Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 5

Third archive of Talk:Christopher Columbus, as it stood at 17:57, 23 March 2007

Continuing the Lies

This is NOT TRUE. Columbus never once stated where he was from nor did his sons state where their father was from.

It is bad enough the navigator lied about his past there is no need for wiki to lie also sayng that "He had noted in his lifetime that he was born in Genoa, Italy." Please remove this lie. 82.154.80.53 13:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mystery of Columbus Revealed

This whole history of Columbus is a sham we have already seen the truth in Lisbon. Columbus always knew he was not in India he lied on propose to fool the Castillians becasue he was helping the King of Portugal. It is all revealed in a new book O Misterio Colombo Revelado but unfortunately of the English crowd it is not available in English. The historian Manuel Rosa has proven beyond a doubt that the Will of 1498 was falsified after 1573. Eliot Morison wrote a fantasy history based on lies and invented facts. Hopefully the rest of the world will get the truth one day. The book O Misterio Colombo Revelado was reviewed and discussed by the Portuguese scientific community at the Conference on Columbus on February 26th 2007 at the Sociedade de Geograofia de Lisboa, Secção de História (Geographic Society of Lisbon, History Section) and acknowledged as a solid piece of investigation and praise for the new evidence it brings to this story. For these reasons the article shoul consider rewriting the article to inlcude the points its author had made here in the past.

Frenching

No mention of Columbus approaching France for sposorship shoot?Trekphiler 03:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

France was Bartolomeo's assignment, so doesn't much belong here. However, France isn't in his biography article, either. Jim.henderson 04:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Columbus/Archive_2" Jim.henderson 06:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Atrocity

Does anyone want to describe the Columbian atrocities impressed upon the Arawak (the enslavement of hundreds, if not thousands, and the death of hundreds of thousands) people? This is very well factual, just look into A People's History of America, Howard Zinn.

Try Talk:Arawak. (SEWilco 07:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

I agree. I came to read this article specifically to see if it mentioned the stuff about him from Howard Zinn's book. Jim Henderson, in the discussion thread "Contradiction of Final Discovery Belief" said that this article is already overlong. People don't have to read the whole thing, right? I think we should include important information. Being responsible for so many deaths is worth mentioning, I think. Is anyone up to writing that with proper sourcing? Khono 04:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confident you have written something useful; not so confident it belongs in this little biography. After all, not everything that busy people like Mao Zedong or Howard Hughs ever did belongs in their encyclopedia biography. Partly this is because of length, and partly because some of the things these people did are important enough to deserve their own historic article. True, there is no longer an absolute limit on the length of an article, but in WP:SIZE you can see the arguments for splitting off large chunks of articles that have grown too long. I did this recently, for example, for Long Island Rail Road and before that for Telephone.

So, I suggest examining what you have written, with a view to whether it is more important to Columbus, or to some other person or historical topic. From what little you say about it, I suspect it may be a highly important event in the history of the Arawaks, and a much less important incident in the life of Columbus or in one of the Voyages of Columbus. However, so far, it seems so unimportant, that it gets no mention in the Voyages article, or the Arawak one, or in an author's biography. If that is so, why does it belong in this little biography? Jim.henderson 20:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A less important incident in the life of Columbus? He may have created, or at the very least ran someone else's idea of an amount of gold required from each Arawak or he killed them. That is an interesting fact of his brutality. They used to cut off native's heads for fun. One story involves a couple of the crew wanting cotton from a few of the Arawak, they said no, so they got their heads cut off. I mean... They used to test the sharpness of their blades on the Arawak. This is one of the most brutal stories in human history, and it have a large affect. Even people who thought he was an excellent man, understood that he committed a genocide on the Arawak society. A society of calm, thoughtful, sharing communities who rarely attacked another man. This is a critical part of our history, and there are lessons for all of us about the power of the few, and the level of violence that men who want power or money will go to for protection of their wealth. I am not understating this issue, please do some research. I would update the article but I've added several updates and would like others to get their chance for input. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.208.38.164 (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

My Mistake on the unsigned comment. q 03:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Whose history? That of the Arawaks? Why are these stories not important enough to be included in the Arawak article? Jim.henderson 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be added to both. I'm not sure I'm the one to add all of this in. I think it should be a group effort, and from reading the comment pages some people are really uninterested in the history of it. I think it comes from a place of reverence for Columbus which is shown throughout works on him. You can see that most do not mention any of this, or if they do mention it pass over it like it never happened in their grand assessment of the man. It is critical to both pages, and really the most important information you can get from reading about them on an encyclopedia. I do not understand this fascination with acceptable lies, but I am in no way suggesting you are doing this. I merely think it's a task for not one to handle but several. 72.208.38.164 06:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So, give it a start in Arawak. If something good is produced, perhaps it should be copied. Otherwise no. As far as I see, people accept lies because they agree with the purpose. A lie that flatters a good person, or that slanders a bad person, is accepted. There are purposes, including the promotion of reverence, that are well served by such lies, but an encyclopedia biography is not one of them. Promoting or discouraging reverence is not among the purposes of the encyclopedia. Jim.henderson 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

More to say?

I think that there is more to say about Columbus. I especially think that we need to have more in the 19th century and modern thought. There is more to be said than is being said. Wrad 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course much more can be said, and has been said and published by many. This is intended to be a biographical encyclopedia article, not a thorough historiography. As it is, despite the small amount that is known about the fellow, it's a long article and better to look through it seeking things to trim than to add. If a thorough discussion of 19th and 20th century Columbus mythology is a good idea, for example the myths making him a hero, villain or Italian, that discussion belongs in a mythological article, not a biographical one. One question that remains is, what name to give to a Myths of Columbus article? Jim.henderson 06:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I see, and I would have to agree. We would probably need to look at what other articles have done. Wrad 17:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So, quick looks at Andrea Doria and Washington Irving show two shorter and better written articles, about people of whom much more is known. The former is relevant only as an example of good biography, being about a younger countryman also in Spanish service, but the latter is highly relevant. Ambassador Irving as far as I know originated the seminal myth of Columbus as Italian, as inventor of the round Earth, and as founding hero of the United States, which in turn evoked the reactionary myth or countermyth of Columbus as pretended Italian, as murderer of millions, and as founding villain of the United States. So, if one is to discuss those myths and their impact in some detail, a new section of the author's biography would be a good place to begin developing the matter. Jim.henderson 07:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashbel Green?

I went to check whether Wilford's excellent book, The Mysterious History of Columbus, was included in the bibliography, and it was -- but someone had added "Ashbel Green" as a co-author, with a wiki-link. The "Ashbel Green" in question (in Wikipedia, anyway) was a Presbyterian minister who died in 1848 and who has nothing whatever to do with Columbus. Nor is there any mention of such a person in the book itself, nor is he mentioned in the Library of Congress listing. I have therefore removed Green's name from the bib citation (and corrected the publisher's name). It seems an odd sort of vandalism, though. Anyone know anything about this? --Michael K. Smith 17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction of Final Discovery Belief

Although it is commonly taught that Columbus died believing his official reports that he had opened up a direct nautical route to Asia, his own journal shows that he was, in fact, well aware that he had established a nautical route between Europe and a "new continent".

and

When he died he was still convinced that his journeys had been along the east coast of Asia

Which one is it?

I shan't claim the power to settle the question, but this bio article is already overlong, and perhaps both opinions should be removed to the separate "voyages" article where any evidence that may be offered either way can be compared in more detail. Jim.henderson 01:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this pervasive myth needs to be dispelled. If you are interested in brevity, by all means just cut the entire sentence out. But as it remains it is clearly false, so it should either be corrected or omitted. For an additional source confirming the journal account Columbus wrote indicating he clearly was aware he had "discovered" a (previously discovered and populated) new continent, read Arthur Levine's When Dreams and Heroes Died (1980, San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass) -bridget

Thank you, and I just now deleted these items and a few others. Everything I deleted, went because I think it is already discussed better in the linked articles, or is unsure of being true, or it more properly belongs in those other places. Kindly continue inspecting the present article for more material that ought to be sent instead to the linked articles, or simply deleted. Those other articles deserve similar scrutiny, though perhaps those should get a few additions as well as subtractions. Oh, could you quote, here in the talk page, the relevant passage of the Levin book? Or better, the journal, preferably in the original language unless no version is available except a translated one? Jim.henderson 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)