Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Christopher Columbus. 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 1

←

Archive 4

→

Needs More Information on Columbus Lighthouse

I addehel

What about Indonesia and Indochina ?

I'm just curious as to what knowledge the Europeans had of these lands at the time. Even if the American continent didn't exist, the first shore you'd encounter by sailing westward from Spain would be that of either Indonesia, The Philippines, or Indochina. Or did they consider them part of India ? 69.132.19.159 (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    No, the paralel 28º that Columbus followed in Ocean to west rises China shores in a direct line, If America would not exist), not Indochina or Indonésia. the goal of Columbus(apparent and Oficial) was Cathay(China) and Cipango(Japan), but the first Geographic goal was Cipango-Japan(for Geographic reasons); "INDIA" was the common name for all East(orient) for all Europeans. Of course the spicific India was too the essencial goal for Columbus, but in the Great Oceanic voyage He needed arrive first in Cipango, China or Indonisia shores first. Some People belive that he was a secret agent of John II of Portugal, and he knew more that we believe today. He have relations and payments by is "Friend" John II in Spain("Friend" writen in a letter of the Portuguese King to him in Castille) when he already serve the Spanish Catholic kings. Portuguese need assure the route to India by Atlantic-Indian Oceans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.35.1 (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is missing one major aspect

Among other things, this article seems to skip over the fact that Columbus and his fucking crew killed, annully raped and destroyed the native peoples and their lands. In the end some 2 million were slaughtered by the Europeans. Columbus started an avalanche of genocide. For more information please check out: Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (specifically Chapter 1: Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress)BKalesti 05:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That they did, but I think the article places about enough blame. It does talk about him & his crew, and how that mismanagement helped him get sent home. No culture has ever managed to illusion itself over the nature of sailors in general. It's more a matter of the European capitals ignoring the means due to competition over the ends, until the status quo was barbaric. See colonialism, but the blame hardly rests on Columbus personally.

And what the hell is this with Howard Zinn everywhere??? WP will not be written by a second-rate grade school book author through his kid proxies. Potatoswatter 07:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Potatoswatter for the reply. I meant not to imply that Columbus himself was the ultimate colonial invader, but I wanted to instead add that Columbus did do his fair share, and that this should not be overlooked.BKalesti 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. The fact that Columbus's mistreatment of the natives is barely mentioned in this article is extremely Eurocentric. And for those of you that think Columbus's bad deeds never happened, you're full of it. Unfortunately I don't have with me my book that goes into detail on many of the atrocities he and his crew committed, but here is a website I quickly found googling that clearly cites all their assertions: http://www.understandingprejudice.org/nativeiq/columbus.htm If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia it can't selectively include information like it has in this article. For example, take this passage from the Encyclopedia Brittanica article:

"According to the older understanding, the “discovery” of the Americas was a great triumph, one in which Columbus played the part of hero in accomplishing the four voyages, in being the means of bringing great material profit to Spain and to other European countries, and in opening up the Americas to European settlement. The more recent perspective, however, has concentrated on the destructive side of the European conquest, emphasizing, for example, the disastrous impact of the slave trade and the ravages of imported disease on the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean region and the American continents. The sense of triumph has diminished accordingly, and the view of Columbus as hero has now been replaced, for many, by one of a man deeply flawed. While this second perception rarely doubts Columbus's sincerity or abilities as a navigator, it emphatically removes him from his position of honour." http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109621/Christopher-Columbus

This is just in the introduction section, and there is nothing even close to suggesting this view towards Columbus in the entire wikipedia article.

Hopefully someone will edit it before then, but if not I'll probably make some changes sometime next week. Whiskyrye (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am so happy there is disputes on this. I read this article, just to see if they included the genocide of an entire people. The genocide and brutality columbus provided the natives of Haiti is a part of history that should not be left out!! This "leaving out" to portray a "hero" should not be in an "encyclopedia", and wikipedia should seriously think about revamping the way this site runs. Recommended read: "Lies my Teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.232.73 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that this must be included in some way in the article. I spoke of this here in the discussion thread way back and it was removed quickly with no change to the article. If there's a consensus this happend, then, without question, it must be included. If there's a debate about whether it does or does not, at the very least, there must be a clear link to a wiki of this debate. Anybody know any activists willing to take on the undertaking? Khono (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear that it was Ferdinand who convinced Isabella to back Columbus

I have read that it was Ferdinand's treasurer Luis de Santangel who intervened and convinced her, because he could not convince Ferdinand himself. [1]Shield2 20:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

convinced her about what?? --Jazmine 22:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To sponsor his voyage. He had been asking her and others, and she found his ideas interesting, but deferred the matter to a counsel that rejected his proposals, as did Ferdinand until finally Ferdinand's treasurer convinced her to support Columbus.Shield2 07:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I heard that it was Luis de Santangel who actually sponsored him. Apparently, Isabella denied him, so he was going to another country to see if they would support him. He was staying at an inn, and a messanger came to see him to tell Christopher that Luis de Santagel would support his cause.76.102.172.175 23:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC) 22:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The non-JEW Zarco

Denying one of the more popular theories published in Portugal (including a book published this year [2006], that affirms without any proof, that John Gonçalves Zarco was a Jew, we have proof from DNA that rejects this theory. The DNA haploids from the descendants of Zarco are clearly indicative of a Caucasian making his ancestor original to some part of Europe and not the Middle East. The DNA also proves that Zarco and the current Duke of Braganza have a common ancestor in the Kings of Portugal. – O MISTERIO COLOMBO REVELADO, pg 418

what does being a jew have to do with anything--Av1497 10:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And further on: I fail to see how DNA can be a mark of ones confession! That is a very dangerous and stupid theory-it proves only one thing: that you have ancestors coming from a place, not what their faith was! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.56.132 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree ^

--Jazmine 22:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Being a Jew has a lot to do with the history of the discoverer for it would explain why Columbus hid his true name and lineage. Also DNA can´t tell religion only if he was Chinese, Africa, Middle Eastern or Caucasin. He was Caucasian.Colombo.bz 10:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

what is yo problem dude why u on here this page is filled with f*ckin lies take a hint (leave) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.6.149 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Those who know Portuguese History are aware that since its foundation Portugal protected populations following other creeds than the Catholic Religion. So caucasian people living in Portuguese territory were often Jewish. Hence, as someone explained here, the race doesn't explain the religious beliefs. Embrulha!

That's not true. Jews in Portugal, at the time were in vast majority, or totality, Sephardic; not caucasian. They had arrived with the Moors and Arabs which were themselves Semitic and originating in the middle east. Jews were extremely discriminated and Portuguese and Catholics kept themsevelves separated, later on, followed the Inquisition and most Sephard Jews were expelled with a minority converting and renouncing Judaism. At the time, without a shadow of a doubt, Religion following ethnic and racial lines. That i know not Portuguese catholic would ever convert to Judaism, assuming that wouldn't be considered apostasy and a criminal act 500 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.103.197 (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The king of Portugal, in an attempt to go around the inquisition (called by the pope) and keep jews in Portugal, took a series of measures to prevent them from being expelled, killed or in any way caught by the inquisition, one of them was to "rename" jews and catholics as "new christians" and "old christians". This fact granted jews protection from the inquisition. Portuguese kings where famous for these wise deeds, such as renaming the order of the templars, allowing it to exist under command of the king and not the pope (wich forbid it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.73.34 (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

More Lies - the True Arms of Colón

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Slowly the truth is coming to light. The Genoese wool weaver is washed up and shrinking into oblivion. The history of a genoese woolweaver was never proven and based on false testimony, lively imagination and pig-headed stuborness of historians. First Manuel Rosa proved the Testament was falsified to say "being I born in Genoa" [1]. Then he proved that Morison was an inventor showing how the facts never existed to support the assumptions in Admiral of the Ocean Sea. Next he proved that Filipa Moniz was a "dona Comendadeira" member of the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago and not being able to marry without permission from the Master who was at the time King John II of Portugal. Now, are you ready fot this?... it is now proven that the arms long assumed to have been those of the Admiral are wrong. Manuel Rosa had called it already last year and he was again proven right by the documents. The Royal Grant of Arms signed by the Catholic Kings proves all historians up to now were wrong about the true arms. Therefore the arms were never stolen from the genoese woolweaver's guild as Morison invented. For the real true arms see Revista de la Federación Española de Genealogia y Heráldica, Cuadernos de Ayala 26 - Abril 2006. "El escudo de armas de Cristóbal Colón. Estudio de un acrecentamiento heráldico", p.9-25. by Dr. D. Félix MARTÍNEZ LLORENTE. [2] One by one the book O Mistério Colombo Revelado has hit the bull's eye and proven the history of a genoese Colombo was false. 02:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Carlos Mateus

AGAIN The Lies and Unfounded Assertions are Mind-boggling

Someone who knows little about the Admiral Colón has edited the article again putting down the date of birth as 1451 in Genoa. Worst of all they have invented a history of a Columbus working for some Italians being the same Admiral who discovered the New World when NOT ONE FACT supports this.

"In 1470 the Columbus Family moved to Savona, where Domenico took over a tavern. In the same year, he was in the service of René I of Anjou in a Genoese ship hired to support his unfortunate attempt to conquer the Kingdom of Naples. In 1473 he began his apprenticeship as business agent for three important families of Genoa(the ). Later he allegedly made a trip to Chios, in the Aegean Sea. In May 1476, he took part in an armed convoy sent by Genoa to carry a valuable cargo to northern Europe. He docked in Bristol, Galway, in Ireland and very likely, in 1477 he was in Iceland. In 1479 Columbus reached his brother Bartolomeo in Lisbon, keeping on trading for the Centurione family."

I challenge the editor who made thes statements to show:
- proof that Cristoforo Colombo wool-weaver from Genoa and Savona was Cristóbal Colón married to a noble woman in Portugal uncle to Counts and Marquises in Portugal and navigator, Admiral, Viceroy and Governor for Spain.
- proof that the Spanish Admiral was ever an aprentice in business with the Centurione, Di Negro and Spinola.
- proof that a wool-weaver Columbus sailed for Renè d'Anjou and proof of the date of 1470.
- proof that the Admiral ever worked for the Centurione while in Portugal.
- proof that Bartolomeo Colombo, wool-weaver from Genoa and Savona ever lived in Portugal and that the wool-weaver was a mapmaker in Lisbon.

Having not only the truth but also the lies been revealed in DNA and Forensic studies but also in the book O Mistério Colombo Revelado, Ésquilo, Lisbon 2006, I, like all seekers of the truth, require proof of such silly nonsense as has been propagated not only here in Wikipedia but in books, schools and universities worldwide. Free your mind your heart will follow Colombo.bz 13:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove the Genoa from the Born in the right hand side

Since the place of birth is not known, I suggest that this be removed from the tag. Thanks, SalvadorFernandesZarco

As his Genoese origin has not been in dispute for centuries, it should not but STAY. How pitiful are those who insist with such 'alternative theories', totally unproven!

There is a book called A NEW THEORY CLARIFYING THE IDENTITY OF CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: A BYZANTINE PRINCE FROM CHIOS, GREECE written by Ruth G Durlacher-Wolper. I must admit it makes a convincing argument and provides substantial evidence. The author claims he was a greek-speaking noble from the island of Chios, which was at the time a part of Genova's maritime empire. Check this page: http://www.greecetravel.com/history/columbus/ Whether you believe this or not, I think that the first paragraph should be changed to reflect that fact that the birthplace and nationality of Colombus is not known and that there are several hypotheses each with its pros and cons. I think that all hypothesis should be presented, and their arguments briefly presented. What do people think about this? Schizophonix 23:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop the Misinformation

1- "Genovese Italian was not a written language at that time." Genovese was written since Roman times.

2- "no authentic contemporary portrait of the man has been found" The only state sponsored painting by Alejo Fernández that heads the article is possibly the only one painted during Christophers lifetime.

3- "Moreover, Columbus believed one degree represented a shorter distance on the earth's surface than was commonly held." Columbus NEVER believed in a degree of only 56 1/2. If so he never would have been able to find his way home.

4- "In 1485, Columbus presented his plans to John II, King of fuckers." In 1485 Columbus was living in Castile.

5- "Portugal was no longer interested in trailblazing a western route to the East." Portugal knew about the lands of America and knew neither India nor Asia was located at 3000 miles west and so did Columbus.

82.154.87.198 17:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

6.- "Cristopher Colombus"-- has been translated in manRegardless of what historians might call him, it should be mentioned that the English and Spanish variations of his names are only "versions", and it should be mentioned he never got a birth certificate from any English or Spanish speaking country. He is commonly referred to as Cristopher Colombus by many historians and people.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.211.64 (talk • contribs)

In history, all names are rendered into the language of the author, not the original one. That counts especially for all kings. No emotion involved there, it's historiography. --Flammingo^Hey 08:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Flamingo, Can you tell me what you translate Pablo Picasso's name to in English? or Leonardo da Vinci? Hernán Cortés? Vasco da Gama?... They are NOT translated because this is their real "proper" names. The name Cristóbal Colón was never translated to Latin in Pope Alexander's letters; 3 letters and 3 times the name appears as COLON. The lie is better covered-up by wrongly translating the name into Christopher Columbus. You cannot translate Bill Gates to Guilherme Portões nor can you translate Cristóbal Colón to Christpher Member. Look it up because that is the TRUE translation of the Greek Kõlon=Member. Not Columbus .. Colón is NEVER Columbus. The lie of a genoese was better implanted with a false translation of his name.82.154.80.205 00:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Colombo.bz

Please look up the meaning of Colon in Spanish and then translate it into English and Italian because the translation is NOT Colombo nor Columbus. Columbus and Colombo are a corruption of the name the Admiral used: Cristoval Colon. 81.193.220.70

Please stop this. Colombia comes directly from the name of the discoverer. Colom-> Colombia. Ok? In Spanish Colom is pronounced Colon, try it with one spanish speaker and you'll see. Colombus is the correct translation of Colom into latin. The word "colonization" comes from the spanish Colon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.141.92.14 (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read your Columbus history. The name chosen by the discoverer was COLONUS or Colon and NEVER Columbus or Colom. Columbus(lt.)=Colombo(it.)=Colomb(fr.)=Colom(catalan)=Pombo(pt) ALL these are the same name and equals PIGEON.

Colon = Kolon(greek)= member. Colombo Pigeon in Italian and is not the same as Colon which is member in Greek and the discoverer-s name menat member in Greek as his son wrote. Get your facts straight. The man was called COLON for Member and was never called Colombo anywhere. 85.139.154.140 10:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

CC himself says that his adopted length of one degree of the Earth's surface was 56 2/3 miles. See his letter to the Sovereigns of October 18, 1498. This would not have hindered his navigation in the slightest respect, since he navigated by Dead Reckoning, which does not depend on knowing the size of the earth. --Keithpickering (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Defacing

Someone has defaced this article with titling a section 'How to get a life' as the header title. Since this article is protected can an administrator or ranking editor please remove it.Antonbomb22 01:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Antonbomb22

Not Columbus

This picture [2] is not Christopher Columbus. The man in the picture is Paolo Toscanelli.--87.14.223.2 17:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC

You're right. I guess someone didn't read that article carefully and just put the pic there....or they wanted to confuse us. I never thought Columbus would wear a turban-like head covering...Danny sepley 04:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No picture of Columbus exist. This is an extraordinary fact. It is unbelivable that such an important man had not been portraited. Sure he was. These pictures have been destroyed for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.141.92.14 (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the4 unneeded religious attack. Calling wikipedia non credible source, while you ae allowed to add the info you think is missing is in the very least, extremely bad taste. Everyone knew he was religious and meantioning it is in order, but being a jerk is not. AHH real big, blame leftists for deleting of your religious tirate and attack? Hey jerko, try just meantioning facts without your opion and maybe just maybe it wont get people mad and make them reedit it. IE columbia was roman catholic, true, fact.WIKIPEDIA not being credible. Has nothign to do with columbus, is opinion and has zero business being here. Please go learn some tolerance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.184.85.243 (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Headline text

Prove it

Traditional Information

The world has known for centuries that Leif Erikson was the first Westerner to discover the Americas around 1000 AD, over 500 years before Columbus. However, Erikson was not the first one who successfully opened the door for European people and cultures to thrive in the New World. The article continues with the tradition that Christopher Columbus was the first to accomplish this feat.

Not in Question

The great landmass of the Americas was probably reached hundreds, if not thousands of times before 1492, whether by island-hopping or by accident. The Vikings famously had brief settlements on the fringes of what would one day be named "North America."

That's not the point.

None of the previous contacts with American Indians was of any consequence. As the renowned historian and Americanist, Marshall Eakin of Vanderbilt University, puts it, "The Columbian Moment was the single most important event in at least the last one thousand years." (Emphasis his, from Conquest of the Americas, available on DVD.) In trying to reach Asia to set up trading posts, Columbus accidentally put the New World on the Old World map and vice versa. The New World had no idea there was another mainland on the other side of the world, and neither did Columbus or any of his contemporaries in Renaissance Europe. It was a major discovery for both hemispheres. For better or for worse, nothing has been so consequential to so many people on so many continents, and we can't merely wish away the unparalleled importance of Columbus's leap of faith .

Maybe so, but you don't get to say that he was the first there because you decide other contacts were not important. --JmalcolmG 21:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Columbian/Anti-Western Bias

This article leans toward blaming Columbus specifically for a lot of the bad aspects of the Age of Colonization and skimps on the details about both Columbus' views (i.e. that the Amerindians were fellow humans) and how the Age of Colonization helps peoples from both the Old and New World. Additionally, there is little if any mention of Amerindian atrocities against both their own people and European settlers. Both sides had their peaceful people, and both sides had their warmongering people. Chiss Boy 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Columbus didn't hold that view at all, and I would argue that this article is a complete whitewash of what Columbus really did and thought. Columbus was quite clearly only interested in two things about this journey: gold, and slaves. Considering Amerindians as "fellow humans" would mean that you wouldn't write things like "With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want", nor would you write, as he did, that "As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts."

Furthermore, quoting Howard Zinn, when gold couldn't be found he and his men "ordered all persons fourteen years or older to collect a certain quantity of gold every three months. When they brought it, they were given copper tokens to hang around their necks. Indians found without a copper token had their hands cut off and bled to death. The Indians had been given an impossible task. The only gold around was bits of dust garnered from the streams. So they fled, were hunted down with dogs, and were killed. Trying to put together an army of resistance, the Arawaks faced Spaniards who had armor, muskets, swords, horses. When the Spaniards took prisoners they hanged them or burned them to death. Among the Arawaks, mass suicides began, with cassava poison. Infants were killed to save them from the Spaniards. In two years, through murder, mutilation, or suicide, half of the 250,000 Indians on Haiti were dead."

I could go on, but you get the point

krou 13:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while I very much like Howard Zinn's book, I doubt it's a very reliable source. It's a marxist book, and really not objective, even if--I repeat it--I loved it. And if I remember correctly, Howard Zinn is not an historian, but a journalist. Now, i don't say it lessen the strenght of your argument, because Colombus did comitted genocide, but I think that it shouldn't either diminished the fact that he also permitted exchanges between the two continents that were great. And if you talk about genocide, as pointed out by Tzetvan Todorov in The Discovery of America, we are not really sure about how many people really lived in the Americas. And I wanted also to point ou that the real responsibles for the genocide were people that came after Colombus--and you don't want to forget that as a NATION already constituted intellectually speaking, the US committted probably as much atrocities as Colombus and the settles in the 15th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.56.132 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the article before adding direct quotes from Columbus's journal that were removed ultimately in my mind because they were too negative. Columbus has a legacy that is created through lies in the American Education system. Systematically the brutality and violence he caused has been ignored, and that doesn't end at wikipedia. If you have some thoughts on how to best deal with this situation I would be interested in hearing them, although I am not very optimistic that it will matter much. If you cannot list even the basic facts you listed concerning his actions that are not even remotely in question, then I wonder how any article in wikipedia will ever deviate from government line.

he was not the first to go to america

Let's say the American Government is lying to school children and it's population about Christopher Columbus simply for the want to enjoy a respectability towards our founding. What chance do any of us have correctly explaining the value of something that they've lied about that is far worse for us to know as it concerns centers of power? What about the Vietnam war?

If a government has successfully used propaganda to change the historical jack off facts about a man who committed mass genocide for imperial profit, then what chance do we have any explaining anything regardless of the clearness of facts.

I don't mean to continue on, but let's take A Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. The articles on it sound like they are from someone who has never actually read the entire book. It doesn't include context to the information, so it mostly sounds like a very formal discussion of the way our current market should function, but there are very real lessons about where we are headed as a society, about government control, about a progressive tax much much much MUCH heavier than anything remotely close to what we have now.

Yet it's rarely mentioned. So this is another unknown fact. Try to add it to one of the pages concerning it, and watch it be removed. It's irrelevant that it's true, because it's not the type of thing that people want you discussing. Subjects that fit that criteria are often misrepresented, if not in the exact opposite of the intended meaning.

Honestly, How do you combat that in a system where the major causes in change are 1. What most people know, and 2. The desire to change it.

Once you've properly internalized values, like Columbus wasn't a bad guy as shown by the person who initially started this topic, then of course it's going to take a huge amount of resources. One individual generally has more important things to take care of, and at best can only manage to keep up with a few articles.

Columbus and co.'s atrocities against the indigenous are well documented, and should be included. Don't delete those revisions. --JmalcolmG 21:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting topic though.

Don't worry, you're not alone. I made some edits a while ago quoting directly from his journal, trying to give balance to the fact that Columbus fully intended to subjugate the Indians he met, and that he did not consider them as equals at all. All deleted and the page reverted to an older version, no reason given. Frankly, it stinks. -- krou 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that C. Columbus came to conquer and dominate you must not lose sight of the times and ideals of those days. Rome conquered nations, Alexander the Great, the USA was began by conquerers and Columbus was not an isolated case. Even today there are nations in the old world that are occupied by conquerers example: Turqkey is an occupied territory. Lets not get weighted down on the fact that Columbus came after power, glory and gold. He was not the first and he was not the last. A small statement to this effect will do. The real atropcities were perpetrated by Columbus's followers. Columbus only ruled for 7 years and then only partlysince he was navigating most of the time. 81.193.220.70 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I can respect that he was not the only one, but this is not some zero sum game; if I had the time I'd quite happily document the actions of the Romans, et al. I am stupid. It simply doesn't follow that because everyone else did it we shouldn't include it. If Columbus came for power, glory, and gold, that should form a centrepiece of the article, because those were his primary motivations on making these trips. As it is, there is only one mention of the word "slave" in the entire piece, which is rather odd indeed, and there's no mention at all of many of the acts that occurred under his direction (especially such as those I described). Where gold is mentioned, it's always as if he either politely asked where to find it, or it was plucked out of rivers; there is not a single mention of how Columbus *and* his men (not just his men) brutally forced the natives to get the gold.

Another example ... consider this line: "The indigenous people he encountered, the Lucayan, Taíno or Arawak, were peaceful and friendly". Great, except that it doesn't continue to add exactly what Columbus' actions were when he first met them (this is about Columbus, right), because they were far from friendly (as quoted above).

As it is, the quotes from his journal seem to make him some sort of well-intentioned Christian, when the reality is far different. There needs to be a far better level of balance to this article that demonstrates these facts. Surely decisions on what to include or exclude from this piece should be on the basis of verifiable fact, not on an opinion of what is considered relevant? -- krou 21:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

People, don't forget that the objective of this article is to be objective. I want to point out 2 things:

- It is true that Columbus sailed to gain gold and glory. Columbus and the new settlers obliged them to collect gold etc. However, this isnt much different from what most people in Europe suffered, which were forced to pay heavy taxes to the king and lords, join the army in wars,... XVth century was not like middle ages, but life still was hard for poor people. The New Settlers were expecting the same or more from the indigenous; but it wasnt anything strange or too cruel for that age.

-While new settlers may have used heavy violence and killing to control the indigenous people, don't forget that they were clearly outnumbered. Thinking of the new settlers as the 'big brother', with all the copper tokens story and cutting hands seem fake to me. They couldn't control all the indigenous people that way; they could ask for an amount of gold periodically without all that effort, punishing indigenous tribes that didnt met the amount, or punishing people that didnt work (controlling indigenous one by one with copper tokens seem quite pointless and difficult). Besides, they didnt want to kill too many, so enough indigenous people kept working and didnt rebel. So, please, cite your sources of such cruelty. Don't forget than historians can make things up, specially in ages where Spain was enemy of other countries who didnt participate in the colonization of south america (England for instance). So it would be wise to cite sources from different points of view to assert that claims.

--85.59.56.195 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did cite one of them: Howard Zinn, A People's History of America. Regardless of that, the main quotes I'm referring to come directly from Columbus' journal himself (see also the testimony of Bartolome de las Casas).

It doesn't matter if they were outnumbered. As Columbus himself pointed out, he could subjugate them all with just fifty men because they were peaceful and primitive in comparison. Incidentally, when the Arawaks did try to muster an army to fight, they were slaughtered.

As I pointed out previously, just because it wasn't strange or cruel for the time (which is partially incorrect, because there were some who considered it cruel) does not mean what I am referring to should not be included. At what point do you draw the line? As I said before: items should be included or excluded on the basis of fact. Objectivity means presenting both sides of the argument. As I've demonstrated, this article is far too lenient by omission.

Saying they didn't want to kill too many is just gross historical revisionism, because by 1650 none of the original Arawaks were left alive on the island. You don't manage to achieve such a feat by some mere accident, like you dropped a vase and it broke when you expected it to bounce around on the floor. Las Casas, for example, wrote that the Spaniards "thought nothing of knifing Indians by tens and twenties and of cutting slices off them to test the sharpness of their blades." He also said: "Endless testimonies . .. prove the mild and pacific temperament of the natives.... But our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then.... The admiral, it is true, was blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians...."

There's plenty more to reference. The were cruel, and brutish, and thought of them as animals.

If you've got evidence that what Zinn wrote and quoted is fabricated or, as you put it, "made up", then make them known, otherwise the points I raise should be included (at the very least, Columbus' statements directly from his journal should be included because they are extremely relevant).

Zinn is a well-known historian, respected, and, as far as I'm aware, the primary facts he reveals here are not disputed. Very easy to say, well, that doesn't sound right, so it must be made up, but unless you've got evidence to the contrary, that's just your opinion, and that has nothing to do with the objectivity you're professing to support.

Also, if you wish to say, well, Zinn is biased, please note that I'm trying to refer directly to statements made by Columbus, and eye witnesses (Las Casas), and not any of Zinn's opinions or conclusions.

Objectivity is exactly what I'm getting at: this article is not objective. I mean, his first meeting with the Indians consisted of him forcibly capturing several Arawaks and imprisoning them, and all this article can talk about is how peaceful the Indians were. The article is about Columbus, and he was not peaceful when he met them.

I have to admit that I'm not keen on arguing this point much further, simply because I find it really disturbing that this information is being excluded for such flippant reasons. Seems to me that if I have to persist so hard to have a few quotes included from the main subject's own journal, then objectivity is not really what anyone is aiming for, but instead nice, comfortable truths. -- krou 23:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are fighting a battle I had had sex on the beach. I added information in the exact same way and it was removed. Many people want to believe an idealized version of the history, and that trumps accuracy. If you have suggestions, I'm open. q 05:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that when I first came across the stories of how Columbus enslaved whole native populations from islands, I couldn't really believe it until I read it for myself in Columbus' journals. I'm not surprised that people disbelieve it and try to edit such things out: how could any education system teach that this guy was a hero? I think the way to tackle this is with a gentle touch: making small changes, with as little in the way of editorial as possible. Especially avoid the use of the word 'genocide', or other hot button words, even if true. If the changes are small and impossible to argue, there may be a chance some of it may stick. I'm going to try, anyway. A number of additional facts will help round the picture out: e.g. Isabella ordering him to take the slaves that he brought to Spain back to where they came from (shows that slavery was not the norm), and the fact that his will was contested for five years in the courts (not what you would expect if he were poor) .Trishm 11:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerns over Genocide

Why is the Spanish genocide of the Indians not really mentioned here? Claiming that the human race commited no 'significant genocides' during all the fifty centuries that passed between the dawn of history and the eventual genocide of certain Indians by the Spaniards is... a clear sign of ignorance, not to mention nativeté.

Well...

The wiki on Genocide:

Genocide is the mass killing of a population of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as 'any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy [part or all of a cultural] group......'",

I don't think there's evidence that any of Columbus' actions were committed primarily out of an intent to destroy native society or kill off the Native Americans.

The snare 08:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't recall writing that above sentence, I wonder how far back my contributions list goes, I'll check it The snare 10:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, if you check my contributions (if you can) you'll see I had NO contributions of the 26th, someone altered the page to make it look like it was me. The snare 10:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is incorrect. Samuel Morison (considered one of the foremost historians on Columbus) notes that "The cruel policy initiated by Columbus and pursued by his successors resulted in complete genocide" (from Christopher Columbus, Mariner), so historically it is accepted that he committed genocide.

Furthermore, the definition in Wikipedia of genocide also includes the proviso that it originates from "deliberate action(s) leading to the physical elimination of any of the above categories" (the above categories being ethnic, nationalist etc), which is surely correct if you read the history; genocide does not only require that they be killed because of their ethnicity, simply killing off an ethnic group through deliberate actions is considered genocide. The actions Columbus and the others took were quite deliberate, and resulted in the complete annihilation of this society. Not allowing reference to the fact that Columbus committed genocide is simply whitewashing this article even further. --krou 18:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, small note: the quote I used from Wikipedia seems to be from an older version being cached by Google. Still, even the formal definition makes an allowance for this case under the clause "killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part", all of which happened, all of them quite intentional. krou 18:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Columbus never commited any genocide. Columbus was trying not to KILL the natives but to RULE them. It is very diferent between killing them because they are natives and killing them because they refused, rightfully so, to be dominated. But don-t get the facts mixed up Columbus needed the Natives to have a fruitful empire. If he killed them he would have nobody to rule over. However the natives did not want to be ruled over thus the initial friendly relations begun to cause outburts, battles and finally wars. 81.193.220.70

Columbus committed mass genocide. He wasn't trying not to kill the natives, he killed them over many reasons including them not providing enough gold for him. What are you saying, genocide doesn't count if your primary goal isn't mass slaughter? If it's only the consequence it doesn't count?! q 05:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To me this is not much different than the neo-nazis saying the holocaust never happened. It's a shame to think that Western culture is just as biased as neo-nazis. But of course, unlike jews, the tainos have no lobbyists shouting for them. The scariest part to me was that within Columbus' lifetime, all the tainos in santo domingo were eradicated. The spanish even used them as target practice for new swords. 66.255.149.98 16:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually columbus did, in a sense, create mass genocide. Only indirectly, though he did slaughter thousands and thousands of indians according to the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by textbook author James W. Loewen. This isn't an excerpt directly from the book but the book talks in length about columbus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nozgrd74 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also for further reading A peoples history of the United States by howard Zinn, pages 1-8 covers this very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.143.12 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

When adding information to this article, please site sources, especially when the information added could be considered to be of a controversial nature. Bbagot 02:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC) --*******Michael Foucault*******--

Attention must also be paid to Foucault's thesis on the nature of truth. It's very important to realise that there was an interest group to benefit from this 'discovery'made by the navigator in question .Ms Leslie Ann C.Tyson The University of the West Indies, St Augustine ..Trinidad & Tobago

Columbus didn't discover America

Ok. This next post has been QUOTED out of the book "Ancient Civilizations" my Time Life, Student Library:

Italic textChristopher Columbus didn't discover America: Ice Age people did! Between 25, 000 and 16, 000 years ago, low sea levels exposed a wide land bridge between Siberia and Alaska. Hunter-gatherer families wandered across this land bridge, following drifting animal herds. It may have taken them many years to cross, but eventually they established settlements is North and South America."

It's clear that Christopher Columbus didn't discover America, and that it is a false information. It should have that written down in a section of the Christopher Columbus page. 203.129.51.219 11:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (And I wouldn't go to the User:203.129.51.219/203.129.51.219 May 7, :07 am (USA)

i agree, columbus was actually the last person to 'discover' the americas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nozgrd74 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Too true. Columbus did NOT discover America. After all, were there not people living there at the time? One might also say: "Well, he was the first European to discover America." This too is false. There are accounts of Chinese, Norse and even Hebraic cultures having influences in the Americas. But one thing is certain: Columbus did NOT "discover" America. BKalesti 05:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

for certain the vikings were the first europeans in the americas because one there is dna eveidence in the inuit people and archaeological evidence,as for chinese there is no eveidence and chinese junk ships of the day would have had almost no chance to make it across pacific ocean and also the west african possiblity of being the first people in the new world is just crazy afrocentrism,and the ice age columbus it's a theory and a possiblity but will never be accepted because of political correctness that would be implying that the white man really did have a claim to americas because they would have been here before the native americans,but basicaly columbus did dicover america for the old world because after him the flood gates opened and the spainards came in full force , french dutch english,e.t.c--Mikmik2953 (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

'Crazy afrocentrism', 'Chinese junk ships', 'white man really did have a claim to Americas'... well, we all know which team you're playing for, don't we? 172.200.102.249 (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Poorly written article

I'll try to help on tightening up the article, the structure is really clumsy, as if it's been copied from a couple of different old encyclopaedias. Sentences like the following drive me crazy - "Columbus' problem was, experts did not accept this estimate." . --mgaved 13:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Yes of course as I said France discovered, the wine, Australia, the Americans, and the chinese discovered dinosaurios and God....and then colombus was from the planet pluton and he was definetly a marcian......VIVA ESPANA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.112.166 (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Language Imprecisions

The language part seems to be inconsistent and written by following several unproved theories. I'm not an expert, but from what I learned about Columbus, he did not write in genovese (the explanation provided seems to be fair, it wasn't a real written language) and had some trouble writting in Spanish (Castellano), using several Portuguese forms in the process although this is the most used language in his letters. What is out of the question is that he was able to write in Latin, only (religious) scholars would know the language, never sailors. The greek part is just absurd. Also, northern italy is not a language.

The Greek part is not absurd at all. It was the Greeks who calculated the exact circumference of the Earth. The fact that not only did he study Greek, but also the sailors on his ship, means that Columbus was not some kind of "hero who tried to prove the Earth was not flat, but round". I can't believe that so many kids are taught that in school (that's what I was fed as well). Good thing Wiki's help in clarifying that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.96.199 (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ALSO - SUGGEST CHANGE European "culture" to European "colonies" in the first paragraph of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipkais (talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In Navigation Plans, need an explanation for his concept of degrees representing less miles than what they actually are. So what if he thought that degrees represented less miles. Well, people need to understand that if his concept of a degree consisted of LESS miles than what it really stands for, then knowing the rough distance to China (for example, from Marco Polo's accounts), instead of only representing, say 180 degrees, it might be something more, like 270 (exact calculations would be REALLY nice in the wiki article). What it means that the remaining say 90 degrees would consist of water, not that much of a distance. This kind of explanation, with exact numbers, would be great —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.96.199 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Marriage

It has been of some concern to scholars that a simple sailor with no possessions of his own was allowed to marry the daughter of a nobleman, it would be interesting to approach the subject as an example to the doubts on his origin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.22.16.215 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

O Mistério Colombo Revelado[1], about the life of Christopher Columbus, proves that Columbus could not marry with Filipa Moniz without authroization from King John II, who was master of the Order of Santiago because Filipa was a member of Santiago. Colombo.bz

The return route

Columbus return route also creates doubt in scholars, because he took the correct (fastest) route through the Atlantic without having any knowledge on the maritime currents in the middle of the ocean. There are also some suspicions about the three (3) storms that made him stop in two Azores islands and in Lisbon in conjunction with the time spent in Lisbon leads to believe in some kind of link between him and the Portuguese crown, specially the Queen, since most part of his stay in Lisbon was spent in a rather complicated trip to Vila Franca de Xira to meet the queen. Also he stopped once again in Faro before heading to Spain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.22.16.215 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Columbus was portuguese

Columbus, better, Colon, was born in Portugal and he was a noble man. He was King João II friend's and a spie of the portuguese crown in Castilla. Why he's first landing was portuguese land? The portuguese and spanish were rivals! Why he stands in Lisbon a several days, and speaks with portuguese King after discovery America? Don´t forget that the portuguese people were, at that time, the kings of the sea! They have the sea knowledge at that time! Don't joke! The portuguese were the discovery master's at XV and XVII century. The Spanish, English and Dutch just stolen the lands discovery by portuguese people. Portugal is a small contry, and at that time portuguese were less than one million! Poucos mas bons!

I would have to agree with you on Portuguese being the great discoverers...But of the 14th century. I mean take a look at History, and Henry the Sailor, king of Portugual. He chose to stick with coast navigation. In his letters, and notes, you can clearly see that it was his intention to explore the African coast, and they did just that. However, even if he mentions Western explorations, he died before launching it, and its heirs were not interested in doing it for fear they would loose too much money.

I am an Historian, and while I agree with the less than clear circumstances around Colombus life, I find irritating that people would point out random facts just because they support their theory. Just because Colombus stopped in Lisboa doesn't mean he was a spy for the Portuguese crown. Show me authentic documents, and I will believe you. As for DNA, in Colombus case, it--sadly for science--never gonna be a strong argument, because we don't know for sure that his bones are his. I agree that there are strong presumptions, given the analysis results we have of a comparison with Bartolomeo's DNA, that we have indeed found his real rests--but there is really not enough proof of that.

As for other theories--well I like to think that someday we will find the absolute truth, but we are very very far away from it.

Anne-Caroline Sieffert

With all respect for the historian Ms. Sieffert let me only point out that Henry the Navigator (or the Sailor as she puts it) was never a king of Portugal. By discovering or exploring the African coast what they searched was if the coast somewhere had an end which would enable them to go around and navigate in the direction Nordeast and reach India. To classifie it as : "and they did just that" is rather unfair.

The most important argument to suport the fact that Colon might be portuguese but at least if not that he worked for the king John II of Portugal is the pratical result of The Treaty of Tordesilhas. With its implementation Portugal did get All of the known World- that is from Japan across Asia, Africa and the Atlantic Ocean until a small sclice of Brasil and the East of Greenland. What Spain got was the American Continent which had no value at hat time and the Pacific Ocean. That means worthless Land and a lots of water.

Pedpau (talk)

Sailing off the edge of the Earth

The article says:

Following Washington Irving's myth-filled 1828 biography of Columbus, Americans commonly believed Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because Europeans thought the Earth was flat.[2] In fact, few at the time of Columbus’s voyage, and virtually no sailors or navigators, believed this.[3] Most agreed Earth was a sphere. This had been the general opinion of ancient Greek science, and continued as the standard opinion (for example of Bede in The Reckoning of Time) until Isidore of Seville misread the classical authors and stated the Earth was flat, inventing the T and O map concept. This view was very influential, but never wholly accepted. Knowledge of the Earth's spherical nature was not limited to scientists: for instance, Dante's Divine Comedy is based on a spherical Earth. Columbus put forth arguments based on the circumference of the sphere. Most scholars accepted Ptolemy's claim the terrestrial landmass (for Europeans of the time, comprising Eurasia and Africa) occupied 180 degrees of the terrestrial sphere, leaving 180 degrees of water.

I believe that some more information should be added here. Pythagoras proposed a spherical world in the sixth century BCE. In the second century CE, Roman astronomer Ptolemy proves the Earth was spherical, pointing out the round shadow of the Earth during a lunar eclipse, and the glaring fact that the masts of sailboats come into view on the horizon before the hull. This information is necessary because the public generally seems to believe that the Queen was worried that Columbus would sail off the Earth, and that stupid myth refuses to die.

I am thinking this idea has more to do with conceptions of gravity than with the shape of the Earth. People who believed in a spherical Earth still rejected the notion that people could live "on the other side of the world" because they did not think that people could walk (or even stand) upside down - because they would have to fall "down" into an "abyss". They did not have the conception that it was the Earth that created gravity & held them on it. CC was way before Newton. Just as gymnasts can walk on top of a giant ball, but if they go far from the top they'd slip off, many (most?) thought much the same was true of walking (or sailing) on the Earth. This would account for another reason (besides the distance being too great to carry supplies) that people doubted the value in sailing West to the Indies and feared it would result in disaster --JimWae 20:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- With Newtonian (and Copernican) conceptions of gravity, even if the Earth were a disk, one would not fall off it at the edge.--JimWae 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

- Please..do not make childish comments. Would any rational person think "people can't live on the other side of the world. To them, India WAS the other side of the world. Did they think that people in India were somehow "slipping off the side of the world". I definitely agree-people need to show that forget about Christopher Columbus, the Queen, the sailors, the common man in medieval Europe understood that the earth was not only a sphere but that people on "the other side" could live without "falling off". The sailors most likely would protest the lack of food for such a long journey, rather than worries about "falling off the side of the earth". It has to do ONLY with distance, nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.96.199 (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Bartolomeu Dias

Bartolomeu Dias sailed around the south of Africa, not the Horn of Africa.

--Yes, I already tried changing this, only to have it immediately changed back and my request for a reason ignored. Too bad there's not better supervision of the pages. Soclear 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Change it again. If it's cited, it should stay. If not, contact me. --Eyrian 17:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

--OK thank you, I've changed it again and so far it is staying. Here is the listing where I changed it before:

(cur) (last) 15:43, 23 March 2007 Indon (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted to revision 117296751 by SpuriousQ.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:41, 23 March 2007 Soclear (Talk | contribs) (changed "Horn of Africa" to "southern tip of Africa") (undo)

So I eventually learned about editor talk pages, and posted to the Indon talk page:

Hello, could you please tell me why the Christopher Columbus page says that Bartholomeu Dias rounded the Horn of Africa, when it was the Cape of Good Hope that he rounded? Thank you. Soclear 04:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
..and why do you ask me?? — Indon (reply) — 11:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Aren't you the one who changed it back?:
1. (cur) (last) 15:43, 23 March 2007 Indon (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted to revision 117296751 by SpuriousQ.)
2. (cur) (last) 15:41, 23 March 2007 Soclear (Talk | contribs) (changed "Horn of Africa" to "southern tip of Africa")
Soclear 14:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I got no answer to the last posting, and when I posted the question again later, it was removed.

I'm still learning the system here, but I thought that if a person made a change, they would be contacted before having it undone, or at least a reason would be given in the change log. Or at the very least they would be able to contact the editor to get a reason for the undo, and then could appeal to a higher editor if necessary. How else can accuracy be achieved? Was there a different procedure I should have followed? Thank you. Soclear 23:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Was he Greek?

Thought this link might be interesting. It lays claim to Christopher Columbus being Greek.

What are peoples view on this?

Regards,

Φil hellenism 20:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is patently obvious that he was born in Colombia ;) —Ian Spackman 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have heard the Greek hypothesis before. There is a book about it called A NEW THEORY CLARIFYING THE IDENTITY OF CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: A BYZANTINE PRINCE FROM CHIOS, GREECE written by Ruth G Durlacher-Wolper. I must admit it makes a convincing argument and provides substantial evidence. The author claims he was a greek-speaking noble from the island of Chios, which was at the time a part of Genova's maritime empire. In any case I think that the first paragraph should be changed to reflect that fact that the birthplace and nationality of Colombus is not known and that there are several hypotheses each with its pros and cons. Schizophonix 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

CRISTOFORO COLOMBO "IS" DEFINETLY ITALIANO

It's so evident.

But it's hard to admit.

Too many important people in history are from that country.

The fact he settled in Portugal (Hiberica Peninsula in general) only prove that Italy wasn't yet a country able to provide him with funds for his travels.

And It's not Genoa. IT IS GENOVA (pronounced 'Jeh-no-vah, not Jee-'no-ah).

What'll be next?

Amerigo Vespucci not being italian too?

Cuna Civitatis* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.55.218.75 (talk) 18:23, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Really nice rhetorics and all, but you provide no evidence whatsoever. Schizophonix 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this gentleman but still most evidently he is Italian.--Donrub 17:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"I agree with this gentleman but still most evidently he is Italian." ...The problem is that the history of this man has been told with the most important time of his life left in the dark. User *Cuna Civitatis* states that C.C. went to Spain because he could not get financing from Genova. Wrong. C. C. lived not in Spain but in PORTUGAL where he married, where he sailed, where he was uncle to Marquises, Counts, Lord Chamberlains and brother-in-law to 2 Portuguese Captains. He was also named "Our Special Friend in Seville" by the King of Portugal. All of these things happened long before 1492. Therefore he never went from Genova to Spain he went from Portugal to Spain and guess what? C. C. saif in a letter that Portugal was "his homeland" and Queen Isabel's accountant said C. C. was Portuguese in 1487. Get it? 81.193.191.235 20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

      Samuel Eliot Morison, 
              "Admiral of the Ocean Sea," chapter 2, page 14

When you talk about Genoa you talk about Italy as well as when you talk about Dante you talk about an italian poet not only a Fiorentino

Mos Maiorum*

Domenico Colombo (1418-1496) was the father of the Christopher Columbus and Bartolomeo Columbus [citation needed]. He was also a weaver. He was born in 1418. He had 3 brothers, Franceschino, Giacomo and Bertino. His father, Giovanni Colombo, had apprenticed his son, Domenico, to the loom at age 11. Domenico, a third-generation master of his craft in Genoa, Italy, was also a shopkeeper. His secure, respectable position in the lower middle class did not, however, guarantee his having a firm work ethic. Despite, or because of, having fingers in several problems, he was a poor provider and a worse credit risk, yet a pleasant, well-liked fellow withal. The transactions of Domenico, that he was carder and lanaiolo, proceeded with alternate fortunes: he had opened one tavern to Savona, trading also with the wool and travelling continuously. He was also in the commerce of wines and other kinds, let alone in the sale of asses and lands. When he was found in financial difficulty, he was helped economically from Christopher. Forsaking the loom, two of his sons-Bartholomew and Christopher-went to sea. If Domenico had, however, been prosperous, Christopher might have spent his entire life at a loom.

He lived in a house to the Plan of Sant'Andrea. In the Straight Alley, in the quarter of Ponticello, neighbor to the Door of Sant' Andrea, call also Soprana Door. In this house, Domenico died in 1496.

The city of Santo Domingo therefore was called from the Admiral in memory of his father Domenico (Domingo in Spanish).

Susanna Fontanarossa (?-?) (Susanna of Fontarossa) was the mother of Cristoforo Colombo, a Genoese wool weaver commonly believed to have been Christopher Columbus (aka Cristoval Colon), the famous navigator and explorer who was generally credited as a discoverer of the Americas, although contemporary scholarship is less equivocal.

Almost nothing is known about her before her marriage to Domenico Colombo in 1445. She bore 5 children to Domenico: Cristoforo Colombo, Bartolomeo Colombo, Giovanni Colombo, Giacomo Colombo and a daughter named Bianchinetta Colombo.

A notarised document of sale in the Genoa state archive contains the Latinate text «Sozana,(quondam) de Jacobi de Fontana Rubea, uxor Dominici de Columbo de Ianua ac Christophorus et Pelegrinus filii eorum», which can be translated as "Susanna was (the daughter) of Giacomo from Fontanarossa of the Bisagno, wife of Domenico Columbus from Genoa, their sons are Cristoforo and Pellegrino." The Val Bisagno was a significant inland district in the ancient Republic of Genoa including the valley of the river Bisagno. Thus she was described as 'Susanna from Fontanarossa' within the Val Bisagno, rather than Suzanna Fontarossa.

Today the hilltop village of Fontanarossa, Goretto, Genova, Liguria, in the Val Trebbia, (20 miles inland of Genoa at [show location on an interactive map] 44°35′10.66″N, 9°15′18.80″E) and only 4 miles beyond the watershed of the river Bisagno), has a marble stone with the inscription Susanna Fontanarossa, the mother of Christopher Columbus, was born in this village. ("In questo borgo nacque Susanna Fontanarossa, madre di Cristoforo Colombo."). The village records state that she may have been born in the hamlet of “Le Ferriere”.

Little is known about her after 1484. She died before Domenico, her husband.

Mos Maiorum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.228.113 (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would make sense that a merchant who is famous primarily for something he didn't mean to do would have risen out of obscurity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.147.210.162 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this whole peasant/merchant balony is that he was married by the King of Portugal in 1479 to a Portuguese women of the high nobility and never wrote one word in Italian How? Colombo.bz 12:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean except from the fact that half of the nobles from that time hardly know how to read, less much the merchant, and that written italian was not even a stabilized language? Here is what a merchant should know: basic counting, and basic writing abilities...It means, enough to actually read a contract, and count your money, do an inventory of your goods, or calculate the taxes you are going to pay. And I would like to think that, if i was named admiral by the Kings of Spain, because I helped the kingdom a lot through massive land discoveries, I would be considered well enough to be married by the King (which is technically not the case, because it is still up to the Church to marry people--civil marriage doesn't even exist at that time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.56.132 (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you know very little about Columbus and about the customs of the times. I wrote tha Columbus was married to a PORTUGUESE noblewoman in 1479.. that's 1479 and he was married by the King of PORTUGAL not by Spain. Although it is true that the marriage ceremony was done by some religious person the marriage itself had to be authorized by the King of Portugal before it could ever take place. Also most nobles knew how to read and write in Portugal and Columbus never wrote in Ialian but he did write in a Portuguese flavored Spanish therefore he was not just a simple merchant. Also his name was never COLUMBUS but COLON and he had a coat of arms before 1492 Original Arms and was uncle to D. Joao de Braganza (the Marquis of Montemor) in Portugal. Yes your supposed illiterate "Italian merchant" was already uncle to the Portuguese King's grandson in 1479. Imagine that? How? Colombo.bz 18:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but he was son to Domenico Colombo and Susanna Fontanarossa and brother to Matteo, Amigeto and Giovanni

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

Samuel Eliot Morison, "Admiral of the Ocean Sea," chapter 2, page 14

YellowSubmarine

Samuel Eliot Morison was not and is not an authority on Admiral Cristóbal Colón. His Admiral of the Ocean Sea is a very poor history of the man credited with discovering the New World aside form being filled with proven errors and inventions of history. All is clarified in the latest book by Manuel Rosa. COLUMBUS: A History of Lies to be published soon.

STOP ALL THIS NONSENSE :))

I suggest to consider as unique and reliable fonts about Cristoforo Colombo the ones by former Professor Emilio Taviani, the greatest researcher about everything concerning Colombo's life. He has written more than a hundred books about this seafarer life and his texts have got a high reputation in Spanish, British and North American universities.

mosmaiorum

Object to the tone of the article

Let's admit that there is a lot of doubt about Columbus life. Not only his origins.

When I read something like: "Columbus died in Valladolid" I wonder where this selfconfidence comes from. Let's see: when Columbus was dying, the king decided to visit him. A travel was organized. The king was in Valladolid. The king left Valladolid to go see Columbus. Therefore Columbus was not in Valladolid. In case of doubt, the town house of Valladolid undertook an exhaustive study about this subject. Go read it at Valladolid library. Writers of the study were of the opinion that Columbus never visited Valladolid and it was completely impossible that he had died there, for many references of that fact would exist and none was found even when the correct documents could be consulted.

So I request that "Columbus died in Valladolid" is rewritten to something like: "According to what is commonly believed by those who have never checked, Columbus is said to have died in valladolid". Ok, I am exagerating, but you get my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.141.92.14 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why doesnt the article mention that many consider christopher columbus a terrorist, and that he arrived to spain in chains??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.32.126 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Qualitiers like Many consider do not excuse POV statements. The fact that he was arrested and brought back to Spain in chains is right there in the article. Robin Johnson (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The portrait by Del Piombo does not seem to be in Florence, but in New York

Among different WP pages, I found discrepancies on where this portrait is exhibited.
The Uffizi, Florence, declares [3] only two paintings by Del Piombo: "Portrait of a Woman" and "Death of Adonis". No picture, but obviously neither refers to Columbus.
On the other hand, The Metropolitan Museum of New York [4] possess a "Portrait of a Man, Said to be Christopher Columbus", with the following very interesting description: "Painted in Rome by one of the outstanding masters of the High Renaissance, this badly damaged portrait purports to show Christopher Columbus. However, the inscription—though old—may not be original, and the date 1519 means that the picture cannot have been painted from life, as Columbus died in 1506. There are other portraits purporting to show Columbus that depict a very different looking person. Nonetheless, from an early date our picture became the authoritative likeness." Enclosed is a picture identical to that illustrating this article.
Kind regards,
Zack Holly Venturi 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No editing - but errors allowed?

Even a quick, "diagonal" read reveals two mistakes at least: it's not "Virgin gorda" but "Virgen gorda" (yes, a letter DOES make a difference, and not only in English!), its proper translation isn't "fat virgin" but rather "fat Virgin" (same observation as above applies), and "La Pinta" is actually supposed to have meant "the Dove" (which is one of the older meanings of the word). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.132.13 (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cristoforo Colombo The Italian

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

       Samuel Eliot Morison, 
               "Admiral of the Ocean Sea," chapter 2, page 14  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.228.113 (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Italian Origins

Domenico Colombo (1418-1496) was the father of the Christopher Columbus and Bartolomeo Columbus [citation needed]. He was also a weaver.

He was born in 1418. He had 3 brothers, Franceschino, Giacomo and Bertino. His father, Giovanni Colombo, had apprenticed his son, Domenico, to the loom at age 11. Domenico, a third-generation master of his craft in Genoa, Italy, was also a shopkeeper. His secure, respectable position in the lower middle class did not, however, guarantee his having a firm work ethic. Despite, or because of, having fingers in several problems, he was a poor provider and a worse credit risk, yet a pleasant, well-liked fellow withal. The transactions of Domenico, that he was carder and lanaiolo, proceeded with alternate fortunes: he had opened one tavern to Savona, trading also with the wool and travelling continuously. He was also in the commerce of wines and other kinds, let alone in the sale of asses and lands. When he was found in financial difficulty, he was helped economically from Christopher. Forsaking the loom, two of his sons-Bartholomew and Christopher-went to sea. If Domenico had, however, been prosperous, Christopher might have spent his entire life at a loom.

He lived in a house to the Plan of Sant'Andrea. In the Straight Alley, in the quarter of Ponticello, neighbor to the Door of Sant' Andrea, call also Soprana Door. In this house, Domenico died in 1496.

The city of Santo Domingo therefore was called from the Admiral in memory of his father Domenico (Domingo in Spanish). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.228.113 (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Susanna Fontanarossa (?-?) (Susanna of Fontarossa) was the mother of Cristoforo Colombo, a Genoese wool weaver commonly believed to have been Christopher Columbus (aka Cristoval Colon), the famous navigator and explorer who was generally credited as a discoverer of the Americas, although contemporary scholarship is less equivocal.

Almost nothing is known about her before her marriage to Domenico Colombo in 1445. She bore 5 children to Domenico: Cristoforo Colombo, Bartolomeo Colombo, Giovanni Colombo, Giacomo Colombo and a daughter named Bianchinetta Colombo.

A notarised document of sale in the Genoa state archive contains the Latinate text «Sozana,(quondam) de Jacobi de Fontana Rubea, uxor Dominici de Columbo de Ianua ac Christophorus et Pelegrinus filii eorum», which can be translated as "Susanna was (the daughter) of Giacomo from Fontanarossa of the Bisagno, wife of Domenico Columbus from Genoa, their sons are Cristoforo and Pellegrino." The Val Bisagno was a significant inland district in the ancient Republic of Genoa including the valley of the river Bisagno. Thus she was described as 'Susanna from Fontanarossa' within the Val Bisagno, rather than Suzanna Fontarossa.

Today the hilltop village of Fontanarossa, Goretto, Genova, Liguria, in the Val Trebbia, (20 miles inland of Genoa at [show location on an interactive map] 44°35′10.66″N, 9°15′18.80″E) and only 4 miles beyond the watershed of the river Bisagno), has a marble stone with the inscription Susanna Fontanarossa, the mother of Christopher Columbus, was born in this village. ("In questo borgo nacque Susanna Fontanarossa, madre di Cristoforo Colombo."). The village records state that she may have been born in the hamlet of “Le Ferriere”.

Little is known about her after 1484. She died before Domenico, her husband.

Better quote for opposition.

Can someone please find a better quote for the legacy section on opposition to Columbus than something from Ward Churchill? There are plenty of legitimate academics and politicians who don't like Columbus; we don't need to use a nut who's defended the 9/11 attacks as being great as the mouthpiece for this viewpoint and thereby cast it as a fringe theory. SnowFire 00:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only is he a nut but, he is no longer a professor of anything, anywhere having been caught out as a liar, fraud, plagiarist, etc. Fletchflynn 02:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Prince Madoc mention

I don't feel the Prince Madoc legend needs to be mentioned in the first sentence of the article. The belief is notable, but not widely held. I propose that it be changed to others and link to Pre-Columbian Trans-oceanic Contact, which details the stories of Madoc and others. Twalls 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicolás de Ovando

Nicolás de Ovando should be mentioned regarding Columbus's fourth voyage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.235.74 (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Plagerism!!!!!!!!!!!!

one entire paragraph on this article and the website [5]are exactly the same: "Europe had long enjoyed a safe passage to China and India— sources of valued goods such as silk, spices and opiates— under the hegemony of the Mongol Empire. With the Fall of Constantinople to the Muslims in 1453, the land route to Asia became more difficult. The Ottoman conquest of Egypt similarly impeded the Red Sea route. Portuguese sailors took to traveling south around Africa to Asia. The Columbus brothers had a different idea. By the 1480s, they had developed a plan to travel to the Indies, then construed roughly as all of south and east Asia, by sailing directly west across the 'Ocean Sea,'"

one of the websites is plagerising. plz tell me whats going on @ my talk page [6] --Jazmine 22:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Most likely the allexperts one. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"most people thought that the earth was a sphere"

seriously, do you mean it? I've heard about Columbus at school, at home, and have done about 5 reports on him. EVERY SOURCE I HAVE USED EXCEPT THIS ONE says most people thought that the earth was flat. What the heck?? has someone put a big lie on this article??? --Jazmine 22:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you check out the sources for that statement (citations #7 and #8) yourself. It's not unusual for schools to teach material that is considered to be outdated and/or inaccurate by contemporary historians. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody who studied in Europe in the 1400s was taught that the earth was flat. Indeed already Ptolemy wrote that it was a sphere in the year 150 AD. The "idea" that Columbus was the first to "invent" a round earth is BS and should not be taught to anyone by anyone because you are teaching another lie. Only historians who never learned anything about the real Columbus write such fairy tales. In Columbus's own words: "Yo siempre leí qu'el mundo, tierra y agua hera espérico, y que e las autoridades y esperiencias que Ptolomeo y todos los otros escrivieron.... - - I always read that the world, earth and water was a sphere, and that the authorities and experiments that Ptolemy and the other wrote..." Furthermore no one who had half a brain believed that the earth was so much smaller than it is, not Columbus and not any of the Portuguese experts. Duarte Pacheco Pereira, a Portuguese contemporary of Columbus, calculated the equatorial degree with a 4% error and this calculation was only surpassed 200 years later. In order for the current fairytale of lies about Columbus to be taken seriously they had to dumb down not only Columbus but all of the learned men of his time. Fortunately we are now turning the tide on those lies Unasmking Columbus Colombo.bz 19:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of citing / plagiarism

The following paragraph is lifted directly from Howard Zinn's, A People's History of the United States (chapter 1). While the work is listed as one of the cited works, this paragraph is not cited. As it stands, it's clearly plagiarized information.

"Columbus's report to the royal court in Madrid was extravagant. He insisted he had reached Asia (it was Cuba) and an island off the coast of China (Hispaniola). His descriptions were part fact, part fiction: Hispaniola is a miracle. Mountains and hills, plains and pastures, are both fertile and beautiful, the harbors are very good and there are many wide rivers of which the majority contain gold, There are many spices, and great mines of gold and other metals."

"Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud and offenders are subject to academic censure. In journalism, plagiarism is considered a breach of journalistic ethics, and reporters caught plagiarizing typically face disciplinary measures ranging from suspension to termination." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism) Ajsheets 03:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is plagiarism we should note that Columbus did not meet with the Kings in Madrid but in Barcelona in 1493. Also the description that Columbus made "part fact, part fiction" was intentional as it was part of a plan to deceive the Kings of Spain into sailing West and away from the Portuguese territories because in reality Columbus was an agent of the King of Portugal and Columbus succeeded expertly in pulling the wool over the eyes of the Spanish.Colombo.bz

The Well-known filmmaker

The filmmaker is put here with the name "Chris Columbus." However, Even the article admits that his real name is Christopher (by putting his name as Christopher "Chris" Columbus). So, put a redirect. Please. PRhyu 11:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is missing the opinions of Columbus about the natives. I have to write a report about christopher Columbus and his opinion of the natives. It needs to state his opinion to help people understand why he treated people the way he did and to help people understand Columbus's views of the world.

                -Em Dog  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.216.169 (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why Spelling Is Important

OK, so this article is protected, which means I can't change the obvious clanger in the first paragraph: "Indigeneous" is not a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.11 (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I second this and add 4 more spelling errors.

Under Nationality - University spelled Univeristy
Under Language - Mixture spelled Mixure
Under Third Voyage - Hispaniola spelled Hispanolia
Under Governorship and Arrest - Hispaniola spelled Hispanolia
Thanks Much (W00t table) --Chipmunker (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of English

Considering the historic importance of the subject, the standard of English composition in this article is generally very poor, even to the point where it brings Wikipedia into disrepute. I think it is time for a single editor with a command of academic-quality English to completely rewrite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.113.136 (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In the section about Columbus's first voyage, the word describing the Indians in his quote which was supposed to be ingenuous is spelled ingenious which obviously has a totally different meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumaya27 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's cut it off

I suggest to consider as unique and reliable fonts about Cristoforo Colombo the ones provided by former Professor Paolo Emilio Taviani, the greatest researcher about everything concerning Colombo's life. He has written more than a hundred books about this seafarer life and his texts have got a high reputation in Spanish, British and North American universities.

 * mosmaiorum  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.116.187.25 (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

certainly you are not referrign to the same Tavianni that wrote that Columbus taught the Portuguese how to sail in the High Seas? Tavianni should have stuck to diplomacy his books carry very little to help in finding the truth but it does well in supporting that a peasant Colombo turned into an Admiral and Viceroy. That can happen today in America but never would happen in that day and that those societies. Tavianni is as fantasy as Morison. 71.111.216.158 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Excarnation?

I find this statement both sickening and hard to believe.

"Following his death, his body underwent excarnation—the flesh was removed so that only his bones remained." Following death, one of the greatest explorers of the western world would have been sent to some Spanish butchery which undressed him and carefully sliced off all the flesh of this old man? Honestly, it sounds like a baseless, grotesque urban legend.

217.209.93.115 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently that was a practice when a body was to be transported some distance. It was described in one or two history programs on TV. Excarnation is also standard among Zoroastrians. Nihil novi (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently? Do you have any source? What was that tv programme called? The only way of 'excarnation' I can imagine is that of first inter the body temporarily and then reinter it somewhere else whene the flesh has been removed through putrefication. The 'slice technique' sounds both horrendously grotesque and more like an urban legend. Such an extreme claim needs more backup than just 'I've seen it on tv'

217.209.93.115 (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the excarnation reference definitely needs a source. I edited out the reference since it doesn't seem to me like unverifiable information should be left on the page. If it is indeed true, please provide a source before reverting my edit. Whiskyrye (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

doubious role as discoverer

one can not discover something if there were already people there, it has already been found. in this light then columbus should not be given the title of discoverer of the american continants. anyone agree?Charred Feathers (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

or at least put in a treatise about how he can not be named discoverer, even though this miconception is how he is remembered...Charred Feathers (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rape

Nothing in the text presented suggests rape? nothing in the Spanish original text suggests it either? Why is this named as such in the entry? At worst it seems someone made advances on the woman was rejected and finally an agreement was reached? What of this consists of rape? These accusations are very serious if they're true they should be presented with clear evidence?

Not that I'd see the relevance even then. Rapes exist in the USA, but i doubt they'll appear on GWBush's wiki entry...? What of this purports to historical relevance - as tragic as it to be true - would be?89.155.103.197 (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Education

" His combination of languages is generally accepted as a learned way that Columbus, an uneducated twelve-year old from Genoa who set sail on a ship to Portugal, had eventually (through travels in Portugal and Spain) created this pidgin form of Iberian languages "

If he was so uneducated how could he ever speak greek and latin along with all the other languages he spoke? I think it's quite the contrary, this was a very versed individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.73.34 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)