Talk:Christopher Columbus

Columbus' origin

1A study that lasted 20 years has been conducted. This was just broadcasted live on national Spanish television. In this study, various theories about the origin of Christopher Columbus were evaluated, and a multitude of DNA samples from different people who could potentially be related to Columbus were analyzed. In this study, all theories were discarded except one, the one that says Columbus was a Sephardic Jew from Western Europe. This demonstrates that Columbus was not born in Genoa, as was previously thought, but rather that he was actually born either in the Balearic Islands or on the Spanish Mediterranean coast. So I think the page must be edited accordingly, but we we may have to wait until the official publication of a paper.

A.V.M.360 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

(This is the study [1]) RobertJohnson35 (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

This TV show and study has already been criticised for being based on a flawed methodology and being sensationalistic. See, for example, here (https://www.abc.es/sevilla/ciudad/adn-colon-sigue-abriendo-heridas-20241006202403-nts.html). Furthermore, a DNA test cannot determine the nationality of someone nor where he was born. The overwhelming consensus on the issue remains that Columbus was Genoese, because all the sources talking about him in his time independently confirm he was Genoese, whereas the theories that he was something else are inventions created centuries later, more often than not agenda-driven. (User:Barjimoa) 22:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The article from ABC was written a week before the documentary was aired, without knowing the research done. The only point about flawed methodology in the article is from a historian who says that DNA analysis cannot assure the exact origin because it gives probabilities, not exact certainties, and that it is a job that should be left to historians.

The results of the documentary have been replicated at two universities independently and they are going to publish a paper, so it seems serious. Basically they collect DNA from people related to many of the possible theories (including 100 people from Genoa) and discard them until they find one that matches. 78.30.46.25 (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I watched excerpts of the TV show and it was bad and sensationalistic, not something to be used for an encyclopedia. This is a criticism I have on the way the information was told, it was clearly intended to appeal to masses and create a sort of mystery thriller, rather than present scientifically the results of a study. But the bigger problem is on the substance and methodology, and this is likely going to be the same for the paper as well. The article is from a week ago, but it contains criticism from historians who worked early on the project or denied to take part because it improperly questioned the overwhelmingly sourced claim that Columbus was Genoese (a major historian on Columbus like Consuelo Varela, for example, says this), by using this methodology. A DNA test, by its nature, cannot exclude that Columbus was a Genoese nor it can exclude that he was born in Genoa. That kind of stuff is determined by sources, and the sources are pretty clear on the matter.(User:Barjimoa) 23:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Barjimoa - I'd just like to say, how much stock should people even put in modern DNA testing for a person's ancestry? Let alone someone whose been dead for over 500 years? Nothing indicates Columbus had any Sephardic/Jewish connections while alive AFAIK and pre-2024 assertions are still made long after his death. Perhaps there's another topic of it being used in modern times to determine paternity or what not, but ancestry?

I saw an article on a pair of female identical twins who got different ancestry results despite being identical twins from the exact same parents. Even modern celebrities who've had DNA testing done have gotten dubious or varying results.

Though if any reliable/usable sources without any sensationalism come to light on this, perhaps I'd agree that a brief mention on Columbus's disputed ethnic origins may be noted, otherwise no. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what celebrities or twins your are referring to, but there are larger inadequacies in commercial tests. Captchacatcher (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This recent investigation might tell us something new about Columbus's background, but it can't tell us what his birthplace or religion was. PatGallacher (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

User:PatGallacher, I want to add that we should take the whole thing with a grain of salt here. I am seeing lots of criticism on the results, coming from scientists as well. This is google translated from El Pais (https://elpais-com.translate.goog/ciencia/2024-10-12/el-show-del-adn-de-cristobal-colon-pudo-ser-un-judio-de-valencia-o-no.html?_x_tr_sl=es&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=it&_x_tr_pto=wapp)

Antonio Salas:

Antonio Salas heads the Population Genetics in Biomedicine group at the Santiago de Compostela Health Research Institute. “The documentary promised to focus on DNA analysis, as its title 'Columbus DNA: its True Origin' suggests . However, the genetic information it offers is very limited. Only at the end is it mentioned that the only thing that was recovered from the presumed remains of Christopher Columbus was a partial profile of the Y chromosome. The problem is that the Y chromosome represents only a tiny fraction of our DNA and our ancestry,” he reflects. "The documentary rushes to a conclusion with the claim that Christopher Columbus was a Sephardic Jew from the Spanish Levant. This hypothesis is, to say the least, surprising: there is no Y chromosome that can be defined exclusively as a Sephardic Jew,” argues Salas. “Even if all of an individual’s DNA were recovered, it would still be impossible to reach definitive conclusions about their exact geographic origin. Renowned geneticist Mark Jobling put it precisely: The best answer to the question ‘Where did my ancestors live?’ would be ‘Everywhere'. "

Rodrigo Barquera:

Mexican Rodrigo Barquera is an expert in archaeogenetics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, one of the most prestigious centres in the world for the analysis of ancient DNA. Barquera has carried out DNA studies of human remains prior to the arrival of Europeans in America, such as those of children sacrificed by the Mayans in Chichén-Itzá (Mexico ). The researcher is very critical of the way in which the data has been presented, through a documentary, and without the support of a serious scientific article reviewed by independent experts, especially given the enormous interest aroused by the figure of Christopher Columbus and his origin. “Normally, the article is sent to a scientific journal,” he explains. “This assigns an editor and at least three independent reviewers who rate the work and decide whether it is scientifically valid. If it is, it is published, and from there the rest of the scientific community can say whether they agree or not. Putting it on a screen, away from this dialogue and with all the media spotlights, makes it difficult for the scientific community to say anything about it," he points out.

Antonio Alonso:

Geneticist Antonio Alonso points out that there are groups of genetic variants (called haplotypes or haplogroups) that tend to be inherited together and can be characteristic of certain family lines, but he warns that they often coincide with those of other groups, for example in historically Jewish or non-Jewish populations. “In any case, having a genealogy, a haplogroup or a haplotype of 'Jewish' ancestry —or Sephardic?— does not call into question Columbus's birthplace in Genoa as defended by historical sources, nor does it tell us anything about the religious beliefs professed by the generations of relatives (parents, grandparents...) close to Columbus,” he stresses.

These are the very first reactions from scholars I found. So yeah, we need to be careful.Barjimoa (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll add, the origin of Columbus is a tremendously emotional matter for a lot of nationalists, which adds additional reasons for caution - the motivation exists to phrase research in such a way that supports an external goal. So changes based on "recent research" deserve being consumed with an extra-large helping of salt. I'll also mention that Jewish migration within Europe (and out of the Iberian peninsula) is already fairly well established. Even if we were to take this TV special as gospel, it wouldn't require changing the article - nothing it says is inconsistent with what's documented for where Columbus was born and grew up. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would Columbus' Jewishness be a matter of emotional importance for nationalists?

That one of their heroes, their parents' heroes, their grandparents' hearoes etcetera, was part of a global minority of which – at best – are negatively apathetic about?

Why would Columbus' Jewishness be a reason for them to become frustrated (again, at best)? Why is it a problem for them that one of their heroes, their role model or and their cultural asset, was a Jew?

Why should Columbus' Jewishness be such a detrimental aspect whether to respect him or not, if they did so for this long, intergenerationally?

Why is being a Jew – as a cultural asset, or role model, or hero (fictional or real) – is treated as a negative?

Why is that a problem for you/nationalists that, one of your people whom affected you positively in life, was a Jew?

Why? 2A02:2F01:6805:7200:C49C:A83A:47CA:DEE3 (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

An additional comment - I removed the 2024 section from the article (this was 4th or 5th time today it had been removed), and in the process nuked a corrected version of the citation: "Cristóbal Colon fue judío y de esta zona de España. Mira el documental 'Colón ADN, su verdadero origen'". RTVE. 13 October 2024. Retrieved 13 October 2024.. Looking at this, I do not think this qualifies under WP:RS, an additional concern for re-introducing that text.

Thanks, Barjimoa, good points all. Carlstak (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to say...

“Jewish Sephardic” or “Sephardic of Jewish descent” are tautologies.

Sephardim are Jewish by default & “Spanish Jew” automatically means Sephardic. 2A02:2F01:6805:7200:C49C:A83A:47CA:DEE3 (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Would also agree these results need to be treated with a considerate amount of caution and appropriate weight. According to Christopher Columbus#Location of remains, there is a dispute as to whether the remains in Seville are actually those of Columbus; until this is conclusively resolved (which the study claims to have done) then there is uncertainty about the validity of any DNA testing. Additionally, there seems to be significant contemporary documentary evidence in favour of Columbus's Genoese origin; this is a contradiction that the study also needs to address. As noted above, this is a very emotive topic and there is a long line of pundits from various countries claiming to have discovered Columbus's "true identity" as one of their own. The presentation of the Spanish results as a tabloid two-stage "reveal" with promotional material for their documentary doesn't necessarily mean we should disregard it, but it does mean we should proceed with caution. I think at the moment a single sentence noting the researchers' claims would be appropriate to include, with corresponding weight to any objections from other researchers as reported by reliable sources. I T B F 📢 12:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I T B F, User:Tarl_N.,Carlstak, User:RobertJohnson35, User: Mariusx12, I am keeping an eye on this because more researchers are criticising the documentary. This new Spanish article (google-translated) is another good read on the matter: https://www-eldiario-es.translate.goog/sociedad/analisis-genetico-cristobal-colon-origen-judio-oculto-identidad_1_11728712.html?_x_tr_sl=es&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=it&_x_tr_pto=wapp. What's striking to me is that it turns out not only that the historical interpretation provided by the TV show is being contested, but the very scientific results are contested as well. Summarising these opinions, we have two major problems with the documentary, the 1st is historic and 2nd is scientific: 1)Theoretically, him being Jewish by DNA does not exclude him being Genoese, it's an overinterpretation of theirs that directly counters the contemporary sources we have. 2)In practice, it's actually NOT even proven (and arguably not even provable) that he was Jewish by DNA, this is yet another overinterpretation of theirs based on the little genetic material we have. Now I do wonder if their previous claim that Columbus is buried in Seville and not in Santo Domingo is agreed or contested as well. Barjimoa (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we shouldn't use it as a source, at least until they publish the official documents with the investigations and evidence. There is no evidence that he was Jewish by religion as they claim and that means that he could have been born anywhere in the western Mediterranean since he would not have been expelled from Genoa or other territories. RobertJohnson35 (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely he would be a Jew born in Genoa for the simple fact that they had been expelled from the city in the XII century, and Jews were not allowed to stay there for more than three days at the time of Columbus's birth.

Whether the DNA analyzed was Columbus's or not might be debated, but the conclusions are pretty clear. 70.50.179.242 (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I am seeing historians rejecting this argument of "no Jews in the Republic Genoa". Article above talks about this point as well. Jews were likely in and certainly around Genoa in the 15th century. And of course that genetic material could find his way in Genoa anyway, indirectly. But I'm not inclined to believe they have proved Columbus was genetically Jew either. They say so, but this is being contested as well. They are making all sorts of assumptions, it seems. Overall, from DNA to his religion to his birthplace, the chief problem is that they want to determine with this instrument what it's determined with sources, and replace sources with speculations. Honestly it looked like fiction at traits, at one point one of them said "I believe Colombus was a skilled weaver from Valencia, who converted to avoid persecution etc. etc." but, this is nowhere, it's literally a (re-)invention of his youth and life based on this genetic finding. On top of that, the genetic finding itself is probably their overinterpretation. Barjimoa (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

We simply have no scientitic paper and even if we had an official peer reviewed study that accounted he might had some jewish ancestry that doesn't make him any less Italian, Jews were settled in Italy since the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. Mariusx12 (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Per Reuters: "Lorente said it was only possible to say Columbus was born in Western Europe" ie. they make no claim to any country or city of origin, only a broad region. The main fact is that they claim his DNA has "traits compatible with Jewish origin". -- GreenC 19:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, he is saying these are just "traits compatible with Jewish origin" and not "exclusive" of Jewish origin? Then on what evidence has he picked this origin in particular? On the other issue it's also not clear why he widens the place of birth of Columbus from Genoa to all of W.Europe, the consesus of historians is quite precise on this and surely an area of birth cannot be determined by the DNA? Barjimoa (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

DNA is frequently attributed "western European"; when I did a 23andme test it also said my origin was western European. I also had some Neanderthal; Columbus probably does too. The DNA profile of Europeans has been remarkably stable the past 10,000 years or so there has been no major displacement by, for example, Africans, Indians, or east Asians (though there have been attempts). The last major displacement were farmers from the middle east who came in via Ukraine from Iran. They displaced a steppe people, who had displaced the original homo sapiens hunter gatherers. And that's it, three human population waves into Europe that saw major DNA regime changes. When you find DNA that has markers from these three groups, it's "western European". Typically the further north, the greater percentage of DNA is from the original hunter gatherers, a refuge from the other two waves. Thus someone with a low percentage of hunter gatherer assume they are from further south (with some exceptions on islands). This is what I learned in A Short History of Humanity: A New History of Old Europe (2022) by Johannes Krause. -- GreenC 05:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@User:Barjimoa, I don't think the Wikipedia artile can ignore this new piece of information. This needs to be properly included in the article's text. Today, DNA evidence is reliable enough to solve crimes and convict people. Also, I noticed some sloppy reporting on the documentary itself. The programe did not say that Columbus was from Western Europe, but from Western Mediteranian: "most likely origin is in the Spanish Mediterranean area". Also, the study compared Columbus' DNA to that of his known relatives to confirm that they were indeed his. Finally, on a side note it would not be suprising to find out that someone was claiming a different identity to get ahead in life, nice example of this is Elvis' manager Colonel Tom Parker, who's real name was Andreas Cornelis van Kuijk and who illegally got into the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.109.57 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC) Just to close my point... properly framed, the article should include a reference to these new findings alongside the traditionally held view of Columbus' origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.109.57 (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that there has been no proper scientific scrutiny of these results and it has not been published. The article should be instead edited to reflect this, saying something like "In 2024, DNA evidence was discovered that may suggest a Sephardic Jewish origin for Columbus; however, neither the methodology of this study nor the data have been made public, preventing the scientific community from being able to properly evaluate these claims." (source) 147.9.2.200 (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, so far this study is a mix of speculation and sensationalism, it should not be treated as a serious source. Once the paper comes out and it's clear what precisely they are claiming and on what ground, this theory could be mentioned in some part of this article along with an assessment of its plausibility or implausibility. Barjimoa (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

For now the article should summarize the press releases where most relevant, as the IP suggested, but not imply they're reliable. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It's fine to mention the study in the body of the article, but it certainly doesn't belong in the lede, per WP:LEDE and MOS:ETHNICITY. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that I've protected the page for two weeks due to a high level of edit warring here. Please work out an agreement here. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

All the edits that suggest he was Sephardi are simply vandalism.

No majority consensus. Mariusx12 (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Besides, we don't (or certainly shouldn't) change historical information in the article that reflects modern scholarly consensus, merely on the flimsy basis of citing a TV documentary, newspaper articles or even a preprint paper that has not undergone formal peer review and publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Carlstak (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There have been persistent theories of Columbus having Jewish origins or ancestry for decades at least. And there is decent circumstantial, yet far from conclusive, evidence to suggest this. His being of Jewish ancestry albeit converted would not preclude him from being born in Genoa. His name being Christopher does almost certainly indicate he was not born Jewish. His father being Domenico adds to that. Altho both might suggest a family awareness of the history and seeking to clearly break away from that.

I think it would be worth mentioning this new study/report, its well sourced, but also include the fact that others (who?) have strongly disputed it. One or two sentences. It might be worth having a small section mentioning questions about his origins and ancestry tying all the theories together. Metallurgist (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

According to a biography of Columbus by Salvador de Madariaga, he came from a family of 'Spanish Jews settled in Genoa'. This theory was expanded upon in 1973 in "Sails of Hope" by Simon Wiesenthal, based on research using contemporary documents. Readers of the Wikipedia article may find it a little surprising that these ideas are not discussed. . .Mean as custard (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems worthwhile to include and if not here at least in the article devoted to the Columbus origin theories.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

 Announcement La Tercera, a newspaper from Chile, has reported that the paper on the DNA of Christopher Columbus will be published in mid-November in an international scientific journal, citing Dr. Lorente. 152.166.145.118 (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2024

Delete the following: “ Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity; most scholars believe Columbus was born in Genoa.”

and replace with: In 2024 DNA analysis of Columbus’s remains from his crypt in Seville indicate that Columbus was a Sephardic Jew, probably from Spain.

Sources:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg2049ezpko#

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/13/world/columbus-origins-western-europe-study-intl/index.html Zorkborg (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We are discussing this above. The study is a mix of speculation and sensationalism. There is only claims made for a TV program, no scientific paper has come out yet and there is no majority of scholars supporting the theory. The consensus on Columbus origins does not change because of one alternative theory. First you need a paper clarifying what they are precisely claiming and on what evidence, then you need most scholars to agree with them and change their opinion on Columbus origins, then we can claim the consensus of scholars has changed. It's extremely unlikely to happen because of the evidence in favour of Genoa and because there is a growing backlash against both the methods and results of the documentary.Barjimoa (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There should be some mention of the documentary assertion, including the authoritative skepticism in a Columbus article. 2600:1003:A111:ED58:4860:AFD:E4BB:42F2 (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

 Note: while I agree with the deletion part (that sentence is WP:OR that was injected there to justify the anachronism), I disagree with what's being proposed as a replacement (which isn't needed). M.Bitton (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

See this critique.[2]. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It is a false statement that Columbus was Italian

It is a false statement that Columbus was Italian. There was no ITALy in 1500 - Italy is a state created in 1861 and until then there was no sentiment of being Italian either, nor same language or any type of cultural similarity. Fraia66 (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Please, read the note next to "Italian"... RobertJohnson35 (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

As I noted above, that sentence is WP:OR that was injected there to justify the anachronism. M.Bitton (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, then why hasn't it been removed? RobertJohnson35 (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

because some editors insisted on having it there (for reasons that reason cannot explain). M.Bitton (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to remove "Italian" after this discussion is over, or at least discuss it. RobertJohnson35 (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Since it has been discussed numerous times, the next course of action (should there be any resistance to the removal of Italian) is to start a RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We already had this discussion multiple times and you can see it in the archive of the talk page. To summarise it: both "Genoese" and "Italian" are fine to define him since Genoese were, obviously, Italians. Your premise is a common misconception: Italy and Italians did exist as geographic-cultural concepts and were already described as such: Columbus himself is described as Italian in contemporary sources. Italy was divided in many (Italian) states, but being divided is not the same thing as not existing. I think "Italian from the Republic of Genoa" was chosen because it includes both the broader and specific identity. Barjimoa (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Since they are both fine, then "Genoese" should be used as it's more accurate and in line with how similar subjects are treated (Marco Polo is described as Venetian and Niccolò Machiavelli as Florentine). M.Bitton (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Some articles follow the Machiavelli and Polo path (Venetian, Florentine, Genoese etc.), others (see Michelangelo or Leonardo Da Vinci) follow the Columbus path (Italian from Genoa/Venice/Florence). I actually think more articles follow the second path, not the first, but it's purely my guess based on the articles I read. It's not an incoherence, it's just a different way to say the same thing. A Genoese is an Italian from Genoa, an Italian from Florence is a Florentine etc. I myself think both ways to say it are equally fine, but the argument "remove it because it's wrong to say Italian" is to be rejected. Barjimoa (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you agree with replacing the "Italian" label with "Genoese"? M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Since "Italian from Genoa" and "Genoese" are the same, I am neutral on which of the two we have, this is my argument. The thing I fear is that if you now change it to "Genoese" you are going to get reverted by others, while we already have people edit-warring to push the fringe view that Columbus was not Genoese "thanks" to this documentary. So I also suggest to let the storm pass and then agree on the phrasing, so to avoid a further mess.Barjimoa (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Endless previous discussions on removing "Italian" have addressed the "Italy didn't exist" claim. It existed in the same sense Germany existed, as a regional linguistic and ethnic label used contemporaneously, where people were called "Italian" or "German" based on what approximate part of Europe they came from. The term dates back to the Roman Republic. For comparison, nobody today is demanding to replace Bach's description as a "German" composer with "Eisenacher". Removing Italian is often pursued as back door to other goals. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I intend on starting a RfC about it very soon. M.Bitton (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Suggest you include a reference to previous RFCs. The most recent: Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 18#RfC: Should Columbus be described as an Italian or Genoese explorer in the introduction part? . Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 16:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I have to jump in here because this is getting beyond ridiculous. The decision to change Marco Polo's description from "Italian" to "Venetian" was the result of the efforts of one obsessed editor who RfC'd a few years ago and happened to get lucky because the editors who weighed in repeated the false claim that "Italian is anachronistic." Like many who've raised this issue here, they ignored reliable sources and confused the creation of the nation-state of Italy with the descriptor of "Italian," the latter having been in use since the Roman imperial era, long before Polo and Columbus lived. If you view the talk page for Marco Polo, you'll see that I and most other editors either rejected the decision to change the description or simply didn't think it was important. So, one cannot use the Marco Polo article as a rationale for claiming that "Genoese" (or "Venetian") is a more appropriate label vs "Italian" -that's not how that decision was reached.

Also, it's worth mentioning that I ended up taking the Marco Polo issue to dispute resolution where an admin sided with my position (which was that "Venetian" and "Italian" were both valid) over the other editor (who insisted on only "Venetian"), and also found that this issue had implications for other leads on Wikipedia. We do not, for example, avoid terms like "Irish" and "German" for people who existed before the Irish and German states existed, so why the big uproar over Italians? It's because there's a small group of eccentric editors who obsess over this one thing and try to get leads changed by repeating the same confused arguments ("Italy didn't exist" etc). The fact that this quirky bias managed to succeed in changing the leads of some small number of Italian biographies is no good reason to allow it to prevail over here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I know that some of the editors have a more nuanced view of why they don't think "Italian" is suitable despite it being an old concept. For me, that argument was ended when I learned that biographers in the 1500's referred to Columbus as Italian, and Columbus, himself, appears to have used the formulation of "... an Italian of Lombardy ..." in his writings.

With regards to his origins, however, I do question the fact box which says that he was born in "Genoa, Republic of Genoa." While I think it is clear that he was from the Republic of Genoa, I thought that whether he was born in Genoa proper or one of the other cities (such as Savona) was not clearly established. I'm certain that Morrison makes that note and I think others do as well. (Interestingly, note 12 after that on p. 22 appears to mock theories that Columbus was Spanish Jew who meant the Genoese quarter in Tortosa, Catalonia when he mentioned Genoa-- I guess we may need to wait for Rosa's thesis to get translated to resolve this ;-) A15730 (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Ladino translation name request

Given the latest evidence popping up across news that Columbus likely had substantial Sephardic Jewish DNA, I would like to add, amongst the list of his name translated in various tongues, his name in equivalent Ladino language aka Judaeo-Spanish. This to my knoweldge isn't very well attested, but according to my search, this would be Kristof Kolomb (probably a borrowing from the Turkish form, given Ladino history) and Kristobal Kolón (a more directly Spanish form). I believe these are worthy to be included in the note, given historical context. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 21:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That's baseless WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The Judaeo-Spanish Wikipedia article cites the Turkish form for the title: https://lad.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristof_Kolomb ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 21:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Their project, their rules: they can cite it in Sanskrit if they want. M.Bitton (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Add A Fact: "Columbus was Sephardic Jew, DNA study finds"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

MADRID, Oct 13 (Reuters) - The 15th-century explorer Christopher Columbus was a Sephardic Jew from Western Europe, Spanish scientists said on Saturday, after using DNA analysis to tackle a centuries-old mystery.

The fact comes from the following source:

https://www.reuters.com/science/columbus-was-sephardic-jew-western-europe-study-finds-2024-10-13/

Additional comments from user: Should this new study be included in the article?

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

Cloud atlas (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

No, because the alleged 'fact' is misleading. The new analysis apparently confirms the identity of the remains but only show they are of the Western European type and compatible with being Jewish. Seems unorthodox for the media to distort events, but it also kind of clicks.

Now please unlock the article so we can explain what happened. The full paper won't be released for weeks, and we want to please our readers dammit! UpdateNerd (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

There are already 2 topics about this in the talk page: Colombus' origin, Christopher Columbus is from Jewish Spanish origin

RobertJohnson35 (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Being descended from a Jew does not make a person a Jew Jamesman666 (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It kind of does, depending if you are looking at it genetically or religiously. Especially considering that the modern trend seems to be to not only consider matrilineal descent (not requiring someone born of Jewish father to convert). Captchacatcher (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Columbus was vehemently catholic -- just read a couple sentences of his letters or journal entries Tiredmeliorist (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 October 2024

Change "is the anglicization of the Latin Christophorus Columbus" to "is the anglicization of the Italian Cristoforo Colombo" with this reference: https://www.britannica.com/list/5-unbelievable-facts-about-christopher-columbus Tobus (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: 1) that's not what the source says. 2) The current statement can easily be sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

References