Talk:Manuel da Silva Rosa

Question

Why was book title removed from list of works by Dougweller? and this page protected so other don't edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalinacoast (talk • contribs)

I didn't remove a book title. The article was created by someone who appears to be Rosa's publicity manaager. Rosa has a history of trying to push his material into articles using various IPs. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that an IP from Duke edited (Rosa works on a help desk at Duke) and another IP from an area where Rosa seems to be at the moment also edited. Anyone with an account that is over 4 days old and with over 10 edits can edit. So I've answered you. My turn, User:Catalinacoast, how did you end up here as your first edit? Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I came to here after Rosa lecture in Miami the audience asked why this information is not more known and one Rosa complaint is that wikipedia do not like his research and attacks it because it thinks the Italian story is correct one my edits removal asserts Rosa position that this site do not like him personally and reject all who support him.Catalinacoast (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It was reference to book title was removed O Mistério Colombo Revelado, Ésquilo, Portugal, 2006 (ISBN-13: 978-9728605865) and this reference to their Polish Documentary was removed NIE DO WIARY: Kolumbowicz, TTV Documentary -[redacted as copyvio]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalinacoast (talk • contribs) 21:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed by a "bot" - the YouTube link is a copyright violation and I've deleted it from your post. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Some need to add his first book back because I dont see the edit button and it is important book that change many historian thoughts of the columbus history.Catalinacoast (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

One problem is that Rosa has been promoting his own work on Wikipedia using anonymous IPs and more than one account, something we don't allow. Then there's the fact that he is an IT help desk worker, not an academic. When academics start discussing his work in academic publications, that's when it would be appropriate. That's the way we work. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller, there is difference I see. Rosa is academic who research for many year to write a book and then after publishing book went to IT field and a long list of academic support him. It is no IT guy who wrote crazy book as you make it. IT job no relevance to book at all. Rosa lectures at Universities and my opinion is only after Rosa Lecture at FIU is Rosa has all evidence on his side and it is time to consider the serious effect this will have on Columbus story. How to fix this article to make it more relevance and to put book titles removed back O Mistério Colombo Revelado? Must also I add the pt wikipedia page is good reference for his works and Portuguese peoples have read, this page could make like it also, I can not edit this and have not time so I leave it for other who better in English anyway was just trying to fix injust to Rosa works as I see.Catalinacoast (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

But he's not an academic. An academic is a university teacher/lecturer/professor, he is an amateur historian. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Any editor with 10 edits and more than 4 days can edit. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

So your argument against fixing this article, or letting others fix this article, is that Rosa is not working in "academia"? Is that not a poor excuse for you to keep the article less than it can be? From what I have seen, Rosa is a respected scholar and he is a lecturer who has lectured in Universities in many countries and who has received praise worldwide from academics for his research. If you do not want to make the article better, why don't you let others fix the article then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1118:2105:1163:8779:82F4:E50 (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No the argument is that the article is likely to become a platform for the promotion of a fringe theory by an amateur historian. That is not what wikipedia is for.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

And, coming in long after this thread ended, I noticed that all 13 of Catalinecoast's edits were on subjects Rosa writes about. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Historian definition

Simple Definition of historian

a person who studies or writes about history

Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary Examples: historian in a sentence

Full Definition of historian 1 : a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis 2 : a writer or compiler of a chronicle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:691:5337:2882:23DF:E912:2A41 (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Not that he's like David Irving, but we don't call Irving a historian. We don't go by dictionary definitions to define people. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Manuel Rosa's books force International Congress on Columbus

For those who have been attacking Manuel Rosa's work you should know that in 11 years not a single historian or university academic has been able to refutiate his claims of a fraudulent "Italian" Columbus. In fact, more and more academics are agreeing with him and after release of his latest book in Portugal, COLOMBO MiSTÉRIO RESOLVIDo, "Columbus Mystery Solved" the First International Congress on Columbus has been scheduled for Lisbon on March 8-10, 2018.... soon the history books will change and the "genoese" fraud will be erased. International Congress on Columbus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.205.228 (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

No forcing, this appears to be organised by Rosa's Christopher Columbus Association.[1] He may have some immpressive help though.[2] Or maybe not, I don't know. Who is Eng.Carlos Colado? I found this. What was interesting there was: "Caro Rui Rodrigues,See [3] The confrere Carlos Calado, with his responsibilities in the ACC, says that "... the Portuguese Academy of History holds a debate session ...". What is not true. In fact, it does not. It only allows it to run on your premises. Greetings, António Taveira. Very reminiscent of [[Gavin Menzies] claims when he used a venue and claimed that the organisation owning the venue was runnning his conference. Anyway, Wikipedia will be interested not in the conference but in what other academics say about it, if anything. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, me thinks your prejudice of Rosa's work is detrimental to the facts. No one has been able to contest Rosa's findings so far. Mainly that Columbus's last will of 1498 was declared to be a forgery by a certain Baltazar Colombo at the Spanish Tribunal in the late 1500s. You also present the wrong Columbus Association where Mr. Calado is President it is not Rosa's but this one [4] it is true that the President of the Portuguese Academy of History and others were involved as the scientific committee responsible to the "Call for Papers" review. If nothing else, Rosa's work is making academies question what is truth and forces them to look again at what has been written [5].

Kirkus review

[6] ". Rosa is understandably defensive about having his work dismissed as a conspiracy theory, though what he advances is quite literally that: he argues that Columbus and others plotted to hide his true identity, to disseminate misinformation, and to deceive Spain for the benefit of Portugal. The author’s depiction of Columbus assuredly violates Occam’s razor, which doesn’t signify it can’t be true but does mean it isn’t terribly persuasive. “There is only one history of the world,” writes Rosa, “although there are countless ways for people to retell it.” With this nod to subjectivity, the author invites the reader to enjoy what is, in the end, a fun mystery surrounding one of history’s most prominent figures.

An enthralling, if ultimately unconvincing, hypothesis for the origins and motivations of Columbus." Doug Weller talk 20:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, It is quite unfair to look only at one review, if you look at amazon's reviews of the untold story you will find different opinions with nothing but praise for his research... like Indiereader [7] One says "Many reviewers call Mr. Rosa’s history of Christopher Columbus “an alternative portrait … and... historical revisionism”... Manuel Rosa has written a real game changer in our understanding of the dynamics associated with the Age of Discovery. It is a paradigm shifting history book on Columbus and his discoveries. The book is definitive and based on too many primary sources to have reviewers call his work historical revisionism, more precisely, it is a serious correction to the misinformation propagated by respected and serious historians....

Capt. Peter J. Piaseckyj- Master Mariner of Ocean Steam or Motor Vessels of Any Gross Tons, United States Merchant Marine, Document No. USA000110542"

We are never interested in Amazon or publishers' reviews. They are cherry picked and perhaps solicited. We use only the original source of a review and that must meet WP:RS. And if it's a paradigm shifter, then you'll see historians shifting their views, right? And when they do, they can be included. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it my non-native-speaker English sense?

...or does anybody else read this sentence

"He is an independent researcher and lecturer on the life of Christopher Columbus, who has published several controversial books [..]"

as saying that Columbus has published several controversial books? My feeling is that the comma after "Columbus" should go. Alternatively, we could start a new sentence "He has published [..]" --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not how I initially read it, but now that you've drawn my attention to it you're absolutely right - it could be read that way, and should be reworded (two sentences is probably the best bet). GirthSummit _(blether) 14:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

help editing

I have tried to edit to add the PhD information but this is all confusing to me on how these forms work maybe someone more experienced can fix it?