Book of Prophecies from the Ancient Authors (Aristotle, Julius Caesar, St. Augustine, Eratosthenes, Josephus, St. Ambrose, Strabo, Marinus of Tyre, St. Gregory, Ptolemy, Diodorus Siculus, Isidoro, Seneca, Julio Capitoline, St. John Chrysostom, Solino, Ovid, St. Jerome, Plato, Pindar);


 * Works and Authors quoted by Cristóbal COLÓN in the Book of Prophecies from Medieval Authors and Works (St. Thomas Aquinas, Alfonso de Zamora, Pedro Comestor, Jean Gerson, Ben-Kothair-Ahmed, Ibn-Roshd (Averroes), Francis Meron, Breviary, John Holywood, Nicholas of Lyra, the Venerable Bede, Duns Scotus, Pierre d'Ailly, Walafrido Strabo, Albumazar, King Alfonso X, Pope Pius II, Johannes Muller, Paolo Toscanelli, Roger Bacon, Joaquim da Fiore, John Mandeville, Aquila, Merlin, The Koran, Marco Polo, Alfragano, Almanac, Rabbi Samuel, Avicenna, Alfonso Tostato, Episc. Abulensis, Nicholas Secundino). SOURCE: Kling, August and Delno C. West, "Libro de las Prophecies of Christopher Columbus." University of Florida. Gainesville, 1991......


 * Do you see the FANTASY of the Colombo Wool-Weaver Fairytale yet??? If not maybe you can tell us how the poor wool-weaver that Mr. Taviani and Mr. Morison say could NOT READ and WRITE until he was 25 and started to go to school in Portugal, managed to read all of the authors in Latin, Greek, Portuguese, Spanish and Hebrew- but NOT in Genoese???Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I - totally - agree with Aries no Mur. Manuel Rosa isn't a reliable source. "Q+A with Manuel Rosa, IT analyst at the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center."
 * Morison and Taviani? Two world-renowned historians.
 * Your edits violate four of our most important policies: WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOR, and WP:3RR. Better safe than sorry. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Felipa Perestrello e Moniz " a Portuguese noblewoman of the Order of Santiago."

 * According to the historian William D. Phillips, Columbus married Felipa Perestrello e Moniz, "whose family belonged to the Portuguese nobility. Although the family was relatively poor, they still had direct connections to the Portuguese court and the king."
 * According to the historian Eckhart, "Felipa was a lady from a poor but noble Italian family who became Columbus' wife. She and Columbus met at a church in Lisbon."
 * According to the historian Paolo Emilio Taviani, "Felipa Moniz Perestrello was noble: poor, it was true, but with four quarterings of nobility, on both her father's and her mother's side, for the Moniz family was of the highest lineage."
 * According to the historian Berne, "[...] Felipa's family was noble but poor."
 * The professor Samuel Eliot Morison wrote that this is "no great mystery." Filipa was "already about 25 years old," her mother was a widow "with slender means," and "her mother was glad enough to have no more convent bills to pay, and a son-in-law [...] who asked for no dowry."

Your edits violate two of our most important policies: WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The user "Colon-el-Nuevo" is destructive. His actions: "Original research" and "controversial interpretations of the Primare sources." Stop. ... and his favourite historian the IT analyst Manuel Rosa. Measures ? --Aries no Mur (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Daedalus&#38;Ikaros- Samuel Eliot Morison is useless when it comes to Portuguese history, he wrote things that today are clearly proven to be fantasy. Tavianni knew nothing about the history of Portugal, so little did he know that he wrote "Genoa was the foremost city of navigation of its time.." trash like this was taken as "truth" when Lisbon and NOT Genoa was the "foremost city of navigation of its time.."" Today, according to Portuguese historians, Filipa was a noble lady and a member COMENDADORA of the Portuguese Order of Santiago. So affirmed the Presidente of the Portuguese Academy of History, Manuela Mendonça, a Professor and author of Portuguese History books during her lecture on May 19, 2012, http://colon-portugues.blogspot.com/2012/06/d-joao-ii-e-cristovao-colon-que-relacao.html - she explained that Filipa Moniz was a noble in the elite of the elite of Portuguese families and it is not my fault that you guys are incapable of reading other languages. Your ignorance of the language does not make you correct in your edits. It is irrelevant what the foreign writers of the last Century, such as Tavianni, wrote. Today we have documentation of Filipa Moniz's belonging to the elite Portuguese Military Order of Santiago. It was clearly presented by Prof. Joel Mata in 1992 and then presented by Manuel Rosa in 2006, with an the actual image of the document in 2009 and accepted by the Portuguese Academics. Your insistence on denying the new evidence is ridiculous since wikipedia has the information in its Filipa Moniz Perestreloarticle. Furthermore, it is more ridiculous that you would take out statements made by the author of the "Polish Theory," seeing that those statements make up part of the very Polish theory section of the article. The insistence that we keep looking at the Columbus article through the eyes of the 1892 Raccolta, which completly ignored Portuguese documentation, is denying all the research that has taken place since 1892. Who will you belive about Portuguese families, Portuguese historians who know the country's history and can read the language, OR Italian and American historians who know nothing of Portuguese history and can't even say a word in Portuguese? Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (For Aries no Mur) Not only is it the wrong opinion, but it is also the wrong place to post it.
 * Besides 152.16.177.116 (Duke University) and Colon-el-Nuevo, how many other accounts do you have, Mr. Rosa? You have a serious conflict of interest with this subject.
 * So, now, your edits violate five of our most important policies: WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOR, WP:3RR and WP:CONFLICT --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Time will tell- All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.- Arthur Schopenhauer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.52.236.221 (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

Mr. Manuel Rosa (and inappropriate uses of alternative accounts), Wikipedia does not really care what's "true", as long as it is sourced, and by the majority consensus. And there are too many copious references and reliable sources that say he was from Genoa. And that is the majority historian consensus. Case closed.


 * So, now, your edits violate six of our most important policies: WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOR,WP:3RR, WP:CONFLICT, and WP:PUPPET. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of intent to obscure Columbus's true origin
I've picked up some bits and pieces that support the idea that Columbus or his patrons made efforts to obscure his origins. That doesn't prove anything by itself, but if that situation can be cited properly, it definitely belongs in this article somewhere, perhaps in its own section.

It appears to be impossible at this point in history to definitively prove Columbus's origin if it was successfully obscured, so all that might remain is evidence that the obscuring was done. If there is evidence to support that, then the rest of the article gains credibility. Without evidence of that, then maybe the article doesn't have credibility. Since so many respected historians keep coming up with speculations about the origin of Columbus, I think they must have detected evidence for obscuring his origin before they decided to speculate about what the truth might be. Whatever evidence they have found, ought to be cited in the article. Badon (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

For me, Christopher Columbus may also be Chinese... but the facts are these:


 * At a minimum, we can say that the vast majority of historians believe that Christopher Columbus was born Cristoforo Colombo in Genoa, Italy, around the year 1451.
 * The Columbus documents, include more than 2,500 notes penned in the margins of books he owned; some 80 letters, notes and memorials; copies of the log from his first New World voyage; and volumes he compiled.
 * Apart from the documents, there is the testimony of contemporaries. There are at least twenty such publications in the 16th century and nine in the 17th century. In addition, there were sixty-two by Italian writers.
 * Then there is the eloquent testimony of the ambassadors: Angelo Trevisan, Gasparo Contarini, Pedro de Ayala, and Nicolò Oderico.
 * In a testament executed in 1539, Ferdinand Columbus states that his father was of the same country with Mons. Agostino Giustiniani.
 * A grandson of Columbus, D. Diego, knight of the Order of Santiago, in the genealogy section, of 1535, says: "Paternal Grandparents / Christopher Columbus, a native of Saona near Genoa, / and Filipa Moniz, a native of Libon."

The absurd theories:


 * One book in Norwegian, considering Columbus as a Norwegian: Tor Borch Sannes, Christopher Columbus: En europeer fra Norge? Oslo: Norsk maritimt forlag, 1991. Forskning.no, run by the Research Council of Norway, writing about cult archaeologists such as von Daniken, calls Sannes Norway's funniest cult archaeologist.
 * According to Mr. Manuel Rosa (Colon-el-Nuevo), Columbus was son to the king of Poland Władysław III, who survived the battle of Warna in 1444 and later lived on Madera.
 * Manuel Rosa does not know that the story is absolutely impossible: he should have known that the Władysław III was a homosexual and thus would have rather had sex with men rather than with women, ergo would not have children. The Church officially recognised his homosexuality and because of that, Wladyslaw is only King Crusader who has never been beatified.
 * Here goes the facts: Jan Długosz in his Chronicles of the Kingdom of Poland unambiguously suggested kings homosexuality. - A primary source.
 * Wladyslaw III was fighting with Turkey in the defence of Christian Europe and he was killed during a battle in 1444 near Warna (seven years before Christopher Columbus was born!).
 * Mr. Rosa claims Władysław escaped to Madera after disaster near Warna. This escape is no a Historical Fact. It is only theory or rumour.

I've picked up some bits and pieces that support the idea that Columbus or his patrons made efforts to obscure his origins. - Badon
 * Theory of Croatian origin ? The Swedish theory ? The theory Spanish ? These theories are not considered reliable sources. The silence of historians is the result of this unreliability. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros

Your research probably violates this rule: WP:NOR

Many contemporary descriptions say that Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa, in northern Italy, although perhaps not in the city itself: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedalus&Ikaros (talk • contribs) 17:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The historian Paolo Giovio: “Arbizolo Ligurie vico iuxta Savonam nasa potuisset? Hic enim ille est Christophorus Columbus.”
 * The historian Benedetto Giovio, elder brother of Paolo: “Columbus was born in Arbisolo.” (A comune in the province of Savona, located about 35 km west of Genoa and about 4 km northeast of Savona).
 * Antonio Gallo, a Genoese historian who wrote some 20 years after Columbus' death: “He was born in Genoa of plebeian parents.”
 * The bishop Agostino Giustiniani: “The Genoese Christopher Columbus, with admirable daring, discovered the New World.”
 * The historian Alessandro Geraldini: “Christopher Columbus, by nation an Italian, was of Genoa, a city of Liguria.”
 * The historian Bernardo Segni: “Christopher Columbus was Genoese in origin.”
 * The cardinal Pietro Bembo, writer, historian, and theoretician: “He was a Genoese navigator.”
 * The historian Francesco Guicciardini: “Christopher Columbus was Genoese”.
 * The historian and geographer Giovanni Lorenzo d'Anania: “Christoforo Colombo Genovese.”
 * The historian Tommaso Bozio: "Christophorus Columbus natione Genuensis."
 * The historian Antonio Chiusole: "Cristoforo Colombo Genovese."
 * The geographer Giovanni Battista Ramusio: “The noble city of Genoa is proud of his fellow-citizen”.
 * The historian Tommaso Fazello: “Christopher Columbus a Genoese”
 * The Poet Torquato Tasso: “A man of Liguria will have the daring first to set himself on the unknown course: and not the menacing howling of the wind, nor inhospitable seas, nor doubtful clime, nor anything else that now may be esteemed more formidable and filled with fear or danger will make the proud spirit content his lofty mind within the narrow proscriptions of Abyla. You, Columbus...”

Other contemporary European writers confirm the Genoese origin of Columbus are:


 * Nicolò Doglioni di Udine
 * Lodovico Dolce
 * Lodovico Domenichi
 * Francesco Carletti
 * Gaspare Bugati
 * Giacomo Filippo Foresti
 * Antonio Danti
 * Giovanni Tarcagnota
 * Giovanni Antonio Magini
 * Tommaso Fazella
 * Jacopo Bonfadio
 * Girolamo Benzoni
 * Gabriello Chiabrera
 * Bartolomeo Senarega
 * Uberto Foglieta
 * Battista Fregoso
 * Arcangelo Madrignano
 * Amerigo Vespucci
 * Francesco Sansovino
 * Hieronymo Girava
 * Michele Neander
 * Simon Grynaeus and Sebastian Cabot among others. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

--
 * Cristóbal COLÓN, and not Columbus, did write "more than 2,500 notes penned in the margins of books he owned; some 80 letters, notes and memorials; copies of the log from his first New World voyage; and volumes he compiled" does this prove that he was the wool-weaver from Genoa? Is there one single note of his where he says that he was from Genoa? No! not one. Furthermore, all those notes PROVE that Cristóbal COLÓN could not write in Italian nor in Genoese. Even more, all the historians who say Colon was a Colombo from Genoa, never cited one single document from the discoverer that proves that he was from Genoa, it was all hearsay. To top it all off, the wool-weaver Colombo as a peasant, could NEVER marry the noble lady that Cristóbal COLÓN married in 1479. That is 1479, when the wool-weaver had no standing to make such marriage.


 * When you say "a native of Saona near Genoa" are you now implying that he was not that Colombo from Quinto in Genoa???? It is a sad state of the "theory" when even its proponets cannot decide what documents to take as correct!!! Let me quote you from "The Literary Gazette and Journal of Belles Lettres, Arts, Sciences, &c., for the year 1828 (Printed by James Moyes.., London, Page 475: "...the village of Cogoleto, which has the distinguished reputation of being the birthplace of Columbus... That the state of Genoa attaches belief to the evidence that this was the place of his nativity, is shown in the fact that a civil officer, a préposé, is stationed here, a part of his duty is to showe the howse to strangers...." As anyone can tell, it was so obvious for all time eternal that "Columbus" was born in Genoa that the state of Genoa itself was showing his house to be located in Cogoleto!!!


 * It is not Mr. Rosa, but Mr. Leopold Kielanowski who proved that Władysław III escaped to Madera after disaster near Warna. The facts are shown in the book "Odyseja Władysława Warneńczyka" 1991. Go read it than we can continue discussion. Until then, all your interventions are based on ignorance of the published works and, as thus, has no meaningful contributions.


 * Daedalus&Ikaros- spoken like a true evader of the original question: "I've picked up some bits and pieces that support the idea that Columbus or his patrons made efforts to obscure his origins.." It is a proven fact that Cristóbal Colón's true identity and origins were covered up in Spain and Portugal. Nobody disputes that. Do you dispute it? Furthermore, it is a proven fact that, "Cristóbal Colón" was not his name of birth. Do you have PROOF, of what his true name of birth was? Proof means a DOCUMENT where both names are shown together as in Cristóbal Colón is the same as Cristoforo Colombo. Furthermore, if the man covered up his true identity and location of birth, than even if he said that he was Genoese, which he NEVER did say, it would only help him in the plan to cover up his true identity and place of birth. Furthermore, Mr. Rosa in his books has shown that he took part in the DNA studies at the University of Granada with Prof. José Lorente, the ONLY published historian to be involved in such tests ever, and those results include 477 negative results between COLON and COLOMBO. He further wrote in his books that he is actively seeking more DNA tests.


 * 21st Century science is shedding light on the 16th Century Italian invention of a Genoese Colombo. Prof. José Lorente's DNA studies prove that the discoverer Cristóbal Colón had not the same DNA as 477 Colombo families from Genoa. 477 proofs that Colon was not Colombo. 477 scientific results that Mr. Rosa is right when he writes that Colon was not from any Colombo family.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Davide/Daedalus&#38;Ikaros/et al. you are severely misinformed as to what contemporary means. "Contemporary" means they are writing at the same time that the man who discovered America was living. The various authors you list are writing decades and centuries after the discoverer died and therefore are noncontemporary and almost ALL of them are not even living at the same location as the Discoverer but thousands of Miles away and writing from hearsay. They are not reliable sources.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what the foreign writers of the last Century, such as Tavianni and Morison wrote about the noble Filipa Moniz. Today we have valid documentation that Filipa Moniz was one of the twelve elite "donnas" of the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago. This was clearly presented by Prof. Joel Mata in 1992 and then presented by Manuel Rosa in 2006 with an the actual image of the Torre do Tombo document published in his 2009 book "COLÓN. La Historia Nunca Contada" and accepted by the Portuguese Academics as a history changing document. Your insistence on denying the new evidence is ridiculous since wikipedia has the information in its Filipa Moniz Perestrelo article showing that any wool-weaver from anywhere in the world, had ZERO chances of marrying such an elite noble lady. Game Over Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Contemporary" means they are writing at the same time that the man who discovered America was living. - Colon-el-Nuevo

This is fun.


 * The Genoese historian Antonio Gallo who knew the Columbus family, wrote in 1506 an account of his expedition. This he began with the following words: "Christopher and Bartholomew Columbus, brothers, of the Ligurian nation, sprung from plebeian parentage."
 * In 1516, ten years after Columbus's death, a Genoese friar who became bishop of Nebbio, Agostino Giustiniani, published a text in several languages entitled Psalterium Hebraeum, Graecum, Arabicum, et Chaldaeum, which proved to contain a wealth of hitherto unknown information. Giustiniani writes that the man who discovered America, a Christopher Columbus, of "patria Genuensis," "born in Genoa," was of "Vilibus ortus parentibus," meaning "of humble birth," and his father was a "carminatore," or wool carder. According to Giustiniani, Columbus was also a wool carder, having received only a rudimentary education.
 * The historian Alessandro Geraldini, was a particular friend of the Admiral's, who relates some valuable facts concerning him, commencing his account thus; "Christopher Columbus, an Italian, was from Genoa, a city of Liguria."
 * Battista Fregoso, a former doge of Genoa, noted in his Chronicle of Memorable Words and Deeds for 1493 that Christophorus Columbus natione Genuensis had safely returned from India, having reached it in 31 days from Cadiz, as he proposed to do.
 * These authors are all contemporary writers of Christopher Columbus: Pietro Bembo, Paolo Giovio, Benedetto Giovio among others. Have you ever had hallucinations?
 * Finally, the testimony of Ferdinand Columbus himself, who, tells that his father was from Genoa.

''It is irrelevant what the foreign writers of the last Century, such as Tavianni and Morison wrote about the noble Filipa Moniz. Today we have valid documentation that Filipa Moniz was one of the twelve elite "donnas" of the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago'' - Colon-el-Nuevo

The article is based, and should be based, on the interpretations found in the best biographies and historical works about Columbus. Your research violates this rule: WP:NOR.

Mr. Manuel Rosa. Yes, we know... All those errors in the same direction have been committed by everyone (Dougweller, Aries no Mur, Maunus ...) except you. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)