Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

COUNTERING SYSTEMIC BIAS

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with North America and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

please add this thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.80.175 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC) It doesn't represent whatsoever the worldwide perspective of the subject. For example in Portugal everyone knowns that Colombo was Portuguese born in Portugal, Alentejo, Cuba. That is because it's a proven historical fact. Just because many people believe that he was born in Genoa that doesn't make it true. History is full of examples of false pre concepts. This is a major one. People denie the real true because they are taught with false knowledge. This wikipedia article only deal with the stupid and wrong North American perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.214.161.190 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias "The Wikipedia project suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting an imbalanced coverage of a subject, thereby discriminating against the less represented demographic groups. This project aims to control and (possibly) eliminate the cultural perspective gaps made by the systemic bias, consciously focusing upon subjects and points of view neglected by the encyclopedia as a whole. A list of articles needing attention is in the CSB Open Tasks list." For example, in Portugal everyone knowns that Colombus was Portuguese because that it's an historical proved fact and it's taught in schools. And remind that just because the majority of the people in wikipedia think that he was born in Genoa that doesn't make it true. FACT vs ARGUMENT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.18.44 (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dispute?

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

None of them, from what I can tell. I've removed the POV-section tag. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus was Italian.

01 ) http://www.answers.com/topic/christopher-columbus

02 ) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04140a.htm

03 ) http://www.nndb.com/people/033/000045895/

04 ) http://www.ilpaesedeibambinichesorridono.it/cristoforo_colombo.htm

05 ) http://biografieonline.it/biografia.htm?BioID=604&biografia=Cristoforo+Colombo

06 ) http://thales.cica.es/rd/Recursos/rd99/ed99-0106-01/ed99-0106-01.html

07 ) http://www.americas-fr.com/es/historia/colon.html

08 ) http://www.minube.com/tag/cristobal-colon-genova-c1883

09 ) http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0009978/bio

10 ) http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Christopher+Columbus

11 ) http://doc.studenti.it/appunti/storia/colombo-cristoforo-genova-1451-valladolid-1506.html

12 ) http://www.misrespuestas.com/quien-fue-cristobal-colon.html

13 ) http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/127070/Christopher-Columbus

14 ) http://www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/E950271/COLOMB_C.htm

15 ) http://fr.wikimini.org/wiki/Christophe_Colomb

16 ) http://www.sapere.it/tca/minisite/scuola/enc_ragazzi/id600.html

17 ) http://www.enchantedlearning.com/explorers/page/c/columbus.shtml

18 ) http://www.kidport.com/REFLIB/UsaHistory/Columbus/Columbus.htm

19 ) http://gardenofpraise.com/ibdcolum.htm

20 ) http://www.mce.k12tn.net/explorers/christopher_columbus.htm

21 ) http://www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/projects/renaissance/columbus.html

22 ) http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/columbus_christopher.shtml

23 ) http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/103054.html

24 ) http://www.biography.com/columbus/

25 ) http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/christopher-columbus.htm

26 ) http://www.mrnussbaum.com/columbusyoung.htm

27 ) http://www.bookrags.com/biography/christopher-columbus/

28 ) http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1033.html

29 ) http://www.mariner.org/education/christopher-columbus

30 ) http://www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/btt/columbus/before_the_voyage.shtml

31 ) http://www.123helpme.com/preview.asp?id=58594

32 ) http://www.helium.com/items/1614635-biography-christopher-columbus

33 ) http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/worldhistory/columbus1.htm

34 ) http://columbus-day.z12.net/christopher-columbus.php

35 ) http://www.italian-american.com/columbus.htm

36 ) http://www.jamaicascene.com/history/christopher_columbus.php

37 ) http://www.biography-center.com/biographies/684-Columbus_Christopher.html

38 ) http://www.history.com/content/columbusday/about-columbus

39 ) http://www.nmm.ac.uk/explore/sea-and-ships/facts/explorers-and-leaders/christopher-columbus

40 ) http://geography.about.com/od/christophercolumbus/a/columbus.htm

41 ) http://www.biography.com/articles/christopher-columbus-9254209

42 ) http://www.lycos.com/info/christopher-columbus.html

43 ) http://st.itim.unige.it/ess96/ge_col.html

44 ) http://www.mrnussbaum.com/columbusstory.htm

45 ) http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/people_n2/persons6_n2/columbus.html

46 ) http://www.publius-historicus.com/colomb.html

47 ) http://www.linternaute.com/biographie/christophe-colomb/

48 ) http://www.evene.fr/celebre/biographie/christophe-colomb-4924.php

49 ) http://gillesdubois.blogspot.com/2008/01/la-gnalogie-de-christophe-colomb.html

50 ) http://www.felipelemos.com/2006/10/biografias-do-ms-cristvo-colombo.html

51 ) http://www.museucolombo-portosanto.com/museu_colombo.html

52 ) http://www.suapesquisa.com/pesquisa/colombo.htm

53 ) http://www.netsaber.com.br/biografias/ver_biografia_c_230.html

54 ) http://www.imss.fi.it/milleanni/cronologia/biografie/colombo.html

55 ) http://www.medioevo.com/index.php?option=com_medioevocontent&task=view&id=286&Itemid=35&lang=it

56 ) http://www.tesionline.it/news/personaggio.jsp?n=Colombo%2BCristoforo

57 ) http://www.chevroncars.com/learn/famous-people/christopher-columbus

58 ) http://www.enotes.com/colonial-america-biographies/columbus-christopher

59 ) http://mobile.biography.com/detail.jsp?key=34754&rc=ex

60 ) http://www.absolutefact.com/Christopher_Columbus_Biography.html

61 ) http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b4columbus.htm

62 ) http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0812984.html

63 ) http://www.esd.k12.ca.us/matsumoto/TM30/history/Explorers/colom.html

64 ) http://www.buzzle.com/articles/christopher-columbus-biography-and-life-story.html

65 ) http://library.thinkquest.org/4034/columbus.html

66 ) http://www.thepirateking.com/timelines/columbus_christopher_timeline.htm

67 ) http://www.articlesbase.com/history-articles/christopher-columbus-found-the-america-1403602.html

68 ) http://www.scribd.com/doc/331434/Christopher-Columbus

69 ) http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=25590

70 ) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=christopher%20columbus

71 ) http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Christopher_Columbus

72 ) http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Christopher_Columbus

73 ) http://dictionary.babylon.com/Christopher%20Columbus

74 ) http://www.windoweb.it/guida/cultura/biografia_cristoforo_colombo.htm

75 ) http://www.herodote.net/histoire/synthese.php?ID=120

76 ) http://www.lyc-verne-cergy.ac-versailles.fr/HG-BioQuizz/Colomb/colomb.php

77 ) http://french.france.usembassy.gov/a-z-colomb.html

78 ) http://pagesperso-orange.fr/ecole.chabure/exposes/histoire/renaissance/Colomb.htm

79 ) http://formation.paris.iufm.fr/~archiv03/haas/public_html/navigateurs.html

80 ) http://www.pause.pquebec.com/sujet/christophe-colomb.htm

81 ) http://www.italiadonna.it/public/percorsi/biografie/m010.htm

82 ) http://www.silab.it/storia/?pageurl=02-cristoforo-colombo

83 ) http://history.howstuffworks.com/north-american-history/christopher-columbus.htm

84 ) http://www.babylon.com/definition/Christopher_Columbus/Italian

85 ) http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/christopher_columbus/index.html

86 ) http://wilstar.com/holidays/columbus.htm

87 ) http://www.sonofthesouth.net/revolutionary-war/explorers/christopher-columbus.htm

88 ) http://conservapedia.com/Christopher_Columbus

89 ) http://www.bookrags.com/Christopher_Columbus

90 ) http://www.cedarville.edu/academics/education/resource/stories/history/original/f99story/otherlands/columbus2.htm

91 ) http://www.bharatbhasha.com/education.php/183717

92 ) http://www.mahalo.com/christopher-columbus

93 ) http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/CX_CHRISTOPHER_COLUMBUS.HTM

94 ) http://columbus-day.z12.net/christopher-columbus.php

95 ) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christopher+Columbus

96 ) http://americanhistory.about.com/od/explorers/p/columbus.htm

97 ) http://www.ensubasta.com.mx/cristobal_colon.htm

98 ) http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Crist%C3%B3bal+Col%C3%B3n

99 ) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cristobal+colon

100 ) http://html.rincondelvago.com/cristobal-colon_13.html

101 ) http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/columbus_christopher.jsp

102 ) http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/G/GEO/geography-14.html

103 ) http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3748130

104 ) Big Encyclopedia Rizzoli ( Page 1556 )

105 ) Encyclopedia LABASE - European Book - Milan ( Page 351 )

106 ) http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Christopher_Columbus_-_Early_life/id/1228196

107 ) http://encyclopedia.edwardtbabinski.us/wiki/index.php/Christopher%20Columbus

108 ) http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/ch/Christopher_Columbus

109 ) http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/C/COL/christopher-columbus.html

110 ) http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Christopher_Columbus

111 ) http://www.buzzle.com/articles/facts-about-christopher-columbus.html

112 ) http://www.buzzle.com/articles/timeline-of-christopher-columbus.html

113 ) http://know.about.com/Christopher_Columbus

114 ) http://www.yourguidetoitaly.com/famous-italian-explorers.html

115 ) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christopher+columbus

116 ) http://www.babylon.com/definition/Christopher_Columbus/English

117 ) http://www.apakistannews.com/christopher-columbus-and-biography-141975 ( 12\10\2009 )

118 ) http://www.heritage-print.com/pictures_1225941/christopher-columbus-genoese-navigator-and-explorer.html

119 ) http://www.bookrags.com/research/christopher-columbus-scit-031/

120 ) http://www.italylink.com/woi/famousitalians/columbus.html

121 ) http://www.humanitiesweb.org/human.php?s=h&p=c&a=b&ID=52

122 ) http://www.americanliteratureresource.com/page/christopher_columbus

123 ) http://trailfire.com/rain/marks/70766

124 ) http://www.biographycentral.net/christopher-columbus.php

125 ) http://www.lycos.com/info/christopher-columbus.html?page=2

126 ) http://www.birth-death.com/-christopher-columbus

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davide41 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Teacher Emilio Taviani, highest authority as regards the study on the life of this sailor, has made clear that Christopher Columbus was of Italian nationality. Recognition is due to the fact that he wrote over one hundred publications on the life Columbus.

The list is endless. I will stop here.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davide41 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit about child slaves

I reverted an edit marked as Minor which was actually an addition to the article alleging that Columbus had traded in child slaves. Now that may be true, but the claim made isn't backed by the facts. In 1500 Columbus wrote to the nurse of Prince Don Juan of Castile (the edit said a friend, but that's wrong) saying:

"I should know how to remedy all this, and the rest of what has been said and has taken place since I have been in the Indies, if my disposition would allow mc to seek my own advantage, and if it seemed honorable to me to do so, but the maintenance of justice and the extension of the dominion of Her Highness has hitherto kept mc down. Now that so much gold is found, a dispute arises as to which brings more profit, whether to go about robbing or to go to the mines. A hundred castellanos are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general, and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand, and for all ages a good price must be paid.

I assert that the violence of the calumny of turbulent persons has injured me more than my services have profited me which is a bad example for the present and for the future. I take my oath that a number of men have gone to the Indies who did not deserve water in the sight of God and of the world; and now they arc returning thither, and leave is granted them.""+dealers+who+go+about+looking+for+girls";+those+from+nine+to+ten+are+now+in+demand."&cd=2#v=onepage&q=dealers&f=false. We can't use this to say Columbus was engaged in selling children as sex slaves. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"30 days at sea"

Article states: "the longest any ship (European or otherwise) had gone without making landfall did not much exceed 30 days when Columbus embarked on his first audacious voyage lasting 36 days across the Atlantic Ocean (from the Canary Islands)."

Can this fact be proven, or does this sentence have to be revisited? I think it's probably impossible to prove ships had not gone for longer than 30 days without landfall in the history of the world before Columbus' first voyage.--mgaved (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it can't be proven, but that's not the issue. The only thing I found in Google was that the Santa Maria turned back after 30 days, so I don't think it's credible in the least. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the offending claim. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Columbus. The Untold Story

Try to visualize everything you were told about that epic 1492 voyage of Columbus and his discovery of America? His novel idea of opposing a flat earth theory with the belief that the earth was truly round: The trials and tribulations of convincing a court and a scientific committee to sponsor him on a fearless sailing voyage into the dark unknown: The weeks of meandering while lost at sea not knowing if he’d ever return home: The triumphant discovery of what he truly believed to be the land of India: The glorious return to Spain and hailed as a hero for discovering lands unknown to Europeans: The envy of the Spanish upper class nobles as they saw this lowly wool weaving peasant, a foreigner nobody, being rewarded with the titles of Admiral, Governor and even Viceroy. It is truly an amazing and unbelievable “rags to riches” story used for centuries to inspire young and old all over the globe. How unbelievable is it to visualize? Now what if you were shown that all that you just imagined is not true? What if you learned that Columbus was never lost, that he was not an ignorant wool weaver but a scholar and genius pilot in his day? That his own notes show he never believed to have reached the real India. That he was instead involved in a treacherous spy-game against Spain and that his name was not Columbus at all! Would you want to find out exactly how the unbelievably incorrect history you were taught came to be? I know hearing that the story surrounding the discovery of America taught for more than 500 years being wrong sounds bizarre and hard to swallow. That would mean the assertions taught every child from the time he or she enters school would have to be changed. But based on 20 years of systematic research in countries from Poland to the Dominican Republic - utilizing ancient manuscripts to modern DNA and forensic to genealogy - I claim just that. When I immigrated to the United States at the age of twelve I never dreamed I would stumble across such proof tied to my native land, but in 1991 while translating a work from Portuguese to English, I began to see how Columbus didn’t just stumble across America by accident as he sought India but the voyage was part of an ingenious espionage plot to defraud his Spanish sponsors. In fact, I now have enough proof to assert that the man who discovered America wasn’t a peasant, Cristoforo Colombo (Christopher Columbus), the wool-weaver from Genoa at all, but Prince Segismundo Henriques of Portugal, son of the self-exiled Polish king Vladislav III. My two previously published books on this subject in Portugal were sellouts. My new book Colón. La Historia Nunca Contada (Columbus: The Untold Story) published in Spain is receiving lots of media attention from Spain to Argentina, soon a worldwide publisher is bound to take the newly completed and updated English version, titled "COLUMBUS. The Untold Story," to the world. This book will forever change how we view our history and so does Prof. Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão, PhD, Dean of the University of Lisbon, who wrote the Preface, as well as other experts in the field like Prof. Trevor Hall, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Marcel Balla, PhD, Boston University, Prof. Manuela Mendonça, PhD, President of the Portuguese Academy of History… “Another nutty conspiracy theory!” That’s what I first supposed as I started to read the manuscript… I now believe that if Columbus were alive and on trial by any fair civil court, he would be found guilty of huge fraud carried out over two decades against his patrons, wrote professor James T. McDonough, Jr., Ph.D. from Columbia University who taught at St. Joseph's University for 31 years.

Found here http://1492us.blogspot.com/2010/03/columbus-untold-story-colon-la-historia.html [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.250 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with these books is that people, in general, aren't willing to believe that Columbus was a Science and Geometry educated Portuguese-born nobleman who wrote in a Portuguese-flavored Spanish. An educated Portuguese nobleman would certainly have been able to write in his native language fluently. (Yet, it's alleged, in these books, that he was fluent in Latin!) When the authors' newest book, "Columbus. The Untold Story" appeared, in November of 2009, the authors' website stated: "We are dilegently trying to prove the true family of Christopher Columbus by concrete scientific methods including DNA analyses that are ongoing at the University of Granada and other forensic means". (It still says that!) The DNA evidence, at the time of the book's publication, four months ago, was inconclusive. Now, four months later, he says that he has "proof to assert that the man who discovered America wasn't a peasant". No "proof" is given. "Assert" is just to "declare". He also says, after 20 years of research, he can "claim" his investigation as the truth. A "claim", itself, is not, at all, any type of veritable proof. We're told above that Columbus's real name was Segismundo Henriques, son of Vladislav lll, of Poland. Yet, the authors' website contradicts this, by telling us that his real name was Latin; "Colonus" and "Colon". Which is it? Also, above is used a quote by Professor James T. McDonough stating: "if Columbus were alive and on trial by any fair civil court, he would be found guilty of huge fraud carried out over two decades against his patrons". Yeah, right! For starters, Civil Court only takes cases up to $25,000. Beyond this, a case would go to Unlimited Jurisdiction Superior Court. Would Columbus's patrons (Isabella and Ferdinand) want $25,000 or less? And speaking of court cases, there would be many against Isabella and Ferdinand, themselves. They drove the Jews out of Spain (Sound like Hitler, anyone?), they, and their Spanish conquistadors, practically stole the entire American continent from the Indians, pushed the Indians into death or slavery, and forced immigration of African slaves to the American continent. Oh, yeah! After all this, Isabella and Ferdinand have the right to sue somebody in court? "Civil Court", no less! The authors' books are just much too juvenile, contrived and catchpenny. This whole Columbus "Da Vinci Code" style conspiracy and cover up theory hasn't caught the eye of the publishers nor the public throughout the European Union, the English-speaking world, et al. It's all much too cloak and dagger and elaborate for a world which has tired of "The Da Vinci Code" rip-offs. The first book, "The Columbus Mystery Revealed", was published in 2006 at 640 pages. It never saw the light of day outside of its Portuguese publication. (Although it tried to be published Worldwide.) Claiming that the book was a "sellout", after being on sale for 8 months, is a coy way of saying that the book went out of print because it was no longer in demand. (Example: If a bookstore is "sold out" of a book in the morning, it can assure its customers that another shipment will arrive in the afternoon.) There is a big difference between " sellout" and "out of print". This new book, "Columbus. The Untold Story", is dwarfed, in comparison to the first book, by having a length of a scant 393 pages. I, honestly cannot see this "educated nobleman" theory amounting to anything. Worldwide publishers and public, alike, have known about this theory, in book form, since 2006 and haven't shown any interest. The latest book is already a year old and it still hasn't grabbed any multi-language demand. It shows that, Worldwide, a sensationalistic approach to a man who died 500 years ago, really isn't a profitable or interesting subject. As been said, what were once long chapters in school history books, covering everything from the Roman Empire to World War ll, are nowadays, reduced to just mere paragraphs in school textbooks. Education, itself, is spending far less time and energy on the "old", and is, instead, stressing what's important in the "new". (e.g.: Globalization and global warming.) There, seemingly, isn't much Worldwide interest left in Columbus, himself, for these books to ever make a dent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 20:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No original research

isn't all research original? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.225.41 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Columbus was Genovese, i.e. ITALIAN nationality.. even imprisoned by the Spanish "because he was Italian not Spanish."

{{Editprotected}}Nationality: Genovese, i.e. ITALIAN.Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 8/Editprotected

Columbus was Genovese, i.e. ITALIAN nationality.. even imprisoned by the Spanish "because he was Italian not Spanish"; it is in the official Columbus logs of his third voyage (I believe) to the Americas.

This article is not fully protected; only semiprotected. Further, I believe the statement "...Christopher Columbus was born between 25 August and 31 October 1451 in Genoa, part of modern Italy." makes it quite clear that Columbus was Italian. Intelligentsium 03:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

He may have been Genoan, probably he was. But he was not Italian since Italy did not exist at that time as such. Therefore, writing that his nationality was Italian or probably Italian is wrong. It is inaccurate and errors like that should not be in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcglscss (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC) You're WRONG! The Italian peninsula has been called "Italia" ("Italy") since the Roman Conquests of Ancient Times. Columbus' lifetime was 1500 years later during the Middle Ages. Genoa was certainly a part of Italia (Italy) during Columbus' lifetime. You're confused by the "Italian Unification" which politically unified all states, on the Italian peninsula (Italy), starting in the 1800's.

Sorry but Italia didn´t exist as a country till XIX century, so it´s impossible that Columbus could be Italian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.10.27 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC) You're wrong! Italy DID exist before the XIX century! The Italian peninsula was called "Italia" ("Italy") way before Columbus's time. Check Wikipedia's "Maps of Italian unification" section in the "Italian unification" article. There are maps of Italy shown that begin in the year 1000. What the "Italian unification" ultimately did was: unite all states in Italy, give Italy one ruler, and one united Italian military.

Hristoforos Kolomvos drives from Greek etymology, Christopher means someone who wears Christ in his heart, Columbus, from kolovoma/coloboma and the name could exist in both Spain and Italy due to ancient Greeks having settlements in both, i.e., Emborio/Emporio and other cities in Spain and countless cities in Italy including Neapolis (Naples), Syracusa (Syracuse), Calavria (Calabria), etc., etc. A small fact also is that he kept his true journals in Greek and psuedo journals in Latin, a small point but very important in the whole scheme of things. This surname exists on the Greek island of Chios prior to Greece's enslavement under the Ottoman empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.1.184 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I'm wondering when the name "Hristoforos Kolomvos" was able to be written, as such, in the Roman alphabet (which is what most of Europe uses today). "Colombo" means "dove" in Italian. "Paloma" is how "dove" is said in Spanish. When I tried to find the Greek translation of "dove", in an on-line Greek dictionary, the word came up in the letters of the Greek alphabet; letters that mostly look nothing like the Roman alphabet letters that we use today (even in English). When (if ever) did the Greeks start using the Roman alphabet? For business purposes only, perhaps? It seems that in Modern Greek, they still use many letters that aren't used in English. I know the Greek alphabet, itself, was based on the Phoenician alphabet. I'm also wondering if there is actually proof of "a small fact" that Columbus really did keep his journals in Greek and Latin. This doesn't seem like it would be such "a small fact". I tried to find out where I could see proof of this, but no luck. Is it hearsay, or fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 14:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

typo

I cannot fix the typo under the "1st Voyage" section because I do not have enough posts.

Will someone please change this sentence: "He remarked that heir lack of modern weaponry ..."

to: "He remarked that THEIR lack of modern weaponry..."

Another Typo

The caption under the picture of Columbus, the Atlantic, and the ships refers to, "...his three Spaniard Ships..." This would be like saying that Drake used "Englishman Ships" instead of "English Ships."

Unless we have evidence that the ships under the command of Columbus were somehow sentient, the caption should read, "...his three Spanish Ships..."

Since I do not have the privs necessary to fix this problem, I commend my observation to those who have editing rights.

Sesquipedalian101 (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I've tried to reword the image caption. ClovisPt (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

was it him?

The article says that it was Columbus who discovered America men Is not it a little wrong? there should Blogging is not only it is a theory on it was ham ham?. Under the Constitution, checkers and biologist Lars Thomassen (Dane) bog several unexplained phenomena is at kensingtonstenen So I says: In the year of our Lord 1362 was 8 Swedes and 22 Norwegians then sailed across the Atlantic to Nordamerika.det had entered the country in Minnesota where it died der.så I do not think it is fair that it says that it was only him who discovered America when there is evidence that it was skandinaverne.stenen were discovered in 1898 in Kensington in Minnesota.--It is proven that it is healthy to celebrate birthday! Statistics show that people who celebrate the most birthdays become the oldest. (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

the people who really "discoverd" the american continent were the asians who ame across the bering starit land bridge, and started iving here. the norse were the first know europeans to go to north american, but culombuse was the one to start european coliniztion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

According to history I learned 60-some years ago, Columbus knew a large land mass existed to the west. He chose the southern route he took in hopes of getting past it to reach China or the Indies. His confusion on reaching the American islands is why we have the "East Indies" and the "West Indies" today. It's my understanding also that the Portuguese began fishing the Grand Banks off Newfoundland a decade or so before Columbus and may have collected American natives for use as deck slaves. America's existence therefore may have been widely known among seafarers before Columbus.--Virgil H. Soule (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the Indians, who had immigrated from Asia, the first person who set foot upon the Americas was Leif Ericson (970-1020). He was the son of Norway's Eric the Red and an Icelantic mother. It is assumed he was born in Iceland. He set up a temporary settlement in North America, but nothing ever came of it. It is Columbus's voyage that attracted the European settlers (and others) to America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus was Italian.

Christopher Columbus was Italian. Almost all Encyclopedias (90%): " Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer "

And the number of sources reporting this theory (Italian nationality) is quite frankly ten, maybe one hundred times bigger than the number of sources reporting that he was portuguese or spanish. Other sources for the avoidance of doubt:

1. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Christopher_Columbus.aspx

2. http://doc.studenti.it/appunti/storia/7/cristoforo-colombo.html

3. http://html.rincondelvago.com/cristobal-colon_4.html

4. http://www.answers.com/topic/christopher-columbus

5. http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/C/ColumbusC.html

6. http://www.encyclopedia.it/c/cr/cristoforo_colombo.html

7. http://www.universalis.fr/corpus2-encyclopedie/117/9341/E950271/encyclopedie/COLOMB_C.htm

8. http://www.christopher-columbus.ch/it_teil_2.htm * Documents demonstrate the Genoese origin of Columbus *

9. http://www.treccani.it/Portale/elements/categoriesItems.jsp?pathFile=/sites/default/BancaDati/Enciclopedia_online/C/Biografie_-_Edicola_Colombo_1026121330.xml

--93.148.98.200 (talk) 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably Colombus was a Spaniard

There are also thousand of studies demonstrating other possible born places of Colombus, mainly as a Spaniard. References are too easy to be found, so I save list them here. Many of them are real results of research, not simple transcryptions of another authors. Discussion will end shortly when DNA analysis will offer results.

That is clear is everything is known about the live of Colombus is related with the Kingdom of Spain, as for instance he called 'La Hispaniola" his first discovery in the New World. In Spain lived his brother, and also his son. He wrote his letters in a perfect Spanish languaje without the usual mistakes of any foreigner. Family names "Colón" and "Colombo" are also known in Spain from centuries before Christophorus.

In any case, all the ships of its fleet in the 4 trips he made to the New World were Spanish, and all the crew too. You can not question that the discovery was Spanish.

A last consideration: at XVI century, still Italy did not exist. Every of its regions were independent and many of them belonged to Spanish Crown. So, Colombus never could be an Italian.

(Juan A. Malo de Molina (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

italian as in ethnicity, not nationallity. and there were sevral italian states, like there used to be german states. any way, he went to the italians, portugese, both of whom turned him down for the voyage, but the spainyards suplied him, so it was an italian discovery, but since it was funded by the spainyards, they got the land. an —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Correction: Italian is a nationality. Latin is their ethnicity. (You had it the other way around.) DNA tests have been made and have proved that Columbus was not a Sephardic Jew (Spanish or Portuguese). Columbus did not write in perfect Spanish. He wrote in a mixture of Spanish, Catalan and Portugeuse. It is generally agreed that he wrote in this hodgepodge because of his lack of education in Genoa. He picked up a mixture of these other languages during his travels. His writings of his childhood in Genoa, and his early sailings from Genoa were, allegedly, kept in Spanish vaults for centuries. Columbus' brother, Bartolomeo, did not live in Spain. He lived in Lisbon, Portugal for part of his adulthood. Also, many Spanish regions belonged to or were governed by Italy throughout the ages. Columbus's discovery of the New World is generally acknowledged as an Italian victory! Lastly, the name "Columbo" is originally Italian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.217.237 (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have references for any of this, great. Otherwise it is just discussion about the subject and really doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Were you talking to just one of us, or to all of us, Doug? Because NOTHING is referenced by anyone in this "Probably Columbus was a Spaniard" topic! Besides, where do you think discussion belongs, if not in the discussion section?

As it says at the top of the article, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." This is a discussion page for the article. As there is and probably always will be a dispute about his origin, the article will always describe the dispute using reliable sources. We should not be trying to settle it or discuss it in the abstract. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case, there's nothing in the original poster's text which has anything really related to the main article, itself. It shows nothing slightly akin to the main articles' text or tone. Yes, there are disputes going on. There's one which claims that Columbus was Greek...and a newer one claiming that he was British! It seems that everyone would like to jump on the bandwagon!

You write: "Also, many Spanish regions belonged to or were governed by Italy during that time, too."

It was rather vice versa, 82.67.217.237. Spain was part of the Roman Empire until the 5th century, but Columbus lived in the 15th and 16th, when Spain ruled half of Italy and most of the rest was under Spanish influence. SamEV (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: (During Columbus's lifetime) "Spain ruled half of Italy and most of the rest was under Spanish influence". NOT TRUE! Wikipedia's article on "The Italian Renaissance", during the Middle Ages (1300-1499), says that the Naples, Sicily and Sarinia regions of Italy were ruled by the Arabs and then the Normans. This was during Columbus's lifetime! You're just not believable!! And "Spanish influence"? Most of Spanish culture (e.g. the language, religion, overall mentality) was derived directly from Italian culture! The Sephardic Jews of Spain were eliminated to make way for the Roman Catholic Religion and Roman Culture. But you're breaking the Wikipedia rules: All of this has nothing to do with the article, itself.

OK, if you want to get in the weeds, here's my rephrasing of my statement. During Columbus's lifetime half of Italy, that being the Kingdom of Naples (encompassing one third of the Peninsula), the Kingdom of Sicily, and Sardinia were under the direct or indirect rule of the Crown of Aragon, Aragon being a country in Spain. By the time Columbus died, all these areas were under the rule of the Spanish king Ferdinand the Catholic. Spanish influence extended to other Italian states, furthermore, and after 1559, when the last of the Italian Wars between Spain and France ended, more than half of the Peninsula was ruled by Spain and the rest (Venice being the likely exception), was under Spanish hegemony, a situation which persisted until 1700.

And you're right to say that all this is off-topic. Are you suggesting that the solution is for me to overlook your falsehoods? Or should you stop inserting off-topic falsehoods in the first place, or revert them if you have? I have no issue with all the off-topic material's being excised from this thread if done fairly. SamEV (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I put NO falsehoods in any of my comments! So, Italy didn't exist as a country during Columbus's time? I gave you proof in Wikipedia's "Italian Unification" map section that it did! (Shown are maps of Italy dating back to the year 1000!) And in Columbus's lifetime, Spain did not rule Naples, Sicily and Sardinia! In Wikipedia's "Italian Rennaissance" article, it says that during the Middle Ages (1300-1499), these Italian regions were ruled by foreign domination; the Arabs and then the Normans. Have a look! Also, acording to Wikipedia's article on Charles V, Spain, itself, did not exist as a political unification, until Charles V lifetime. Charles V was born in 1500 and finalized the job of making Spain a politically unified state before his death in 1558. Charles V, grandson of Isabella and Ferdinand, was six years old when Columbus died in 1506. He was four years old when Isabella died in 1504. Isabella and Ferdinand both started to unite the kingdoms that would, eventually, become Spain. But this political unification happened during Charles V lifetime (1500-1558). Some people are busy arguing about Italy not being a political unified state during Columbus's time. But neither was Spain! (This didn't happen until during the 1500's!) Why don't you get onto the Jennifer Lopez discussion board and behave yourself there?! I've noticed by your Wikipedia history that quite often your topics and comments get deleted! (You'll probably find your own deletions somewhere in the weeds!)

And what's that you say about my comments' being reverted "quite often"? Where? Diffs, please, diffs. SamEV (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC) One needs to simply check your history!

Historians and the sources

If Christopher Columbus was a Spaniard (!) then Picasso was an Italian.

Many historians say that he is from Genoa, Italy.

The 90% of encyclopedias, argue that Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer and navigator.

- http://www.humanities-interactive.org/newworld/columbus/ex020_timeline.htm

- http://www.articlesbase.com/history-articles/christopher-columbus-what-did-he-do-in-1492-1400794.html

- http://www.biographyshelf.com/christopher_columbus_biography.html

- http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/103053.html

- http://www.lepotentiel.com/afficher_article.php?id_edition=&id_article=28044

- http://www.linternaute.com/biographie/christophe-colomb/date/

- http://internetalis.fr/histoire/stars-histoire/christophe-colomb

- http://enciclopedia.studenti.it/cristoforo-colombo.html

- http://www.tanogabo.it/cristoforo_colombo.htm

- http://skuola.tiscali.it/storia-moderna/cristoforo-colombo.html

- http://www.oppisworld.de/philo/kolumbus.html

- http://www.st-thomas.angus.sch.uk/christopher_columbus.htm

- http://www.grin.com/e-book/97570/kolumbus-christoph

- http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/116/372927/text/

- http://www.staidenshomeschool.com/calendars/lessons/october/columbus.html

--93.148.99.53 (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Italy (Italia) has been around since the Roman Conquests!

I cannot believe that people are actually claiming that Italy wasn't around during Columbus' lifetime. The Italian peninsula has been called "Italia" ("Italy") since the days of the Ancient Roman Conquests. Columbus was born much later (during the Middle Ages). The Italian unification was a political unification which started in the 1800's. It politically unified all states in Italy into having one government and military. The entire Italian peninsula has been called "Italia" ("Italy") since Ancient Times. To say that Columbus was Genovese, but NOT Italian is grossly incorrect. Genoa has always been located in Italia (Italy)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

But "Italia" as used before 1861 meant the Italian Peninsula, i.e. it was a geographical term. SamEV (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No! You're wrong! The Italian peninsula was called "Italia". On Ancient Old World and Medieval maps, the Italian peninsula is charted as "Italia" (not as "The Italian peninsula"). Genoa, Rome, Naples, Venice, etc. have been situated in "Italia" ("Italy") for 2000 years. One might have called his city Genoa, but he would have certainly referred to his country as "Italia" ("Italy"). Before the Italian unification, of the 1800's, each separate Italian state had its own leader and military. ]] comment added by 82.67.217.237 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"One might have called his city Genoa, but he would have certainly referred to his country as "Italia" ("Italy")."

You see, Wikipedia is not about 'would haves'. His country was well known, and it was well known as "Serenissima Repubblica di Genova", "Most Serene Republic of Genoa", but commonly as "Genoa". That was his country. Italy was a region, a peninsula, an idea, etc, but it was not the sovereign state wherein Columbus was born.

BTW, Italian unification gave the country one king, not president. Presidents have existed in unified Italy only since WWII. SamEV (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong! The Italian unification existed after WWll. The war ended in 1945 and Italy got its first president in 1946 (thanks to the Italian unification.) Please check your facts! You wrote: "You see, Wikipedia is not about 'would haves'". Well, you're full of "would haves", yourself! Italy WAS a country when Columbus was born! Italy is charted on pre-Medieval maps! I've asked you to check the "Maps of Italian Unification" section in Wikipedia's "Italian unification" article. There are maps of Italy shown that date back to the year 1000! It's funny how some people consider Spainish history to exist before and after the Romans called it "Spagna". Yet, some people would like us to believe that the Italian peninsula wasn't called "Italia" during Columbus's time. Such nonsense! And don't hand me any of that "geographical term" stuff. (The "United States of America" is the geographical term for the USA!) You erroneously wrote that Spain ruled half of Italy during Columbus' time (e.g.: Naples, Sicily and Sardinia) and that, simultaneously, most of the rest of Italy was under Spanish influence. What poppycock! Firstly, you double crossed your own claim, that Italy didn't exist at that time, by referring to the country as "Italy"! Secondly (and most importantly), Spain never did rule those parts of Italy during Columbus's time, nor influenced most the rest of it! What an extreme falsehood! According to Wikipedia's article on "The Italian Rennaisance", during (The Middle Ages: 1300-1499), the Italian regions: Naples, Sicily and Sardenia were ruled by the Arabs and later the Normans. Your comments about the Spanish ruling of these regions (during Columbus's lifetime) are utterly absurd! It is a well-known fact that it was the Italians (Romans) who influenced, by way of imposition, Latin culture on the Spanish, French and Portuguese (e.g. language, religion, etc)! What the Italian unification did was ultimately merge all Italian states so that Italy could have one government and military. The Italian unification started in 1815 and lasted until after World War ll. It did give Italy its first official king later during the unification (Vittorio Emanuelle 11 (circa 1870)). But that's not where the Italian unification ended. Just after World War ll, the unification was responsible for giving Italy its first president (in 1946) and a singular military. As far as the "president" thing goes...I decided to use the word "leader" and then "president". You used the word "president", too. Why so petulant? Thank goodness schoolteachers will not let their students use Wikipedia as a primary or secondary source of information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.217.237 (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No one's saying there was no place called "Italy". What didn't exist was a sovereign state called "Italy" encompassing Columbus's birthplace of Genoa, let alone the whole Peninsula.

And no, you used the word "president". Wikipedia pages have something called a "history", which allows us to see who wrote or did what. Here's the word "president" being added, [2], and here it is being removed, in the edit following mine: [3].

As for the rest, I trust that in the articles History of Italy, Italian Wars, Kingdom of Naples, Kingdom of Sicily, Sardinia, Milan, Parma, etc, you will find enough information and sources to mitigate your tremendous ignorance of Italian history. Good luck. SamEV (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You have proven NOTHING worthwhile with the revision times! (Just that you're simultaneously catty and vapid!) YOUR history times are not something that I care to search. I have better things to do with my time.! But, honestly, are minute revisions all that you care about? My revision went through as I wanted! Anyway, the Italian unification ultimately DID give Italy a president. Who cares if I chose to change "leader" to "president" before I finalized my comment? An Italian president WAS the result of the Italian unification! You've no grounds for an arguement! And, it's YOU who are full of ignorance on Italian history. Wikipedia's article on "The Italian Rennaisance" (the Middle Ages 1300-1499) shows that during Columbus's lifetime, the Italian regions: Naples, Sicily and Sardinia, were ruled by the Arabs and later the Normans. (Not by Spain!) Why don't you have a look at the article? I've noticed, by looking at YOUR history, that quite often your topics and comments are removed permanently. I suggest you do something constructive on Wikipedia...like comment on the Jennifer Lopez discussion board! But remember to stay faithful to the article in your discussion topic! I will be sure to check from time to time to make sure that you don't deviate from the article (which is often your wont)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.217.237 (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the third relevant diff, that of my edit: [4]. It's funny how you only 'finalized' your comment after I pointed out your error. And your 'finalization' did not consist of replacing "president" with "leader", but of blanking the sentence.

Yeah, go ahead, watch for my comments at the J-Lo article... Bring some lunch, too...

IP, with all due respect, you're full of it. I'm a constructive editor and my edits stick overwhelmingly. Become a constructive editor yourself and you'll be able to say the same. Good bye. SamEV (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You did NOT point anything out to me. I made several revisions on my own...until I felt satisfied! "Blanking out a sentence"? (It's my perogative and a Wikipedia priviledge!) Don't you know the rules here? And I wouldn't brag about your edit # 4 if I were you! On the bottom of the right side, you wrote: "BTW, Italian unification gave the country one "king", not president. Presidents have existed in Italy only since WWll". YOUR WRONG! The Italian unification outlasted WWll and it did give Italy a president! Obviously, you didn't know that the war ended in 1945 and Italy got its first president in 1946! At first you had this listed as your edit # 3 and then you used your own Wikipedia perogative and priviledge to change it to your edit # 4. You sly puss, you! Luv those automated bots and deletions on your history page! bot! bot! bot! LOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.217.237 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Columbus's sister in the article?

The article mentions his brothers: Bartolomeo, Giovanni Pellegrino, and Giacomo. But why no mention of his sister, Bianchinetta? She should be mentioned in the article. Shouldn't she? jpgordon, can you tell us? Cheers, ducky! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any proof to back that story up? (Proof, please. Not hearsay and theories!) Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What we need are reliable sources, not an argument here based on people's own research, so deleting some original research here. And Rosa is not a reliable source by Wikipedia criteia. Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it laughable that Manuel Rosa who has spent 19.5 years researching in-depth this history and who is fluent in English, Portuguese, Spanish, plus French, Italian is seen by you as "not a reliable source" however James Loewen, Eliot Morison, Tavianni and even Robert H Fuson (who has holes so big in his books you can drive trucks through) are reliable. It is truly a state of the blind leading the blind and the blind insisting they can see. Colon-el-viejo (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Cabot

I have now twice remove the sentence "John Cabot is also believed to have reached North America (Newfoundland) before Columbus" from the introduction. I have done this for two reasons: 1) Columbus never reached North America, so the statement doesn't make logical sense. 2) The information immediately before where this sentence was placed relates to verified European expeditions to the Americas prior to Columbus, a category that does not include Cabot, at least in mainstream historical thinking. Hopefully this is clear. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly clear, I was careless and not rewording - Morison phrased it correctly in fact as I said on your talk page. Is it entirely irrelevant to the article do you think? Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. As far as adding Cabot's travels to North America to the article, I don't see exactly where that would go, but if you can find a place, it seems like it could be a fine addition. ClovisPt (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What to do about this talk page

For the last month, this talk page has been a complicated mess because of people (or maybe one person) continually modifying their comments, making the discussion real hard to follow. I'm quite tempted just to archive the whole thing up until the last section or two. Would anybody object if this quite inappropriate noise was archived? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding the page so much more interesting and informative with people updating their comments. There's nothing wrong with adding new information to make the page more informative. Now, is there? However, I wish some of the editors weren't so snide. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll be reverting any further edits you make on this page that either change already answered comments or are otherwise not in keeping with our talk page guidelines. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Calgo, this page is a mess, one of the worst I watch (and I watch over a thousand pages). You are modifying comments made weeks ago without any indication of what you've done, including modifications of comments made after you've had a reply. Please read WP:TALK. You and others are using this page to carry out a debate and that is emphatically not acceptable, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article". The "Probably Colombus was a Spaniard" section, where you've been changing your edits, has indented comments without signatures.

And that arugment is WP:OR, we should simply be using the term (Italy or whatever) used by historians, not arguing about whether it was Italy. You also seem to be editing not logged in, and I'm pretty sure "simultaneously catty and vapid!" is your edit - and it's clearly a personal attack.

Worst of all, except for one edit to Peter Lupus, all your edits are on this page, none to this article. It's time for you to stop talking and start editing the article. I'm sure you have something to contribute there (seriously). As for the Peter Lupus edit, I'm reverting it. See your talk page for an explanation.

Yes, let's archive the page. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, Be fair! I was personally attacked, beforehand, by one of your own staffers (check the archives) by being asked "If you want to get down in the weeds...". I didn't appreciate this licentious attack, I assure you! The same staffer accussed me of "ignorance". Not a very friendly way to be on a website which is meant to promote knowledge! Much too hostile and aggressive! At any rate, you suggested that I start editing the article, itself. How is one to edit or contribute to the article, itself, when it is semi-protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 13:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We have no staffers, I've said on your talk page that 'get in the weeds' (he didn't say 'down' I believe) is definitely not an insult. You can make suggestions here as to things you'd like changed/added, or start editing other articles and after a while you'll find you can edit this one. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, By staffers, I meant editors (or, whatever it is you people do here.) I didn't say that the "weeds" thing was an insult. I said it was an attack. It does have a licentious tone to it and is an extremely disagreeable sounding thing to say. (Not at all gentrified.) Anyway, I've edited articles in the past, how are users to know as to when they're able to start editing semi-protected articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You are an editor/staffer then. And it definitely was not an attack. You can edit semi-protected articles, IPs can't. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool it, Calgo. If you keep this up you'll be blocked. I know from personal experience. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 03:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

he was going after india not east indies

i know its kind of the same thing but to be fair he wanted to go to india east indies? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

its not the same at all. He was leding the spanish in the wrong direction while V. Gama was preparing what would become the greatest discovery of all times - the sea route to India. Anyway the discovery of America only became important a couple of centuries later with the rise of the british empire... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coimbra68 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wife's Family

The article reads "He married Filipa Moniz Perestrello, daughter of the Porto Santo governor and Portuguese nobleman of Genoese origin Bartolomeu Perestrello." Bartolomeu Perestrelo was NOT Genoese he was from Piacenza which is not the same as Genoa. Furthermore, I suggest that a page for his wife, Filipa Moniz be created. I had created one but the all-knowing-powers-that-wiki saw fit to delete it, therefore someone who is not seen as a "minor fringe writer" by the all-knowing may have a crack at it.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

"After the passing of much time, these savants of Spain..." should be "After the passing of much time, the savants of Spain..." --81.84.152.156 (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed it. Dougweller (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus

Read about "Spanish Wikipedia" origin of Christopher Columbus is a " mystery ". Is a Blasphemy. There are Authentic Documents that prove the Italian origin of Columbus. A " mystery ". After Picasso (was part Italian) nothing. A Shame.

It could be interesting to add that the "Piri Reis Map" mentions Columbus as being from Genova, here is an excerpt from the Italian Wikipedia:

Particolarmente illuminante appare una sua frase, riportata in margine al foglio e redatta in lingua turca ottomana (con caratteri quindi derivati dall'arabo). In un passaggio in cui si parla del continente americano letteralmente si può leggere:

(TR) « … Amma şöyle rivayet ederler kim Cinevizden bir kâfir adına Qolōnbō derler imiş, bu yerleri ol bulmuştur … »

(IT) « … Ma si racconta che un infedele di Genova di nome Colombo abbia scoperto questi paraggi … » (Piri Reis haritası - Piri Reìs)

La straordinarietà dell'affermazione – che una volta per tutte dovrebbe metter fine alle polemiche riguardanti l'origine del grande navigatore – consiste nel fatto che arabi, turchi ottomani, persiani e i parlanti urdu (tutti insomma coloro che adoperano un alfabeto arabo o da esso derivante), allorché debbono traslitterare una parola straniera estranea al loro patrimonio lessicale, e quindi di non facile identificazione, sono costretti a usare ogni grafema dell'alfabeto arabo per consentire una lettura fonologicamente perfetta e in grado di non indurre a errore. Il nome "Colón" sarebbe quindi stato obbligatoriamente traslitterato Kōlōn (in lettere arabe Qūlūn), laddove il testo di Pīrī Re’īs riporta l'inequivoco Qōlōnbō (Qūlūnbū).

Il fatto tuttavia genera ancora ostinate resistenze di stampo "patriottardo" in quanti affidano geodeterministicamente al puro e semplice luogo di nascita, anziché all'ambiente culturale nel quale si è formata la personalità di qualche protagonista della storia, o alla non meno fondamentale illuminata committenza, il fattivo manifestarsi di una personalità d'eccezione. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.73.123 (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus secret crew member

christopher columbus along with his many crew members sailed across the sea in 1492. His most loyal crew member, Pat MaHiney, was very important to christopher. though, he is not a very known member. He died during the sail and Christopher didn't want people to make a big deal out of it so he kept this a secret between him and the other crew members. They all threw him over-seas and continue on with their sail. 24.63.218.42 (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spitfire19 ^T/_C 23:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Native Language

The article says "Columbus never wrote in his native language, but it may be assumed this was the Genoese variety of Ligurian." This phrase is deceiving and should be rewritten to say "Columbus never wrote in the Genoese language, it is unknown what his native tongue might have been." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colon-el-Nuevo (talk • contribs) 19:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Columbus only wrote in Spanish, with a lot of Catalan expresions, and we know about one letter written in catalan language, nowadays dissapeared. It's deceiving this edition doesen't reflects the doubts of the Italian origin of Columbus, begining by his language. Spanish or Catalan editions are more objectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poaig (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Poaig, the letter you refer to is misinterpreted as coming from Cristóbal Colón. The letter is a translation of Colón's Castilian letter registered by a Catalan. 71.111.215.249 (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a lie take this out

In 1473 Columbus began his apprenticeship as business agent for the important Centurione, Di Negro and Spinola families of Genoa There is no proof whatsoever for this statement.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

" the Porto Santo governor and Portuguese nobleman of Genoese origin Bartolomeu Perestrello." This is also a lie. Bartolomeu Perestrelo was not from Genoa but from Piacenza‎ Italy and was descendant of Gherardo Pallastrelli and the daughter of the lineage of the same Conde Langosco mentioned here http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_della_Torre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colon-el-Nuevo (talk • contribs) 13:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus was an Italian

Almost all Encyclopedias ( 90 % ) report " was an Italian navigator Christopher Columbus " and the remaining 10% of encyclopedias write: " The most accredited theory is that Columbus was born in Genoa, while other authors, have argued that had different origins. "

Nationality of Columbus ? Authentic documents ( as the Document Assereto ) confirm the origins of the famous Italian Navigator. Historians showed the authenticity of this document. There should be no more doubts. Spanish attempts have failed. The spaniards will have to accept the truth. Charter sings...

For every Italian famous character as Galileo or Leonardo Da Vinci ( first Italian unification in 1861 ) to the nationality voice : Italian. Uniformity in the parameters of judgment. Please do not change more the Nationality. Thanks.

--Davide41 (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Was Julius Caesar a Italian famous character too? Gbparodi (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

that's a nice DODGE to what David's point was. Also, Julius Ceasar (eye roll) is NOT in the same general time period or situation as Galileo or Da Vinci. And Columbus. The point is if Galileo or Da Vinci can be rightly called "Italian", for consistency (and sanity) so should Columbus. Case closed. (It has become obvious, Gb, that you have serious issues, and you have been engaging in needless edit warring, and have not cared much about true WP policy on this matter....THE MAJORITY HISTORIAN VIEW is that Columbus was "Italian" or probably Italian. Get over it already...and let this go. Also, "Genoese" is not as clear or as understandable as the word "Italian" to the average reader, and "Genoese" is already stated sufficiently in the info box.) Sweetpoet (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Why Galileo, Michelangelo, Raffaello, Titian or Leonardo da Vinci are considered Italian while Colombo is considered Genoese ? What is the logic ? You pull the money and you decide ? --Davide41 (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, please ease off on the bolding, you do not need to shout. There is a difference between nationality and ethnicity and you do not seem to be taking note of that in all your edits. Nationality is the easy one, a person has the nationality of the country they were born in (unless subsequently granted nationality of another country). If the country did not exist when they were born, discussion over, they did not have that nationality. Ethnicity is more difficult and leads to endless disputes amongst nationalists. The most common test we apply on Wikipedia is to ask how does (or would) the subject self-describe their ethnicity. We get this information from reliable sources, not by having pointless arguments amongst ourselves. So if you have sources that say Columbus self-described himself as Italian please share them with us. SpinningSpark 13:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Davide41, having researched all the documents for nearly 20 years, I can tell you that Colón mentioned his homeland only once when he wrote to the Monarchs on 4 March 1493 "Agora, serenísimos príncipes, acuerde V. Al. que yo dexé muger y hijos y vine de mi tierra a les servir." And in another letter he wrote "vine a servir estos Prínçipes de tan leisos y desé mujer y fijos, que jamás vi por ello, y que agora al cabo de mi vida fui despojado de mi honra." Cristóbal Colón was married only in Portugal and his "mi tierra" is "my homeland" in English and everyone knows Colón came from Portugal to serve the Spanish Monarchs and from nowhere else. Furthermore Pedro Diaz de Toledo, Queen Isabel's accountant referring to a payment of 30 gold coins to Colón in 1487 wrote "Este es el portogues que estava en el Real. Esto fue a la partida de Linares et Su Altesa me lo mando en persona" from which one can see that Colón in 1493 referred to Portugal as his homeland and in 1487 Queen Isabel's court referred to him as "Portuguese" all the rest is hearsay and invention by others. What I just quoted are the words of the man we are discussing and the court he worked for. If you have some higher authority on his nationality than him and Isabel's court, than that I'd like to see it.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Christoper Columbus claims to be Genoese - Italian in the document entitled " Mayorazgo Foundation ". Historians have argued the authenticity of this document. Why some people insist on writing nonsense ? I gave a look to the Portuguese Wikipedia and, with my great surprise, I noticed that everything has been written as by me in previously ( including the authentic document of Assereto ) that confirms the origin of the famous Genoese - Italian navigator. Have you ever read an Encyclopedia ? I have never read of a Christopher Columbus " Portuguese ". Never. There are authentic documents, encyclopedias, the opinion of historians, but despite everything, you do not want to accept the truth. Absurd. The nationalism prevails. Two unquestionably authentic documents, are the basis, for suppose that his birthplace was Genoa. As have written others Italian, with all existing documentation, write that Columbus was born in Spain or Portugal is a blasphemy. One thing out of this world. You enter in the silent labyrinth of the gender Fantasy. "Middle-earth " " The Lord of the Rings " " Frodo Baggins " " Bilbo Baggins " and of all those fantastic creatures that are all around us and in our imaginations but it will not be more an Encyclopedia. --Davide41 (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Davide41, you ask me if I have ever read an Encyclopedia, which I have, as if the words written in an Encyclopedia by third parties like you outweigh the words of the very person you are writing about. And just for your information - so that you don't make the mistake again of saying "Christoper Columbus claims to be Genoese - Italian in the document entitled " Mayorazgo Foundation"- I ask you, Have you ever seen the document called Mayorazgo that you refer to? I bet the answer is NO. But I have seen it at the Archive of Indies in Seville. I have read it and reread it and I have proven beyond any doubt that it is a forgery done by a Colombo from Italy some 80 years after Colón died. Therefore the ONLY document anywhere in which supposedly Colón wrote that he was Genoese is forged by some one trying to butt-in and inherit from him as if he was truly his relative. All else that you mention carries no weight. The Assereto Document was discredited about by Professor Antonio Rumeu de Armas, a trusted academic who found many reasons to doubt it. It is not my fault that you guys have chosen to read only what you want and like - or can since in many cases you have to be able to read in many other languages -and ignore the research done by others that present contradictory evidence. So if you want to read about a fantasy, then I suggest that you read the story of how a penniless peasant wool-weaver without knowing how to read and write who was born and lived in Genoa until 1476. SUDDENLY is in January of 1479 living in Portugal and married to the aunt to the King's Lord Chamberlain who also happens to be aunt to two Counts and one Marquis, who is sister-in-law to the King's bodyguard and cousion to the King's Mistreess?-- wow what a real life "Rags to Riches" tale your historians have woven. To top it off his children are made pages to the court of Spain before he even sets sail on the first voyage and is nominated Admiral, Governor and Viceroy!!!! Does this not sound like fantasy to you? Of course not, because your encyclopedia and the Italian forged documents have convince you. But wait, there is more, SUDDENLY the unschooled peasant proven in the Genoese Raccolta to be nothing more than an indebted wool-weaver always avoiding his creditors, is now in Portugal writing in Castillian with Portuguese words and writing in Latin. He is participating in meetings directly with the King of Portugal. He is communicating by mail directly with the King of Portugal. He is a master Navigator, Geographer, Cosmographer, knows Geometry plus Algebra and owns a large quantity of books. Can you say now that your peasant Colombo suddenly, by the magic wand of his Fairy Godmother was changed into this other person who discovered America? if so then it is you who believes in Fairy Tales. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be a false if I said that no are nationalist ( as Spanish and Portuguese ) but the difference is that we Italians we can count on documents authentic, the approval of the majority of historians, and the further confirmation, are the information reported of almost all of encyclopedias and in all the languages of the world. The rest are talk. --Davide41 (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Il tuo problema è credere senza vedere e vedere, ma non credere. Pertanto il mondo leggi un racconto fantastico su un plebeo di nome Colombo. Ma ben presto un'altra verità prevarrà e si sta già accettato in molte accademie nel libro Colon La Historia Nunca ContadaColon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Il vostro problema è che non volete accettare la verità. --Davide41 (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sto studiando questo argomento per 20 anni. Ho capito, molto meglio di te, qual è verità e ciò che è menzogna. È per questo che sto cercando di aiutare a vedere la luce. www.1492.us.com Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Write that Columbus was Spanish or Portuguese ( I never read in any encyclopedia ) is pure Fantasy. The rest are talk. Needless continue this discussion that adds nothing. --Davide41 (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

--Davide41 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

--Davide41 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. However it makes no sense to write "Galileo Italian" and " Colombo Genoese ". Leonardo Da Vinci, Cristoforo Colombo, Michelangelo, Bernini, Enrico Fermi [...] names, of course, all part of the same ethnicity. It makes no logical sense. --Davide41 (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I made some small improvements. I hope it did not "hurt" the feelings of anyone. --Davide41 (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

--Davide41 (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SpinningSpark --Davide41 (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

THIS SHOULD NOT BE SUCH A MATTER OF CONTENTION...

I'm not sure why it's that difficult to grasp that NUMEROUS reference sources, despite the dispute or doubt that exists in some historians, clearly plainly expressly state that "Christopher Columbus was an Italian navigator".

Wikipedia Policy is simple. THE MAJORITY EXPERT VIEW IS WHAT SHOULD BE STATED IN ARTICLES. And even though it's disputed by FEW people, the majority historian view is that Columbus was Italian or probably Italian. And so it should be stated clearly in the lead. Period. (Every other explorer in WP articles has nationality/ethnicity stated in intro, and so should Columbus.)

Now, to the "Genoese" thing. What has to be understood is that "Genoa" is IN Italy proper, regardless of how back in 1492 the states and geo-graphics were mapped out. What language did they speak in "Genoa" in the 14 and 1500's? Ahh, uhh, it was ITALIAN. (or at least Italian was one of the languages known and spoken there.)

Also, "Genoese" is clearly stated in this article right in the very information box itself, so there's no real need to put in the lead (either with the word "Italian" nor definitely as the word "Genoese" by itself.)

"Genoese" is NOT as clear and as easily understood to the AVERAGE reader as the word "Italian." And "Italian" IS the word stated for Christopher Columbus, by many historians, past and present.

I mean, really, also, Christopher's PARENTS had Italian first and last names....so how could Columbus himself not be "Italian"? But regardless, there's NO QUESTION that "Italian" is the majority historian view of the case, and so per WP Policy should reflect that, and it should be clearly stated in the lead.

"Genoese" is ok, but is NOT as clear, plain, simple, or understandable to most readers who peruse these types of articles, as the word "Italian". And as I said, "Genoese" is an elaboration that is already there in other parts of the article, and arguably that is sufficient.

I'm not sure why "Italian" is such a hardship for some people. Bias? Or being over-scrupulous much? Or maybe showing a lack of REAL understanding of Wikipedia rules and policy on things like this? Again, the reason "Italian" is simply better in the intro than either no nationality mentioned or even "Genoese" is because "Italian" is more recognizable, understandable, and also it's clearly referenced and stated in various reputable sources, including the very reference source cited and footnoted. If you scroll down in that britannica.com web page, you'll see "Italian explorer" in the intro of one of its articles on this subject. Sweetpoet (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Since we are striving for consistency we may have a look at Marco Polo article: he was a merchant from the Venetian Republic and maybe write: Columbus was a navigator from the Republic of Genoa, in present-day Italy.

The word Italian needs to be further defined or it may be misleading. Linking it to the wrong article makes things even worse. While many paper sources may use the word Italian for Columbus, they certainly don't link it to the Italian people article. Ascribe a modern nationality to a middle-age personality is nonsense, like writing that Marco Polo was Dalmatian and linking it to the Yugoslavia article.

Last but not least, Columbus most certainly didn't ever speak the Italian language (as the Italian people article states) nor did he ever referred to himself as Cristoforo Colombo . Anybody editing this article should know it pretty well... Cheers!

Gbparodi (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You're stating dogmatically (and wrongly) that "Columbus most certainly didn't ever speak the Italian language" WHEN THAT NOTION IS A MATTER THAT IS NOT REALLY ESTABLISHED AND IS A MATTER OF CONTENTION AND UNCERTAINTY BY A NUMBER OF HISTORIANS. I've researched this big time over the months, in fact, and the general point about the language is that he DID most likely speak at least some Italian, but some are not so sure. That's a far cry from your dogmatic statement of "he most certainly didn't ever speak".....I mean....HUH??? His very parents were Italian (it seems) with Italian first and last names!!! And there is DISAGREEMENT with many historians of which language Columbus MOSTLY spoke. But the general view is that he knew or spoke at least some Italian.

check this out:

"Supporters of Morison’s theory have argued that letters, diaries, and contracts were mostly written in Latin, so the lack of Italian is not surprising. As for the lack of spoken Italian, they argue that in the Spanish court and while on a voyage under the Spanish flag, it is not surprising that Columbus would have used primarily Spanish. To speak Italian in the presence of Spain’s king and queen would have been in terribly poor taste." Doesn't mean necessarily that Columbus didn't know at all any Italian or that he never spoke any at all in his whole life. (And also, if Columbus knew and wrote in Latin, which he did, what are the odds that he knew zero Italian, which is a language derived directly from Latin, and some people consider it a reformed modern Latin??)

It seems that maybe you're getting your information (or should I say MIS-information) from either only one source on this subject or one TYPE of source, as far as Columbus and the spoken language thing....

Also, even if he spoke ZERO Italian his whole life (which is a far-fetched notion), that does not matter ONE IOTA. There are some Japanese people I know who don't speak a word of Japanese. Does NOT make them any less "Japanese" though, racially or biologically.

Also, again, MANY REPUTABLE SOURCES on Columbus say "Italian explorer" or "Italian navigator". Are they wrong?

Also, it's NOT "linked to the wrong article" just because you have this uptight stickler thing with the matter. The "Italian people" is broad enough to include the general history from centuries ago. (Though if people want, they can change the link to maybe something better, but with the same display word....)

Also, again, you bring up Marco Polo and even Julius Caesar, ignoring things like da Vinci and Galileo. In fact you basically DODGE David's whole point with it. And only mine for examples (extreme and unique situations at that) to try to support your view on this thing. Funny that.....That's called in logic "the fallacy of selective observation". Otherwise known as "cherry-picking the evidence to suit your own agenda." But if Galileo and da Vinci can be called "Italian" in WP articles and other sources, then so should Columbus.

Again, bottom line, is this: GENOESE IS NOT TOTALLY CLEAR TO MOST PEOPLE. "Italian" is more understandable to the average reader. And AND and and.....to repeat....it's the word used many times in established reference sources, including that very cited one that's on there. "Italian explorer" in that britannica page.... Sweetpoet (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Trusted Sources

School Education Group - Biography of Christopher Columbus ( I'm not in bad faith and I posted an article on " the doubt Genoese " ) :

http://www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/btt/columbus/before_the_voyage.shtml --Davide41 (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

School Encyclopedia Topics Reference.com - Biography of Christopher Columbus :

http://www.reference.com/browse/columbus ( look the Bibliography ) --Davide41 (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

History - New World Encyclopedia - Biography of Christopher Columbus ( Genoese-born navigator ) :

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Christopher_Columbus ( look the References ) --Davide41 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC) --Davide41 (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia - Biography of Christopher Columbus ( Italian explorer ) :

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/127070/Christopher-Columbus/25447/Life --Davide41 (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Davide41, have you succeeded in locating some material explaining how a penniless peasant wool-weaver could marry a high noble woman in the 1400s in any European kingdom? I am anxious to see that document giving a noble lady authority to marry a peasant.. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This should NOT be such a matter of contention...

I'm not sure why it's that difficult to grasp that NUMEROUS reference sources, despite the dispute or doubt that exists in some historians, clearly plainly expressly state that "Christopher Columbus was an Italian navigator".

Wikipedia Policy is simple. THE MAJORITY EXPERT VIEW IS WHAT SHOULD BE STATED IN ARTICLES. And even though it's disputed by FEW people, the majority historian view is that Columbus was Italian or probably Italian. And so it should be stated clearly in the lead. Period. (Every other explorer in WP articles has nationality/ethnicity stated in intro, and so should Columbus.)

Now, to the "Genoese" thing. What has to be understood is that "Genoa" is IN Italy proper, regardless of how back in 1492 the states and geo-graphics were mapped out. What language did they speak in "Genoa" in the 14 and 1500's? Ahh, uhh, it was ITALIAN.

Also, "Genoese" is clearly stated in this article right in the very information box itself, so there's no real need to put in the lead (either with the word "Italian" nor definitely as the word "Genoese" by itself.)

"Genoese" is NOT as clear and as easily understood to the AVERAGE reader as the word "Italian." And "Italian" IS the word stated for Christopher Columbus, by many historians, past and present.

I mean, really, also, Christopher's PARENTS had Italian first and last names....so how could Columbus himself not be "Italian"? But regardless, there's NO QUESTION that "Italian" is the majority historian view of the case, and so per WP Policy should reflect that, and it should be clearly stated in the lead.

"Genoese" is ok, but is NOT as clear, plain, simple, or understandable to most readers who peruse these types of articles, as the word "Italian". And as I said, "Genoese" is an elaboration that is already there in other parts of the article, and arguably that is sufficient.

I'm not sure why "Italian" is such a hardship for some people. Bias? Or being over-scrupulous much? Or maybe showing a lack of REAL understanding of Wikipedia rules and policy on things like this? Again, the reason "Italian" is simply better in the intro than either no nationality mentioned or even "Genoese" is because "Italian" is more recognizable, understandable, and also it's clearly referenced and stated in various reputable sources, including the very reference source cited and footnoted. If you scroll down in that britannica.com web page, you'll see "Italian explorer" in the intro of one of its articles on this subject. Sweetpoet (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This intro and compromise should now work....

ok, people....How is this compromise here?

this should work (I hope) for all parties and interested editors....

it's sort of a compromise. I wrote it and worked it as:

Christopher Columbus (c. 1451 – 20 May 1506) was a navigator from Genoa, Italy,^[1] a colonizer, and explorer, whose voyages across the Atlantic Ocean led to general European awareness of the American continents in the Western Hemisphere.

there's no real reason that this can't be satisfactory to everyone. peace out...Sweetpoet (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Authoritative Sources and Historians

Some authoritative sources:

1. Farlex Free Dictionary (Encyclopedia)

2. HyperHistory.net

3. NNDB: Tracking the entire world

4. Book Rags

5. Answers.com: free online dictionary, thesaurus, and encyclopedias.

6. United States History

7. HowStuffWorks - Learn How Everything Works!

8. Questia - The Online Library of Books and Journals (encyclopedia)

9. Lycos

10. Welcome to About.com

11. BBC - History: Historic Figures

12. All collections : Explore online : NMM

13. Encyclopedia.com – Online dictionary and encyclopedia with pictures, facts, and videos.

14. Helium - Where Knowledge Rules

The historians are all agree that Columbus was Genoese \ Italian, although he spent most of his life in Spain and Portugal. But sometimes, the story takes second place in popular culture. The repeated attempts of deny the origins Genoese - Italian of Columbus are entirely inconsistent. The dispute about the origin of Columbus is only bad faith and source of speculation --Davide41 (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Milton Meltzer ( American historian )

From his Article:

[...] Christopher Columbus (in Italian, Cristoforo Colombo) was born in 1451 in Genoa, in present-day Italy. His father was a poor weaver, and Christopher worked for him. The boy had little schooling. Few people of his day did. Genoa, however, was a thriving seaport. Christopher learned much from sailors' tales of their voyages. As soon as he could, he went to sea. He made short fishing trips at first. Then he made longer trips with merchants who traded their goods at various ports along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Between voyages he studied mapmaking and geography. In his early 20's he sailed as a common seaman with a merchant fleet to transport goods to northern Europe. They sailed through the Strait of Gibraltar off the southern coast of Spain and into the Atlantic Ocean. [...] --Davide41 (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

★ Samuel Eliot Morison ( American historian )

Samuel Eliot Morison was a great American historian, was professor of history at Harvard University and subsequently was professor of American history to the University of Oxford. In his book: "Admiral of the Ocean Sea: a Life of Christopher Columbus ", notes that existing legal documents demonstrate the Genoese - Italian origin of Columbus.

The American historian Samuel Eliot Morison, who had no reason other than to be completely objective, wrote the following in Chapter II of his book "Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus", pp.7-8:

[...] There is no mystery about the birth, family or race of Christopher Columbus. … There is no more reason to doubt that Christopher Columbus was a Genoese-born Catholic Christian, steadfast in his faith and proud of his native city, than to doubt that George Washington was a Virginia-born Anglican of English race, proud of being an American.

Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese. Three contemporary Genoese chroniclers claim him as a compatriot. Every early map on which his nationality is recorded describes him as Genoese. Nobody in the Admiral's lifetime, or for three centuries after, had any doubt about his birthplace.

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. [...]

Morison discusses many existing legal documents that demonstrate the Genoese origin of Columbus, his father Domenico, and his brothers Bartolomeo and Giacomo (Diego). These documents, written in Latin by notaries, were legally valid in Genoese courts. When a line of notaries died, their documents were turned over to the archives of the Republic of Genoa. These documents were uncovered in the 19th century when Italian historians examined the Genoese archives. On page 14.

Morison writes:

[...] 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’). Giannetto, 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. [...] --Davide41 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

★ Paolo Emilio Taviani (1)(2) ( Italian politician ) has always argued that Columbus was Genoese.

From the article:

Christopher Columbus: His Birthplace and His Parents

[...] Paolo Emilio Taviani is considered to be one of the greatest scholars on Christopher Columbus and his times. Born in Genoa in 1912, he graduated in Law, Letters and Social Sciences at the Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa. From 1945, after fighting with the partisans against the Nazi occupation of northern Italy, until 1982, he taught Economic History at the University of Genoa. He has also had a distinguished political career, serving as a member of the Chamber of Deputies from 1946 to 1976, during which time he held government appointments as Minister of Defence, Minister of Finance and Minister of the Interior. In 1976 he was elected Senator and he is presently Chairman of the Commission for Foreign Affairs. Senator Taviani has written many books on political and economic subjects. His books, on Columbus include the present work, various essays and the books Terre di Liguria, an historical and geographical analysis of the discoverer's native region, and La Caravella (in collaboration with Paolo Revelli and Samuel E. Morison). An exhaustive commentary on Columbus' diary. I viaggi di Colombo, la grande scoperta was published in 1984.

What, then can be said with certainty about the origins of Christopher Columbus ?

He came from a Ligurian family. His grandfather Giovanni was born at Mocnesi. His father Domenico was born in Quinto. He lived for a long time in Genoa, then in Savona. Today Quinto has been absorbed into the urban complex of Genoa, but then it was a village, not far from the city. Christopher spent his boyhood and the first years of his adolescence in Vico Diritto, a street below the gate of Sant'Andrea. These are historically verified facts.

When and where was Christopher Columbus born ?

Two unquestionably authentic documents are the basis for assuming that his birth-date is between 25 August and 31 October 1451. In one dated 31 October 1470, Columbus declares himself "major annis decemnovem" ("nineteen years old"); in the other, dated 25 August 1479, which we have already referred to, he says he is "annorum vigintiseptem vel circa" ("about twenty-seven"). Between 25 August and 31 October 1451, Domenico Colombo, Christopher's father, was warder of the Porta dell'Olivella, Genoa's eastern gate, and therefore lived near the gate itself. So it was there that Christopher would have been born.

The reasoning is sound, but can we be sure the two declarations are exact?

Anyone can make an occasional slip about his own age. And how did Columbus count the years? If he was born in October 1451, he could have said he was twenty-eight in August 1479, that being his twenty-eighth year; but he could equally have said, correctly, that he was twenty-seven, having not yet reached his twenty-eighth birthday. Then, too, there are the words "vel circa" in the second document, indicating that he was about twenty-seven, on 25 August 1479. All this leads us to believe that Christopher Columbus was born around 1451, but it would be risky to tie down the precise date within the narrow space of two months. It is historically certain that Columbus was of Ligurian stock, that he spent his boyhood and early youth in Genoa, in Vico Diritto, and that he subsequently lived in Savona, where his father Domenico moved in 1470. Genoa ia verified as his native city; but it is less certain that he was specifically born in Via dell'Olivella. He could have been born, for example, in Quinto, where his father still owned a house and where his mother, Susanna Fontanarossa, might well have gone to bear her son in cool, serene surroundings, assisted by the women of her husband's family. Until the beginning of the present century, it was the custom, in families that had migrated to Genoa from the surrounding countryside, to send expectant mothers back to their families at home to have their children. The problem, anyhow, is not worthwhile. Via dell'Olivella or Quinto, it is always Genoa. Apart from the documents, there is the testimony of contemporaries. Not until the 18th and 19th centuries, did anyone begin disputing Columbus' Genoese origins. At the time of the discoveries, everyone considered him Italian, Genoese, a foreigner in Spain. Judging from contemporary writings, nobody even thought it was worth discussing the subject. Historians and geographers from many nations -- Spain, Portugal, Germany, England, the Netherlands, Switzerland, France and Turkey -- all speak of the Genoese Columbus, who discovered the Americas. Nor did their books and atlases gather dust in libraries. Some went through several editions. The reports contained and repeated in them were never denied. 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. Of this last group, only fourteen are by Ligurians, the other authors being Lombards, Venetians, Tuscans, Neapolitans, Sicilians and one Maltese. Regional rivalries were still alive in the 16th century, so that the forty-eight confirmations of Columbus' Genoese origin, by non-Ligurian writers, take on virtually the same significance as those of the twenty-nine non-Italians. Some of these regions, moreover, were governed by the Spanish, so that it might have been tempting, for purposes of flattery, to attribute Spain as his birthplace, even though others might contest it. Yet not one of them did. Still more significant is the testimony of ambassadors of the period. Pedro de Ayala, Spanish ambassador to the English Court, writing, on 25 July 1498, to their Catholic Majesties Ferdinand and Isabella about the discoveries of John Cabot, affirms Columbus' Genoese birth. Nicolo Oderico, ambassador of the Republic of Genoa to the court of Spain, made an address to the Spanish monarchs in April 1501, praising them for having discovered hidden and inaccessible places under the command of Columbus, "our fellow citizen, illustrious cosmographer and steadfast leader." [...] Source : Millersville University - Welcome to Millersville University

(1) The professor Taviani is considered both in Italy and abroad to be the greatest expert in Columbus studies and donated his entire collection of books ( 2.500 volumes and 1.000 scholarly essays ) to the Berio library in October 2000. With this donation, the Library, now totaling 5.500 Columbus publications ( 200 of which are of historical importance ), has become the third largest Columbus collection in the world, after Seville and Simancas, Spain. ( Source : Berio Public Library )

(2) From article A Passion for History:

Italian Senator Paolo Emilio Taviani was recognized in America as the authority on studies about Columbus and all his books had been already translated into English and shipped to bookstores and schools in the cities where the Quincentenary was being celebrated. --Davide41 (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Esmond Wright ( British Conservative politician, historian and Director of the Institute of United States Studies at the University of London )

From his article:

[...] For journalists, media-people and some Columbus scholars, 1492 was largely devoted to the fashion of political correctness, which, being translated, meant sarcasm and scorn for Columbus, as man and sailor, and falsification -- or at best a very fanciful re-telling -- of his story.

Happily, one product of 1992 dispels the gloom: this splendidly printed, well illustrated and comprehensive encyclopedia, edited by Silvio Bedini of the Smithsonian Institution. A frequent name on its pages, on Genoese or Columbus family topics, is that distinguished academic and Italian senator Paolo Emilio Taviani. This is the work of some one-hundred contributors and advisory editors, each of whom adds a short bibliography to his essay. Among the contributors one is happy to note at least three British names, Helen Wallis of the British Museum, Oswald Dike, Emeritus of Leeds (and war-time in Intelligence in the Middle East) and David Quinn, Emeritus of Liverpool (and Maryland). The range is staggering: from the study of La Rabida Monastery, which played a major role in sustaining Columbus (and where one of the brothers persuaded Queen Isabella to support his first voyage) to studies of the rival locations for the first landfall.

Among the nuggets, one notes: Columbus and Vespucci were friends rather than rivals; there is no evidence of direct contact between Columbus and Toscanelli; and not least one notes the place of the conversos like the wealthy Santangel family, who served the royal family of Aragon through a number of generations, largely through their mercantile interests in Genoa -- and they too backed Christopher Columbus. [...] --Davide41 (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Edward Everett Hale ( American writer )

From his book : "The Life of Christopher Columbus"

Christopher Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa. The honor of his birth-place has been claimed by many villages in that Republic, and the house in which he was born cannot be now pointed out with certainty. But the best authorities agree that the children and the grown people of the world have never been mistaken when they have said: "America was discovered in 1492 by Christopher Columbus, a native of Genoa."

His name, and that of his family, is always written Colombo, in the Italian papers which refer to them, for more than one hundred years before his time. In Spain it was always written Colon; in France it is written as Colomb; while in England it has always kept its Latin form, Columbus. It has frequently been said that he himself assumed this form, because Columba is the Latin word for "Dove," with a fanciful feeling that, in carrying Christian light to the West, he had taken the mission of the dove. Thus, he had first found land where men thought there was ocean, and he was the messenger of the Holy Spirit to those who sat in darkness. It has also been assumed that he took the name of Christopher, "the Christ-bearer," for similar reasons. But there is no doubt that he was baptized "Christopher," and that the family name had long been Columbo. The coincidences of name are but two more in a calendar in which poetry delights, and of which history is full. [...] --Davide41 (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Martin Dugard ( American writer )

From the preface of his book "The Last Voyage of Columbus":

[...] Without intending to, I became an adventure writer through the Madagascar trip, and spent the next five years traveling the world to cover and compete in races like Eco-Challenge and Raid Gauloises. I sailed from Genoa to Mallorca aboard a tall ship (Columbus was born in Genoa), flew around the world in an Air France Concorde at twice the speed of sound (setting an around-the-world speed record in the process), and lived six weeks on Survivor island for the filming of that show's first incarnation. As exciting as all that was, my kids were getting older and needed me around more, so I decided to forgo the adventure world to indulge my passion for history. I envisioned a more tranquil authorly lifestyle. This led me to nearly get killed by a New Zealand logging truck while writing about Captain Cook (Farther Than Any Man), get arrested and nearly killed in Africa while writing about Stanley and Livingstone (Into Africa), and stumble quite accidentally into unauthorized, after-hours tour of the Alhambra in Granada. So much for the tranquil lifestyle.

At the beginning of THE LAST VOYAGE, as Columbus was led through the streets of Santo Domingo in shackles, the colonists called him names and accused him of being a Jew and a Genovese spy. Was Columbus Jewish?

Possibly. Though documents in Genoa show that he was born there, the son of two devout Catholics, there is some belief they may have been fabricated a century or more ago. To clear this up, experts at the University of Granada exhumed his body to get a DNA sample. They are currently trying to decipher Columbus's true lineage. The belief that he might be Jewish, however, was based on ethnic stereotyping and discrimination rather than hard facts. Simply, the Spanish distrusted foreigners, and Columbus had a prominent nose. However, he also had red hair and freckles. Based on stereotypes, he could just as easily have been Irish.' [...] --Davide41 (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

David Boyle ( British author and journalist )

From the preface of his book "Toward the Setting Sun: Columbus, Cabot, Vespucci, and the Race for America":

[...] Contrary to popular belief, Cabot, Columbus, and Vespucci not only knew of each other, they were well acquainted—Columbus and Vespucci at various times worked closely together; Cabot and Columbus were born in Genoa about the same time and had common friends who were interested in Western trade possibilities. They collaborated, knew of each other’s ambitions, and followed each other’s progress. As each attempted to curry favor with various monarchs across Europe, they used news of the others’ successes and failures to further their claims and to garner support from investors. The intrigue, espionage, and treachery that abounded in the courts of Europe provide a compelling backdrop for the intersection of dreams and business ventures that led the way to our modern world. [...] --Davide41 (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

☆ Washington Irving ( American author, essayist, biographer and historian )

From his book "A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus":

[...] The three commissioners appointed by the Academy of Sciences and Letters of Genoa to examine into these pretensions, after a long and diligent investigation, gave a voluminous and circumstantial report in favor of Genoa. An ample digest of their inquest may be found in the History of Columbus by Signer Bossi, who, in an able dissertation on the question, confirms their opinion. It may be added, in farther corroboration, that Peter Martyr and Bartholomew Las Casas, who were contemporaries and acquaintances of Columbus, and Juan de Barros, the Portuguese historian, all make Columbus a native of the Genoese territories. [...]

[...] and many of them contemporary with the admiral, some of them his intimate friends, others his fellow-citizens, who state him to have been born in the city of Genoa. [...]

[...] This question of birthplace has also been investigated with considerable minuteness, and a decision given in favor of Genoa, by D. Gio Battista Spotorno, of the royal university in that city, in his historical memoir of Columbus. He shows that the family of the Columbi had long been resident in Genoa. By'an extract from the notarial register, it appeared that one Giacomo Colombo, a woolcarder, resided without the gate of St. Andria, in the year 1311. An agreement, also published by the academy of Genoa, proved, that in 1489, Domenico Colombo possessed a house and shop, and a garden with a well, in the street of St. Andrew's gate, anciently without the walls, presumed to have been the same residence with that of Giacomo Colombo. He rented also another house from the monks of St. Stephen, in the Via Mulcento, leading from the street of St. Andrew to the Strada Giulia. [...]

[...] Andres Bernaldez, the curate of los Palacios, who was an intimate friend of Columbus, says that he was of Genoa. Agostino Giustiniani, a contemporary of Columbus, likewise asserts it in his Polyglot Psalter, published in Genoa, in 1516. Antonio de Herrera, an author of great accuracy, who, though not a contemporary, had access to the best documents, asserts decidedly that he was born in the city of Genoa. [...]

[...] To these names may be added that of Alexander Geraldini, brother to the nuncio, and instructor to the children of Ferdinand and Isadella, a most intimate friend of Columbus. Also Antonio Gallo, Bartolomeo Senarega, and Uberto Foglieta, all contemporaries with the admiral, and natives of Genoa, together with an anonymous writer, who published an account of his voyage of discovery at Venice in 1509. [...]

[...] The question in regard to the birthplace of Columbus has been treated thus minutely, because it has been, and still continues to be, a point of warm controversy. It may be considered, however, as conclusively decided by the highest authority, the evidence of Columbus himself. In a testament executed in 1498, which has been admitted in evidence before the Spanish tribunals in certain lawsuits among his descendants, he twice declares that he was a native of the city of Genoa: "_Siendo yo nacido en Genova._" ("I being born in Genoa.") And again, he repeats the assertion, as a reason for enjoining certain conditions on his heirs, which manifest the interest he takes in his native place. "I command the said Diego, my son, or the person who inherits the said mayorazgo (or entailed estate), that he maintain always in the city of Genoa a person of our lineage, who shall have a house and a wife there, and to furnish him with an income on which he can live decently, as a person connected with onr family, and hold footing and root in that city as a native of it, so that he may have aid and favor in that city in case of need, _for from thence I came and there was born. [...]

[...] In another part of his testament he expresses himself with a filial fondness in respect to Genoa. "I command the said Don Diego, or whoever shall possess the said mayorazgo, that he labor and strive always for the honor, and welfare, and increase of the city of Genoa, and employ all his abilities and means in defending and augmenting the welfare and honor of her republic, in all matters which are not contrary to the service of the church of God, and the state of the king and queen our sovereigns, and their successors." [...]

[...] These bequests were evidently dictated by a mingled sentiment of pride and affection, which would be without all object if not directed to his native place. He was at this time elevated above all petty pride on the subject. His renown was so brilliant, that it would have shed a lustre on any hamlet, however obscure: and the strong love of country here manifested would never have felt satisfied until it had singled out the spot, and nestled down, in the very cradle of his infancy. These appear to be powerful reasons, drawn from natural feeling, for deciding in favor of Genoa. [...] --Davide41 (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Other Important Information

In "Christopher Columbus," Univ. of Okla. Press (1987), pp. 10-11, Gianni Granzotto ( historian ) lists the following information from documents written by contemporaries of Columbus :

1. Pietro Martire d’Angera (Peter Martyr) was the earliest of Columbus’s chroniclers and was in Barcelona when Columbus returned from his first voyage. In his letter of May 14, 1493, addressed to Giovanni Borromeo, he referred to Columbus as Ligurian ["vir Ligur"], Liguria being the Region where Genoa is located.

2. A reference, dated 1492 by a court scribe Galindez, referred to Columbus as "Cristóbal Colón, genovés."

3. In "History of the Catholic Kings," Andrés Bernaldez wrote: "Columbus was a man who came from the land of Genoa."

4. In "General and Natural History of the Indies", Bartolomé de Las Casas asserted his "Genoese nationality."

5. In a book of the same title, Gonzalo de Fernández de Oviedo wrote that Columbus was "originating from the province of Liguria."

The "ample evidence" supporting the Genoese origin of Columbus is also discussed by Miles H. Davidson, a Columbus scholar from the Dominican Republic, in "Columbus Then and Now: A Life Reexamined", University of Oklahoma Press (1997) pp. 3-15. Davidson dismisses all other theories as "futile speculation … mostly attributed to parochialism." [p. 7] Davidson also debunks the fanciful claims about the high social rank of Columbus’s wife. --Davide41 (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

high social rank of Columbus’s wife

Davide41, your problem is that you deny the research done in the last 20 years and hold on to hearsay from 100 years ago. Cristobal Colon's wife was the daughter a Portuguese Captain, who was owner/governor of a Portuguese island and whose grandfather was part of the governing committee for the City of Lisbon- all noblemen with coat of arms who were descendants of the noble Lombard, Count Filippo Langosco, governor of Pavia. Do you think this means she was not of high social rank? Furthermore she was 1 of 12 with the privilege of living at the Military Order of Santiago's residence in Lisbon. Do you think she was not of high social ranK? Furthermore her nephew was the Portuguese king's Lord Chamberlain and the Comendador Major of the Military order of Santiago. Does this imply she was not of high social rank to you? Her niece's husband was Marquis of Montemor and Supreme Military Leader of Portugal, does this means she was a nobody to you? Her brother-in-law was Captain of an Island in the Azores and was the King of Portugal's Bodyguard, does this prove to you that Filipa Moniz was an insignificant laborer peasant as was your Colombo wool-weaver? Her half-sister's cousin was the King's Mistress and High Comendadeira of the Military Order of Santiago. Her uncle was the elite Comendador of Panóias for the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago. Does this confirm for you that Morison and Davidson and Tavianni were correct about the high rank of Filipa Moniz in Portugal? Her father's sister-in-law raised the King's two daughters and also became High Comendadeira of the Military Order of Santiago. Will you continue affirming contrary to the evidence that Filipa Moniz was at the same social rank as your penniless wool-weaver Colombo? Filipa's niece, D. Inês de Noronha was the Portuguese Countess of Abrantes, her niece D. Catarina de Noronha was the Portuguese Countess of Penamacor and her niece D. Isabel de Noronha was the Marquesa of Montemor. Does this show you that your sources were wrong in their misguided assertions that Filipa Moniz was insignificant and unimportant in Portugal's society in 1478? Her Portuguese cousin was married to the Portuguese Viceroy of the real India. To top it off, being that Filipa Moniz was a member of the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago in 1475 as this document shows, and by the order's rules she required authorization from the King of Portugal to marry any one. Do you seriously think she would have been given authorization to marry a peasant foreigner who arrived shipwrecked with no resources or job in his new kingdom? A person that the genoese archives prove was nothing m ore than a penniless peasant always running away form his creditors? A person who could not even read and write his own Genoese language? The misguided ones are not those of us who today assert that the history was wrong but those who continue to insist that the history of the wool-weaver was correct. Can you say Fairytale?

"Though disputed"

There are many categories of historians, people of second and third rank, who do their best, but do not go very far. There are also people of first class, who make great discoveries, which are of great importance. But then there are the "geniuses", like Samuel Eliot Morison (1) and Paolo Emilio Taviani (2), well, will always follow the opinion of these oracles.

(1) Samuel Eliot Morison, professor of history at Harvard University and, subsequently, professor of American history to the University of Oxford and, without doubt, one of the greatest connoisseurs of life of Christopher Columbus.

(2) Paolo Emilio Taviani -- The greatest scholar of Christopher Columbus in the nine hundred ( 2.500 volumes and 1.000 scholarly essays ). --Davide41 (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Spanish version of Christopher Columbus, are not cited great historians (could "turn a blind eye" on "small historians" as Washington Irving, Milton Meltzer or David Boyle among others) but, are not mentioned these two "sacred monsters". There is no trace. "The mystery... The mystery on the life of Columbus continues". --Davide41 (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

high social rank of Columbus’s wife

Davide41, your problem is that you deny the research done in the last 20 years and hold on to hearsay from 100 years ago. Cristobal Colon's wife was the daughter a Portuguese Captain, who was owner/governor of a Portuguese island and whose grandfather was part of the governing committee for the City of Lisbon- all noblemen with coat of arms who were descendants of the noble Lombard, Count Filippo Langosco, governor of Pavia. Do you think this means she was not of high social rank? Furthermore she was 1 of 12 with the privilege of living at the Military Order of Santiago's residence in Lisbon. Do you think she was not of high social ranK? Furthermore her nephew was the Portuguese king's Lord Chamberlain and the Comendador Major of the Military order of Santiago. Does this imply she was not of high social rank to you? Her niece's husband was Marquis of Montemor and Supreme Military Leader of Portugal, does this means she was a nobody to you? Her brother-in-law was Captain of an Island in the Azores and was the King of Portugal's Bodyguard, does this prove to you that Filipa Moniz was an insignificant laborer peasant as was your Colombo wool-weaver? Her half-sister's cousin was the King's Mistress and High Comendadeira of the Military Order of Santiago. Her uncle was the elite Comendador of Panóias for the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago. Does this confirm for you that Morison and Davidson and Tavianni were correct about the high rank of Filipa Moniz in Portugal? Her father's sister-in-law raised the King's two daughters and also became High Comendadeira of the Military Order of Santiago. Will you continue affirming contrary to the evidence that Filipa Moniz was at the same social rank as your penniless wool-weaver Colombo? Filipa's niece, D. Inês de Noronha was the Portuguese Countess of Abrantes, her niece D. Catarina de Noronha was the Portuguese Countess of Penamacor and her niece D. Isabel de Noronha was the Marquesa of Montemor. Does this show you that your sources were wrong in their misguided assertions that Filipa Moniz was insignificant and unimportant in Portugal's society in 1478? Her Portuguese cousin was married to the Portuguese Viceroy of the real India. To top it off, being that Filipa Moniz was a member of the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago in 1475 as this document shows, and by the order's rules she required authorization from the King of Portugal to marry any one. Do you seriously think she would have been given authorization to marry a peasant foreigner who arrived shipwrecked with no resources or job in his new kingdom? A person that the genoese archives prove was nothing m ore than a penniless peasant always running away form his creditors? A person who could not even read and write his own Genoese language? The misguided ones are not those of us who today assert that the history was wrong but those who continue to insist that the history of the wool-weaver was correct. Can you say Fairytale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.250 (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

For 5%||\\\\4545454erererebad-faith-54545 or Colon-el-Nuevo ( but remains with his old and real name of Cristoforo Colombo )

You have reported 3 sources. Two are unreliable while a document longer be considered of "some value". If you find all the complete documentation (Genoese origin of Columbus) I could fill 150 pages.

Carry sentences of the greatest scholar of Christopher Columbus, of the 20th century ( Paolo Emilio Taviani ) :

If the life of Christopher Columbus reads like a novel, an even stranger and more complicated novel has been spun from the debates surrounding his birth. 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. --Davide41 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Today all Columbus scholars, both his admirers and his detractors, recognize that he was Genoese.

There is no doubt on its origins. Continue with the hallucinations. However, no document, no historical data, authorize or even partially justify the tales spun around the birth of Columbus.--Davide41 (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Davide41, the only reason the peasant wool-weaver Colombo has been allowed to take the place of the noble Portuguese who married Filipa Moniz and the only reason the wool-weaver has been accepted as the discoverer of America is because for 500 years the Portuguese academics kept quiet about what they knew. Now that will all change and your wool-weaver can finally assume his proper place in his city of Genoa. A know nothing penniless wool-weaver who for 500 years was mistaken to e the great discoverer.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC).

Colon-el-Nuevo the only reason the peasant wool-weaver Colombo has been allowed to take the place of the noble Portuguese who married Filipa Moniz But the "production" of Pontevedra documents continued...

Colon-el-Nuevo and the only reason the wool-weaver has been accepted as the discoverer of America is because for 500 years the Portuguese academics kept quiet about what they knew.

Hallucinations. I could write 40 pages on the life of Christopher Columbus (showing all sources, original documents, etc) but always deny. Deny the obvious. Enough. No point wasting time. --Davide41 (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Davide41, did you know that Cristóbal Colón is writting notes to himself in Spanish intermixed with Portuguese words already in 1481 while he is living in Portugal? Did you know that Cristóbal Colón NOT ONCE wrote a letter in Italian or in Genoese not even to the Genoese friar Gaspar Gorricio? What kind of Italian Genoese does not know how to write in Italian Genoese but after only 4 years of living in a new kingdom knows very well how to write Spanish and Portuguese? Your Colombo must really be a genius to pick up Portuguese and Spanish in 4 years and in the same 4 years forget forever his Italian Genoese that he had used and spoken for 25 years in Italy. Maybe your Colombo had the same selective learning blindness to reality that you and many before you have experienced. The noble Cristóbal Colón was not the Cristoforo Colombo that comes depicted in the documents of the Raccolta and propped up by Tavianni with false and invented details like writing that Genoa was at the time the European capital of navigation and maritime invention. Genoa was nothing of that in the 1450s, 60s, 70s 80s, or 90s. It was LISBON in those years that was the European capital of navigation and maritime invention. But just like this lie of Taviani is believed and propagated by many so too is the lie that Colombo was Colón. They are two very different people. If you wish to continue being blind that is your choice, but you will continue living in a fairytale if you accept and believe that a man who was a poor wool-weaving peasant always hiding from his creditors, unschooled and a dreamer incapable of finding North at sea, could suddenly upon arriving in Portugal and drinking the Portuguese "magic" water be transformed into a nobleman with a coat of arms, be allowed to marry one of the high noble ladies of the kingdom, get invited to talk directly to the king about matters of navigation, have his children be pages at the court, read and write Portuguese and Spanish and completely FORGET his Italian Genoese language -which neither he not his brother Bartolomé, nor his brother Diego ever used to communicate between themselves- always writing to each other in Spanish. The farse of the wool-weaver so heavily propped up by the Genoese government will shortly be seen for what it is. An Italian usurpation of a historic figure done by propping up a peasant of a similar name to replace a nobleman who had insisted with the court that his nation of birth and parents remain unknown to the public. It is now just a matter of time for the clock to hit 12 and you to open your eyes and wake up from the fantasy that any peasant could be allowed to marry a noble lady in the 1400s. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Repeated attempts, of deny the Genoese origins of Columbus, are entirely inconsistent. Tests on the birth Ligurian, are accepted by all major historians, including Portuguese.

Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese.

A reference, dated 1492 by a court scribe Galindez, referred to Columbus as « Cristóbal Colón, genovés. »
In History of the Catholic Kings, Andrés Bernaldez wrote: « Columbus was a man who came from the land of Genoa. »
In a book of the same title, Gonzalo de Fernández de Oviedo wrote that Columbus was « originating from the province of Liguria. »
Antonio Gallo, Agostino Giustiniani and Bartolomeo Serraga wrote that Columbus was Genoese.
Peter Martyr and Bartholomew Las Casas, who were contemporaries and acquaintances of Columbus, and Juan de Barros, the Portuguese historian, all make Columbus a native of the Genoese territories
« Antonio de Herrera, an author of great accuracy, who, though not a contemporary, had access to the best documents, asserts decidedly that he was born in the city of Genoa. To these names may be added that of Alexander Geraldini, brother to the nuncio, and instructor to the children of Ferdinand and Isadella, a most intimate friend of Columbus. »

The act is known as the assereto document and mayorazgo document are authentic. This is a fact.

In addition to Ballesteros Beretta and Manzano, the following historians have recognized that Columbus was Genoese: the Spanish Navarrete, Munoz, Duro, Asensio, Serrano y Sanz, Altolaguirre, Perez de Tudela, Morales Padron, Manuel Alvar, Ciroanescu, Rumeu de Armas, Muro Orejon, Martinez Hidalgo, Emiliano Jos, Demetrio Ramos, Consuelo Varela, Juan Gil, Ballesteros Gaibrois, and Milhou; the French D'Avezac, Roselly de Lorgues, Vignaud, Sumien, Charcot, Houben, de la Ronciere, Mahn Lot, Heers, Mollat, and Braudel; the English Robertson, Johnson, Markham, Brebner, and Bradford; the Belgians Pirenne and Verlinden; the Germans Humboldt, Peschel, Ruge, Streicher, Leithaus, and Breuer; the Swiss Burckhardt; the Russian Magidovic; the Rumanian Goldemberg; the North Americans Irving, Harrisee, Winsor, Dickey, Thacher, Nunn, Morison, Parry, and Boorstin; the Cubans Alvarez Pedroso, Ramirez Corria, Carpentier, and Nunez Jimenez; the Puerto Ricans Aurelio Tio and Alegria; the Colombians Arciniegas and Obregon; the Argentinians Molinari, Levillier,a nd de Gandia; the Uruguayans Laguarda Trias and Marta Sanguinetti; and the Japanese Aynashiya among others.

The two greatest historians (Morison and Taviani) close the dispute :

1. " There is no more reason to doubt that Christopher Columbus was a Genoese-born Catholic Christian, steadfast in his faith and proud of his native city, than to doubt that George Washington was a Virginia-born Anglican of English race, proud of being an American. " Morison

2. The claim for a Portuguese Columbus emerges every now and then from that country's dilettante historians, and it reappeared during the 1930s with the fantastic thesis that Zarco - the rediscoverer of Porto Santo and Madeira - and Cristobal Colon were one and the same. The glorious myth of Columbus has prompted some minds to hallucinate and some dilettantes to try to appropriate the myth for themselves." Taviani --Davide41 (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your book will be forgotten in a few months. --Davide41 (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

'Davide41 I have done my homework and I know more about and Colón than Taviani and Morison could ever hope to know. Ponder this, around 1610 Galileo Galilei placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he immediately met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics who believed in a LIE that had been taught worldwide since the beginning of time and eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615.... No matter how many people wrote that Galileo was wrong and insisted that Galileo was wrong by bringing up their "higher authorities" Galileo was correct. The same will soon become evident about your "Colombo peasant nobody" who was sold to the world as being the same man as the nobleman who married the Portuguese noble lady Filipa Moniz in january of 1479. The cat's out of the bag and the lie will no longer be believed by those with the will to look at the truth. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For Colond

Yes. Yes. Yes. When the time comes (which never comes) unravel the mystery. --Davide41 (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's already unravelled in "Colombo Português- Novas Revelaçôes" and being praised by the academics who read it but it is not my fault that you are incapable of reading in Portuguese. That is your shortcoming not mine.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Colombo Português- Novas Revelaçôes" and “COLÓN. La Historia Nunca Contada” prove:

- The Ship Santa Maria never sank off the coast of Haiti it was marooned on purpose.
- Columbus always knew he was not in India, he lied when he said he had reached India.
- Columbus Last Will of 1498 is a forgery created some 80 years after he died.
- Columbus’s wife was aunt to high nobles including the king’s Lord Chamberlain.
- The stop in Lisbon on his return voyage was done intentionally to see King John II.
- The true original coat of arms of Columbus is finally found and revealed is this book.
- Columbus's true identity was covered up by the court of Portugal and the court of Spain.
Just have a look at what historians and academics who read are saying:
Prof. Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão, PhD., former Dean of the University of Lisbon, Ex- President of the Portuguese Academy of History and author of The History of Portugal going on 15 volumes, who wrote the book’s Preface and recognize that the Manuel Rosa “has made a meticulous study of the life and deeds of Columbus and I agree with him 100%.”

Prof. James T. McDonough Jr., PhD., Professor at St. Joseph's University for 31 years, wrote: The more I read, the more convincing its massive accumulation of historical details became. I would say that the book provides the best answers to many previously unexplained problems in the Columbus puzzle. Despite a lifetime that has taught me to question all things, I found myself believing that the case against Columbus presented here is about as solid as Fawn Brodie’s claims that Jefferson sired slaves by his Black slave Sally.

Prof. Marcel Balla, PhD., a graduate of Boston University, says: You are making a great contribution to this history and I am learning a lot from your book. Your work is of great importance and deserves to be read carefully.

Prof. Trevor Hall, PhD., in History from Johns Hopkins University, 1993, writes: I am a professor of History who specializes in 15th and 16th century Portuguese contacts with West Africa. I do Portuguese paleography, and my research supports your conclusions that Columbus was a Portuguese spy for King Joao II (1481-1495).

Prof. Rui Duque, PhD. from Madeira wrote: I must say the book is extensive and very detailed...it is exceptional… I admire the exhaustive work about the kingdom of Portugal in the XV century, the policy of secrecy of the crown in regards to navigation and in regards to other kingdoms, the influence of the military orders, the detailed analyses of Columbus's Portuguese in-laws, etc....

Prof. D. Félix Martínez Llorente, PhD, from University of Valladolid affirmed: The book is an extensive and well-documented work on the still-enigmatic figure of Christopher Columbus, with evocative and notorious contributions that will, with absolute certainty, be talked about for a long time.

Prof. Antonio Vicente, PhD, History Professor at Lisbon University, said: For the first time ever a book was written about Columbus without starting from any preconceived certainties and every piece of the puzzle is explained point by point. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You wrote a book? So?

Professor Taviani : collection of 2.500 volumes, one thousand academic essays and has written over 20 books on the life of Columbus. Is recognized as the authority on studies about Columbus and all his books had been already translated into English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Chinese [...] in all languages of the world.

Professor Morison ? One of the greatest historians of the twentieth century. An oracle.

You? You wrote a book. There have been historians who have spent a lifetime of study.

The greatest of all Spanish historians, that same Ballesteros, Professor of the University of Madrid and director of the monumental series of publications on the Historia de America y de los pueblos americanos, devotes eighty pages to the question of Columbus' native land, and concludes that "no one can cast the least shadow of doubt" on his being from Genoa. They are all fools? Already ... Are you the new Galileo. Do not report sources. If I had to write my sources, never finish more --Davide41 (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Today all Columbus scholars, both his admirers and his detractors, recognize that he was Genoese. A long list at his or her disposal ... I could fill a whole page of names.

Will of Columbus.

In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, who inspired me with the idea, and afterwards made it perfectly clear to me, that I could navigate and go to the Indies from Spain, by traversing the ocean westwardly; which I communicated to the king, Don Ferdinand, and to the queen Dona Isabella, our sovereigns; and they were pleased to furnish me the necessary equipment of men and ships, and to make me their admiral over the said ocean, in all parts lying to the west of an imaginary line, drawn from pole to pole, a hundred leagues west of the Cape de Verd and Azore islands; also appointing me their viceroy and governor over all continents and islands that I might discover beyond the said line westwardly; with the right of being succeeded in the said offices by my eldest son and his heirs for ever; and a grant of the tenth part of all things found in the said jurisdiction; and of all rents and revenues arising from it; and the eighth of all the lands and every thing else, together with the salary corresponding to my rank of admiral, viceroy, and governor, and all other emoluments accruing thereto, as is more fully expressed in the title and agreement sanctioned by their highnesses.

And it pleased the Lord Almighty, that in the year one thousand four hundred and ninety-two, I should discover the continent of the Indies and many islands, among them Hispaniola, which the Indians called Ayte, and the Monicongos, Cipango. I then returned to Castile to their highnesses, who approved of my undertaking a second enterprise for farther discoveries and settlements; and the Lord gave me victory over the island of Hispaniola, which extends six hundred leagues, and I conquered it and made it tributary; and I discovered many islands inhabited by cannibals, and seven hundred to the west of Hispaniola, among which is Jamaica, which we call Santiago; and three hundred and thirty-three leagues of continent from south to west, besides a hundred and seven to the north, which I discovered in my first voyage, together with many islands, as may more clearly be seen by my letters, memorials, and maritime charts. And as we hope in God that before long a good and great revenue will be derived from the above islands and continent, of which, for the reasons aforesaid, belong to me the tenth and the eighth, with the salaries and emoluments specified above; and considering that we are mortal, and that it is proper for every one to settle his affairs, and to leave declared to his heirs and successors the property he possesses or may have a right to: Wherefore I have concluded to create an entailed estate (mayorazgo) out of the said eighth of the lands, places, and revenues, in the manner which I now proceed to state.

In the first place, I am to be succeeded by Don Diego, my son, who in case of death without children is to be succeeded by my other son Ferdinand; and should God dispose of him also without leaving children, and without my having any other son, then my brother Don Bartholomew is to succeed; and after him his eldest son; and if God should dispose of him without heirs, he shall be succeeded by his sons from one to another for ever; or, in the failure of a son, to be succeeded by Don Ferdinand, after the same manner, from son to son successively; or in their place by my brothers Bartholomew and Diego. And should it please the Lord that the estate, after having continued for some time in the line of any of the above successors, should stand in need of an immediate and lawful male heir, the succession shall then devolve to the nearest relation, being a man of legitimate birth, and bearing the name of Columbus derived from his father and his ancestors. This entailed estate shall in nowise be inherited by a woman, except in case that no male is to be found, either in this or any other quarter of the world, of my real lineage, whose name, as well as that of his ancestors, shall have always been Columbus. In such an event (which may God forefend), then the female of legitimate birth, most nearly related to the preceding possessor of the estate, shall succeed to it; and this is to be under the conditions herein stipulated at foot, which must be understood to extend as well to Don Diego, my son, as to the aforesaid and their heirs, every one of them, to be fulfilled by them; and failing to do so, they are to be deprived of the succession, for not having complied with what shall herein be expressed; and the estate to pass to the person most nearly related to the one who held the right: and the person thus succeeding shall in like manner forfeit the estate, should he also fail to comply with said conditions; and another person, the nearest of my lineage, shall succeed, provided he abide by them, so that they may be observed for ever in the form prescribed. This forfeiture is not to be incurred for trifling matters, originating in lawsuits, but in important cases, when the glory of God, or my own, or that of my family, may be concerned, which supposes a perfect fulfillment of all the things hereby ordained; all which I recommend to the courts of justice. And I supplicate his Holiness, who now is, and those that may succeed in the holy church, that if it should happen that this my will and testament has need of his holy order and command for its fulfillment, that such order be issued in virtue of obedience, and under penalty of excommunication, and that it shall not be in any wise disfigured. And I also pray the king and queen, our sovereigns, and their eldest-born, Prince Don Juan, our lord, and their successors, for the sake of the services I have done them, and because it is just, that it may please them not to permit this my will and constitution of my entailed estate to be any way altered, but to leave it in the form and manner which I have ordained, for ever, for the greater glory of the Almighty, and that it may be the root and basis of my lineage, and a memento of the services I have rendered their highnesses; that, being born in Genoa, I came over to serve them in Castile, and discovered to the west of Terra Firma, the Indies and islands before mentioned. I accordingly pray their highnesses to order that this my privilege and testament be held valid, avid be executed summarily and without any opposition or demur, according to the letter. I also pray the grandees of the realm and the lords of the council, and all others having administration of justice, to be pleased not to suffer this my will and testament to be of no avail, but to cause it to be fulfilled as by me ordained; it being just that a noble, who has served the king and queen, and the kingdom, should be respected in the disposition of his estate by will, testament, institution of entail, or inheritance, and that the same be not infringed either in whole or in part. [...]

From what has been said till now, it can be seen without a shadow of a doubt that the discoverer of America was Genoese. In the majorat, Columbus declares explicitly and solemnly that he was born in Genoa. Document is so clear that there is no doubt about its authenticity. Even more important and definitive are the public and notarial acts and original copies ( more than a hundred ) of Columbus's father, Columbus himself, his grandfather, and his relatives. Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese. Overwhelming evidence. There is a wealth of documentation that leaves no doubts. Let's stop with hallucinations.

Why do not you come to Genoa to check? This is a sterile debate. All well documented. One hundred documents. Come to Genoa.

Remember = This is an encyclopedia and not the Lord of the Rings. Write serious things.

For the Spaniards is "mystery" because do not include sources ( assereto document and mayorazgo document are authentic ) or Great Historians as Paolo Emilio Taviani, Samuel Eliot Morison or Washington Irving among others, Bad faith. Requests Portuguese even less reliable. Hallucinations.--Davide41 (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

the mayorazgo is an authentic forgery and is proven now beyond a doubt. The forger even tried to sign Colón's name on it. It is a "traslado" a copy yet the copiest wrote it as if it was an original document signing it with Colón's signature. It fooled many, apparently even you are fooled by it. But smart readers are no longer fooled by an invention written some 80 years after the man who they pretend signed it had already died.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For " " " historical " " " Colond

The document is authentic. This is a fact. You are in bad faith. Also this is a fact.

Its content historically responds to the real. Indeed, in 1925, in the archive of the Castillian city of Simancas was found a document dated 28 September 1501 which is the confirmation of the mayorazgo, by the Kings of Spain.

[...] Nobody in the Admiral's lifetime, or for three centuries after, had any doubt about his birthplace. 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. Samuel Morison

Factious = dangerous.

Continue with the hallucinations. You're in good company: Encyclopedia Catalan (in terms of bad faith) is magnificent. Many laughs. --Davide41 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is historically certain that Columbus was of Ligurian. Apart from the authentic documents, there is the testimony of contemporaries. At the time of the discoveries, everyone considered him Italian, Genoese, a foreigner in Spain. Judging from contemporary writings, nobody even thought it was worth discussing the subject. Historians and geographers from many nations as Spain, Portugal, Germany, England, the Netherlands, Switzerland, France and Turkey all speak of the Genoese Columbus, who discovered the Americas. Further confirmation comes from the nine folio volumes of the Raccolta Colombiana, published by the Italian government in 1892, and the folio volume of the city of Genoa, published in 1931, both containing such an abundance of documents that there can no longer be any disputing them. Two unquestionably authentic documents ( assereto and mayorazgo ) clarify any doubts. You have nothing. Only nationalism, bad faith and fantasy. You've created your fantastic adventure.

The claim for a Portuguese Columbus emerges every now and then from that country's dilettante historians, and it reappeared during the 1930s with the fantastic thesis that Zarco - the rediscoverer of Porto Santo and Madeira - and Cristobal Colon were one and the same. The glorious myth of Columbus has prompted some minds to hallucinate and some dilettantes to try to appropriate the myth for themselves. Taviani --Davide41 (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there should be sources & even multiple sources to prove the point, and I'm on your side on this issue overall...but SEVEN IS TOO MANY and disrupts the sentence flow, and is too distracting. It disturbs the reader too much in that part. And seven is not really necessary. Your references were good, and I left 3 of them alone, the really good ones. So four all together (mine plus 3 of yours). But 7, bro, is just TOO MUCH for one part of a sentence or word. Peace...

^ Britannica History & Society - Christopher Columbus

[1] Britannica History & Society - Christopher Columbus

[1]