Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Introduction

greetings =)

as for now, the intro reads:

"Christopher Columbus Italian: Cristoforo Colombo; Spanish: Cristóbal Colón (c. 1451–May 20, 1506) was a navigator and an admiral for the Crown of Castile whose transatlantic voyages opened the Americas to European exploration and colonization. He is commonly believed to have been from Genoa, but his origins remain uncertified and highly disputed. History places great significance on his original voyage of 1492 A.D., although he did not actually reach the mainland until his third voyage in 1498. Likewise, he was not the earliest European explorer to reach the Americas, as there are accounts of European transatlantic contact prior to 1492. However, Columbus' voyage came at a critical time of growing national imperialism and economic competition between developing nation states seeking wealth from the establishment of trade routes and colonies. Therefore, the period before 1492 is known as Pre-Columbian, and the anniversary of this event is celebrated throughout the Americas and in Spain and Italy."

in my opinion, it is a satisfactory text, which allows the readers to get a grip on the main aspects of the explorer's life and achievements. it tells them his name(s), his possible origins, his occupation, his sponsors (the kings of spain), his accomplishments and the repercussions they had.

if anyone disagrees or has any objections, please do tell, so that we can try to accommodate all penchants.

by the way, as someone already suggested, maybe it's time to spin off the origins section, it's overloading the article. and perhaps it's also time to give the portuguese theory the relevance it deserves - there's a bit of prejudice towards theories claiming columbus was portuguese, while theories claiming he was a spaniard get sympathy from almost everyone (apart from italian people, i suppose). GUi 02:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins

I think we have finally reached a real non biased view and I agree that uncertified origin is at this time the best solution to his nationality.Colombo.bz 18:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Charles Merrill's Catalan Flimflam

"The Newest Catalan Theory" that is presented in Section 5 of the article, fails to mention that this theory is being promoted by Charles Merrill. The cited "research" was presented on the Discovery Channel program "Columbus: Secrets from the grave" on 1 August 2004, at 10 PM EDT. The program was produced by Atlantic Productions of London, and a summary is available at: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/columbus/evidence/explore.html After the broadcast Merrill answered various questions at: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/columbus/experts/questions.html User: Italus, 4 August 2006We

We should not rule out any theory until the time when absolute evidence is found, we should at the very least explain to the public that there are and have been historians who do not accept the accepted story. However Merrill's theory, as it was presented is ridiculous and unfounded. The main theme is that Colon was really Colom from Barcelona. But we all know Colon was an alias because he changed his name. Merrill accepts that the name was changed and that Colon hid his true identity for the last 20 years of his life. Yet he wishes us to accept that Colom was hiding from King Fernando by changing his name to Colon!!!!! Wow what a genius this Colon was to hide behind the same name and how stupid was the king to not notice that Colom and Colon were almost the same? It makes no common sense. As for Merrill's proposal that Colon was Catalan because his handwriting looked like someone from Barcelona, we must be really gullible to believe that you can tell a persons place of birth by how they write. I dare anyone to prove that they can tell a person's nationality by their handwriting, (looking simply at how their letters are formed as Merrill's "expert" presented). 213.13.246.228 09:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Your theory about Colon hiding who he was can't be right. There is too many evidence against:

• He was received in court and given money and shelter because who he was, precisely.
• He could marry a noble woman because he was who he was.
• He had his family arround him. You don't bring your family with you when you are hiding your identity.
• The titles he was given by the king where reserved, by law, to noblemen. Yet nobody protested.
• In the trials the kings used to withdraw some of the terms of their contract, they used all kind of lies and acusations (such as believing to travel to India). He was constantly acused of not living in Castille. He was never acused of not being part of the nobility, easy as it would have been.

And so on. Spaniards can't pronounce correctly Colom and they say Colon instead. It is that simple. Both forms where used, even during his life, this doesn't mean anything special.

>..... Indeed my theory is quite consistent. He was hiding his true identity that is true. He changed his name when he went to Castile but he was not hiding from the kings. Not from the kings of Spain nor from the Kings of Portugal because they all knew who he was. His family knew who he was. His wife's family knew who he was, his children knew who he was. He was hiding from us, the public, because he was protecting his father and his mother. This in the end is the real reason so many around him helped to hide his true lineage becasue his birth was a black mark on someone's shiny gold armour. The DNA will eventually bear it out. 213.13.247.3 01:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

There is no proof that he was hiding anything. CC "secret identity" defies evidence. The point is not what his family knew, but that everyone knew who his family was. The identity of CC is confused now, but this was not the case during his lifetime.

>... You are quite correct that every one knew well who CC and is family were both in Spain and in Portugal and he was not from Genoa. Not one fact points to Genoa only hearsay. 213.13.246.254 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

After reading through this Catalan section, I'm more and more convinced this whole section really is out of place, particularly as the opening of the CC background section. How on earth, btw, does DNA prove you are or you're not Jewish? I'm rather skeptical of that claim. It sounds like magic thinking to me. --Eileen R 02:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

>... Eileen, DNA has proven that CC was a caucasian therefore not Middle Eastern. Of course this does not rule out that he may have adopted the Jewish religion but he was not a Jew by birth. I think the fact that the DNA shows him to be of a caucasian stock can pretty much rule out the Jewish theory since Jews as a race would carry a diferent DNA marker. See Discovery Channel .. Secrets from the Grave. 213.13.246.254 22:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Columbus National Origins

Where it is written "It has even been suggested that the epitaph on his tomb, translated as "Let me not be confused forever," is a veiled hint left by Columbus that his identity was other than he publicly stated during his life. However, the actual phrase, "Non confundar in aeternam" (in Latin), is perhaps more accurately translated "Let me never be confounded," and is contained in several Psalms."

The proper translation from the Latin Non confundar in aeternam is “I will not be forever confused.” 213.13.240.218 03:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa, Historian of Iberia.

Portuguese Controversy

Someone added the following in the Portuguese Controversy section: "On the other hand, conspiracy theories are fun and Portugal was indeed secretive, but everyone relied on Italian navigators, even the English. The French were as much a problem to the Portuguese as Castile and Catalonia. Furthermore, the Spanish Monarchs knew from Captain Pinzón and Columbus's messengers that he had returned. His letters were in their third printing by the time he finally reached Spain! Why would Portugal want to give up the Americas in any case? They did have just enough time before the Treaty of Tordesillas to zip across the Atlantic and seize upon Brazil, but that's a highly unlikely scenario."

This is really a very misinformed comment and I removed for the following reasons:

1-No one was relying on Italian sailors in the mid 1400s to explore in the Atlantic Sea because no other kingdoms were exploring that sea. Only Portugal was exploring the West and South Atlantic since King D. Dinis beginning in the year 1317 (the Italian sailors were kicked out of Portugal by King John I in 1424 for talking too much about where they had been while working on secret missions for Portugal).

2 - The French were never a problem to the Portuguese Guinea trade in the 1400s.

3 - Kingdom of Aragon were never a problem to the Portuguese trade until Fernando and Isabel became uncontested Kings of Castile (and Aragon) 1479. In 1480 the Portuguese captured one fleet of 35 Spanish ships sent by Queen Isabel to Portuguese controlled Guinea.

4 - There is no proof that Colon sent any messenger from Lisbon especially since his letter is dated March 14 and he left Lisbon March 13 meaning the letter was written at sea on the way to Spain.

5 - Pinzon arrived in Palos behind Columbus's ship and Pinzon's request to go to court was rejected by Queen Isabel and King Fernando.

6 - The first letter printed was by Pedro Posa in Barcelona, April 1493 (in Spanish). Colon made it back to his homeport of Palos on March 15, 1493 clearly before the letter was in its third printing.

7 - The letter was dated Vlisbone, pridie ydus Marcii in English this is "Lisbon, the day before the Ides of March". The Ides of March is the 15th thus making this "day before" the 14th of March-- already at sea heading to Spain.

8 - Portugal did not want to give up the already known New World (some of it populated by naked, harmless, weaponless and trusting natives believed by Portugal to be worthless in trade) but made the decision to give up some of these lands in order to protect the real India.

9 - Portugal did not zip across the Atlantic and seize upon Brazil after Colon’s news. Portugal had already been to Brazil before Colon's 1st voyage and kept it secret. Colon himself tells us that the King of Portugal already knew the lands of Brazil were there and that this was the king's reason to force the line upon Spain for the Treaty of Tordesillas.

This is the proven history all else is clear speculation. 81.193.12.136 00:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa - Historian of Iberia

• I've been told that the Portuguese sailors named North America as "Cá nada" and putted that on a map, which was later used by the French. "Cá nada" is plain Portuguese and means "Nothing here" because the area had nothing special and was cold, a climate not suitable for a Portuguese more familiar to the Mediterranean climate. And with so many lands to colonize they would obviously prefer better climates that existed in other places that were settled by Portugal. Can you confirm that in a source, that is repeatedly removed by Canadians that find that offensive as an alternative origin to their country's name. It is very improbably that a European nation would name a country after a name used by poor indigenous peoples and they know that. Although everyone knows that the treaty of Tordesillas was probably changed because of Brazil (that's a fact), the rest in Portuguese controversy should have a source, because it is a little different from what's "common sense", so references would help to one believe in that.--Pedro 01:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• look at the history they've created to the name "Canada"... Canada's name. if it is from Portuguese is "Cá nada" if it is from indigenous peoples it is 'kanata! I believe it is not nice to know that your country's name means "nothing here", but the French used secret Portuguese maps and they simply read it! Are there internet sources?! I've learned that in school, in Geography classes (Portuguese origin names in the world). --Pedro 23:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pedro: the Treaty of Tordesillas was never "changed" it was written only once. The Treaty of Tordesillas was written by King John II of Portugal. It was not written by Spain nor by the Pope as historians claim. The Pope only granted those lands 100 leagues West of the Azores to the kingdom of Castile, however this grant was not a specific contract with Portugal. King John II wanted (needed) a treaty and it was he who insisted on it. He drew the plans for it and he set the limits not the Pope and NOT Spain.

What changed during the negotiations was the measuring point from the Azores (as queen Isabel was told to request from the Pope by Cristoval Colon) to Cabo Verde as King John II needed it because Cabo Verde is closer to Brazil and thus easier to measure. Those initial 100 leagues from the Azores as requested by the Queen (on Colon's advice [no doubt coached by King John II]) and the first 250 leagues from Cabo Verde that John II claimed -- even if Colon's ships of the 2nd voyage landed on any of it -- fall on the same location in Brazil. That is; 100 leagues from the Azores and 250 from Cabo Verde is the same location at approximately 37 degrees West and thus a big chunk of the bulge of Brazil. The extra 120 leagues of fudge space added gave a total of 370 leagues and were also added by King John II.

The word "Canada" is used widely in the Azores and it means a narrow street about (1 meter wide) many which can still be found on the island of Pico. It is true also that other European kingdoms had spies in Portugal and stole some secrets whihc may have included a map with "Cá Nada" meaning "Here Nothing" although the Portuguese like Duarte Pacheco Pereira usually wrote something like 'Aqui não há tratos' - 'Here there is no trade'. 213.13.246.33 00:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Manuel Rosa - Historian of Iberia

Columbus Chapel?

There's a Columbus Chapel located in Boalsburg, PA. that has a lot of Columbus related artifacts and items like Columbus' Admiral's Desk, a photograph of the Columbus family coat of arms (it has the symbol for the Admiral of the Ocean Seas on it for example) and also two pieces of the "True Cross" that was given to the Columbus Family. All of this stuff was inherited by a Boal who married into the Columbus Family. The website is http://www.boalmuseum.com but I'm not sure how to add this information (if it is even relevant) to the page

I have been to this Chapel which houses about 150,000 documents of the Colon family and I find it interesting that these documents were sent out of Spain around 1909. I wonder why an American and not a Spanish inhereted these. Did they need to get out of the country for safe keeping? 81.193.12.136 00:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

first § is a mess

The first paragraph of this article is a mess. A cleanup is needed, but I am a little afraid to touch as so many povs and npovs side by side. --BBird 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mispelled Paragraph corrected it--Pfc Ender 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, is there a particular reason that this paragraph says that CC reached Finland?! -- Zorro77 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Legal docs

The legal documents that demonstrate the Genoese origin of Cristoforo, his father Domenico, and his brothers Bartolomeo and Giacomo (Diego) are discussed in Chapter II of Samuel Eliot Morison's "Admiral of the Ocean Sea. On page 14, Morison wrote:

"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.

>.... Unfortunatly Morison was more of a novelist than a historian and his book served only to carve in stone an error of CCs nationality carried forward by others. But it is still an error. I have little confidence in an author who canot translate "pajaro puerco" into its porper meaning of "dirty bird" but instead traslated it as "flying pig". This simple and small example shows the caliber of Morison's work. 213.13.247.3 01:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Wasn't Colombus sick when he died? There is a lot of facts missing about CC. One thing that needs to be mentioned was the mutiny. Some of Christopher Colombus' men rebelled and CC had to put down a revolt. Plus there was another incident where some of the spanish settlers died from starvation and tropical diseases, and when the tainos refused to feed CC and his crew, CC lied that he would steal the light from the sun. The next day, there was a solar eclipse and the tainos got scared and fed him. Plus there needs to be mentioned that Christopher did prostitute some taino slaves.

Columbus was very sick when he died. He was in bed for a year or more. He was a very old man, there are documents from the kings of Spain and Portugal giving him special privileges because of his age and sickness.

Spin off origins

My suggestion would be to start a new article about birthplace and nationality theories. It appears to me that there's as much or more on this subject than on the four voyages and it makes an important article awfully unwiedly to my eye at least. There's enough debate an interest on where he came from to merit its own article IMHO. EikwaR 06:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Colombus as a villain?

This is the most unbelievable article I read in a long while now. Colombus is no villain. He is the man who discovered America. He does not have anything to do with Indians or slavery. I am asking my fellow Wikipedians to review this position. I will remove the part in the article that is taking such a uneducated point of view. Let us keep Wikipedia bias-free. Thank you, please comment if you wish. (LonghornJohnny 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

"He does not have anything to do with Indians or slavery." is false - you are simply ignorant of the historical facts. In any event, the question is, does this article comply with our NPOV policy or not. If you think it is non-cmpliant provide specific examples. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

UH ... YES HE DID! Did you know he deliberatly massacared a Taino village? First one of the Spanish commanders raped the wife of the village head, then Taino decided they'd had enough and they revolted.

"This is the most unbelievable article I read in a long while now." The only thing unbelievable is your comment. You need to look past what you learned in the 3rd grade about Christopher Columbus. About 90% of the native population were wiped out after Columbus reached the "New World". The native people were massacred, tortured, and enslaved. These are things you learn about in courses taken at universities.

I agree that Colombus is a villian, because the only reason he came to the Americas was to steal gold from the American Indians in the Caribbean. Plus, Columbus ran into America, he did not discover it. Columbus still thought he was in Asia when he explored the Caribbean, that's why he kept forcing the American Indians to dig up gold wherelse there wasn't any. However, this does not excuss him for anything bad he did. Colombus even had a rule that anyone who did not give him gold would have their hands chopped off. Honestly, anyone who say's Colombus is not a villian is either not a human or they are glorifying a shadow of something not on Earth. I think we need to open are minds and stop talking nonsense!

Discovering America does not excuse the horrific crimes that Colombus committed. Hitler, after all, improved Germany's economy. That doesn't make him any less of a monster.--CyberGhostface 20:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"I agree that Colombus is a villian, because the only reason he came to the Americas was to steal gold from the American Indians in the Caribbean." That's a pretty amazing statement considering that he thought he was going to China. Fan-1967 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Article in disgraceful state

This article has a mass of theories in its "introduction" instead of a normal lead in. I have removed all these. In addition, the article is in dire need of a section on Columbus' early life.--File Éireann 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Columbus Evil!?

I think so, but what are your opinions and why? Please say! 71.199.244.231 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely irrelevant to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Colombus is not evil. He is the man who discovered the new world. He did not take part in killing the Indians. He established a good relation with the Tainos and traded with them. He is not guilty of what happened after he made his discovery. (LonghornJohnny 15:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

An Encyclopedia does not say what the world or people are. It says what relevant sources say it is. It does not judge. It presents facts and judgements made by others. The Ogre 15:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think both perspectives should be added (if we have and hero, we should have the other side or neither), if those views are facts (such as in Venezuela). As for the evil ones, remember that most people living in the Americas are the evil ones, because they are the descendants of the people who killed the indigenous peoples and still live in "their" lands, not a "poor" explorer. Putting the responsibility on Columbus must only occur in an idiot's brains, so that should not be added to an encyclopaedia article.--Pedro 16:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well take it into consideration that the situation in Venezuela is quite radical. The president Hugo Chavez is a radical man and it should be no suprise that he stands against everything that is democratic. Of course he will try to spread hatred against Colombus because he symbolizes Europe in his eyes. I would agree to delete both "Colombus as villain, and hero" articles. It is assumed that people have different opinions about certain historical figures. We do not need to discuss every single stand that some might take. (LonghornJohnny 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Pedro and Longhorn Johnny, please familiarize yourselves with our policies before wasting space here. This is not your blog. This is for discussing improvements to the article and all improvements must be in conformity with our core policies. Take your personal opinions to your own talk pages please. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All right Slrubenstein take it easy. We're discussing the future of a part of this article. I believe, that is serious enough to talk about on here. Nobody is wasting space. If we come to an agreement, it will be worth it. And that will be a major improvement within "our core policies." So instead of bossing us around, give your opinion about this topic or contribute to the article in other ways. Thanks, (LonghornJohnny 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

My "opinion" is simple. Tell me what part of the article, specifically, is in violation with NPOV, NOR, or Verifiability? And tell me what, specifically, you would do to bring the article into compliance? If you cannot answer either of these questions with specific answers I doubt your claim to be working at improving the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the part that talks about Colombus as a villain. I believe it should be removed because everyone has some things against famous historical people. Pedro said that if we remove "Colombus as a villain" we should also remove "Colombus as a hero" to be fair. I am fine with that. You could have read what everyone said by simplt scrolling uo a little and reading it. Anyway, that's my position but since than changes have been made and now the article looks different. (LonghornJohnny 20:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

This is at least the third time you have evaded my basic question: how is this part of the article in violation of any of our core policies? "because everyone has some things against famous historical people" is no answer - tell me which of our policies says this is a reason for deleting content? I have asked this question patiently several times and since you refuse to answer at this point I wonder if you are just BSing me. I repeat: how is it in violation of our policies? Be precise and accurate. Otherwise stop wasting my time.

• I just read the Hero or villain section for the first time - there is nothing in there to indicate that Columbus himself might be remotely responsible for any wrong-doing. All I see are suggestions that people attitudes towards him contributed to some unmentioned wrongs some time in the future. What's up? I recall some stories, but not well - and have long wondered why the 500 year celebrations were almost non-existent. Must I read the whole article? Shouldn't the section at least mention SOME detailed charges?--JimWae 19:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is that this section is just on how people view COlumbus. Axctual accounts of what he did to and said about Indians ar or should be in the account of his voyages. Everything should have a verifiable source of course. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Villain is not the right word. That is reserved for judgements about people, not the legacy that results. If there are specific charges (as I think there could be, re slavery, harshness, etc), they need to be mentioned here. Does the Inquisition make Jesus a villain? --JimWae 03:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair points. Are you proposing just changing the title of the section, or the contents? I have no objection to the former but would want more discussion concerning the latter. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the subsection title toMixed Legacy. However there are some problems with:

Some, however, have argued that the responsibility of contemporary governments and their citizens for allegedly ongoing acts of genocide against Native Americans are masked by positive Columbus myths and celebrations.

It implies there are substantial grounds to believe "acts of genocide against Native Americans are ongoing", and that somehow these acts are masked by "Columbine" celebrations. Both claims are poorly supported --JimWae 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim, it doesn´t matter whether the claims are well supported or poorly supported. What matters is that this is a significant view and it is held by many (and the use of the word "allegedly" even brings in the view that this claim is false). I have provided a source. The section claimed that opposition to CD is politically motivated, but it didn´t say anything about the so-called political motives (anti-Italianism?). The quote I put back in (1) represents an established view, (2) makes the section more balanced, and (3) explains the political motives of the opposition. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Blockade?

I think that one portion of this article is an oft misquoted mistake. It states that "Columbus had planned with Isabella to set up trading posts with the cities of the Far East made famous by Marco Polo, but which had been blockaded, as described above." The Portuguese Blockade wasn't in place until c. 1507-1508 and Columbus' voyages occurred far before that time. How could he be searching for a new passage around a bloackade that didn't exist?

Catalan Theory

The article states that: "The true identity of Columbus is still not known, although it is generally accepted that he was Italian due to the fact that he maintained his Italian ethnicity throughout his life." But this is not true. Columbus never called himself an Italian (or Genoese, etc.). Unfortunately, the link provided as a reference does not work. This should be corrected. It is not possible to provide a citation for something that does not exist. Those who say that that document exists should provide that reference. They cannot.

>.... I really wish that we would research our facts before making silly insertions such as that in the Catalan Theory that CC throughout his life called himself Christobal Colom. This is a complete lie. CC never once wrote his name down not even on his Last Will and Testament where he signed simply Christo Ferens. The documents that can be shown to point to what others in Spain called him are letters from the kings, letters to his family and friends and they all say COLON. I have not seen one that calls him COLOM. Furthermore his own Book of Priviledges says Colon very clear. 213.13.247.3 01:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Why is the Catalan theory, which seems a bit far-fetched, listed before the Genoan origin, which has multiple sources to back it up and stands as the accepted version of Columbus's ? --Eileen R 205.206.70.97 22:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no accepted version of CC origins. Very few people accept him to be Genoese, yet it is the most quoted theory, and you are right in that way.

Duplicate photo

The article contains the same photo twice, captioned: "Columbus' tomb in the cathedral of Seville. It is borne by four statues of kings representing the Kingdoms of Castile, Leon, Aragon, and Navarre." The photo appears first in the section titled "Later Life" and further down, in the section titled "Mixed Legacy". I'm refraining from being bold, not having contributed to the article, and will leave it to others more knowledgeable to handle the issue. DonFB 07:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Genoese Navigator

At the top of the article we say "was a Genoese navigator and admiral whose four transatlantic voyages in the service of Spain". This is incorrect CC was not a Genoese navigator since he never sailed for Genoa and he was an Amdiral of Castile. Furthermore there has been ongoing debate on whether he was ever from Genoa. We must not ignore this. By stating right up fron that he was from Genoa we are furthering the confusion. Let me remind all that in 1601 the Court appointed Historian, Herrera wrote “qual sea la mas cierta descendencia en el Consejo Supremo de las Indias, adonde se litiga se determinara”: What is the most certain lienage [of CC] in the Supreme Council of the Indias, where it is being litigated will be detirmined. This does not sound like there was any concensus in Spain even 91 years after CC died about his true origins. 213.13.246.254 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa, Historian of Medieval Iberia

You misunderstand the use of the word "Genoese." Moreover, you are replying on oriignal research. None of what you write is appropriate for the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

>... Slrubenstein, is all research NOT original? I am glad to remain silent as long as the article reflects the reality that the Genoese theory is just that a theory that has from day one been based on contradictory evidence. I have no problem when we leave the doubt in place. After 15 years of researching CC I have not found any uncontested proof that he was from Genoa. Please show where is the proof that is solid 100% or maintain the artcile turhful. 213.13.246.254 22:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Response to "blockade" "Blockade?

I think that one portion of this article is an oft misquoted mistake. It states that "Columbus had planned with Isabella to set up trading posts with the cities of the Far East made famous by Marco Polo, but which had been blockaded, as described above." The Portuguese Blockade wasn't in place until c. 1507-1508 and Columbus' voyages occurred far before that time. How could he be searching for a new passage around a bloackade that didn't exist?"

I am completely surprised by that Marco Polo reference. As you say, the statement is inconsistent, but let me add that Marco Polo never existed (Larner, John. Marco Polo and the Discovery of the World. Yale University Press, 1999.) The story is a fraud. It's author (self named "copist") even stated that he destroyed the original book. No Marco Polo ever visited China. If Marino Sanuto, a venetian, does not care to mention Marco Polo in his description of travel to oriental places, why should the spaniards care about him? Let's forget Marco Polo story for CC article.

What about the Ottoman sacking of Constantinople? That severly hindered trade to the middle east to anyone but Moors. New routes were necessary.

The problem is identifying the "blockade". There has been plenty of research to suggest that overland trade was affected. See Fall of Constantinople for reference. However, this article seems to be referring to a naval blockade that would lend itself to a need for new routes by sea (Marco Polo reference). I have never seen anything that has definitively established that there was a naval blockade in place at the time of CC's first journey. There were already established sea routes to Asia and I can see no reason why there would be a need for "new routes" around a blockade that didn't exist.

> ......

Whether or not Marco Polo was a real person does not deny that the book was real. CC owned a copy of this book and so did the king of Portugal (in manuscript form since 1428). It was then printed in Portugal by Valentim Fernandes in 1502. So one canot say that the book of Marco Polo, which talked about distances between places in Asia and place names like Java, Malabar, and Cipangu is irrelevant to CC's mission to India.213.13.247.3 00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Christopher Columbus/Archive 1 is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Pic of the Nau Santa Maria

We have now a link to a replica of what is billed as Colon's captainship Santa Maria. But this replica has the cross of the Portuguese Ordem de Cristo on its sails. It is again an error, although not critical to Colon's history, that demonstrates how many of these experts really don't know what they are doing. If the Santa Maria really had such crosses on its sails then it was a ship belonging to Portugal and sailing for the Portuguese Military Order of Christ (Portugal). 81.193.9.43 22:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

The flag is correct. It is the flag of the aragonese military army.

You can see it is just the Saint George flag here (The text reads "flag of the military branch"):

http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imatge:Banderadelbra%C3%A7militar.png

But with a more elaborate design, such as here:

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/mx_1521.html

It was used in military uniforms too:

http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/images/1519hernancortez.jpg

The city of Veracruz has it's name in honor of that flag. See how they are completely confused about the origin of that name:

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/mexico/Michoac-n-Zacatecas/Veracruz.html

Because Veracruz comes from the catalan Vera-Creu (Red Cross), Here you can see an old catalan poem with that use of the word "Vera", not currently used anymore:

http://www.rialc.unina.it/0bis.aujats_senyors.htm

Where the a verse is: "Aygua es vera ans que sia fixada;" (The water is red unless cleaned). The poem is constantly repeating the red color in different ways, so no doubt can exist; I thought it is a good example.

Obviously, the word Veragua means red water. You can find several examples along the Caribean coast.

> ..... I think you are seriously mistaken when you call it a "flag" and say the "The flag is correct. It is the flag of the aragonese military army".

There is no flag it is a cross on the sails of the caravel and this cross has nothing to do with the arogonese military. It is strictly the emblem of the Order of Christ in Portugal. Furthermore you are mistaken in the links you present. Th Military uniform although not very clear is the Cross of Santiago and your Veracruz is incorreclty translated to "Red Cross" it is correctly translated to "True Cross" Vera is feminine form of Vero.

The latin translation you provide makes little sense for Veracuz and no sense at all for Veragua. It would be the only example of using latin in the names given to those new places. It's just too far fetched. On the other hand, in catalan language "vera" means "red". This alternative translation is, at least, consistent in its use and also with that red cross which might be, after all, not an error.

Is the use of the word "Veragua" consistent with a place with red waters? Check it. The place was known for its mines.

>.... It is incredilbe how you come here with your version of the facts without knowing one iota of the history of Portugal and yet you insist like other misinformed historians that you are correct. The name Vera Cruz has NEVER been used to mean "Red Cross" but yes to mean "True Cross" this is also why Pedro Alvares Cabral name the new land Vera Cruz but than again you may not even know who Cabral was nor what lands he named Vera Cruz. As for Veragua I have no comment because unlike you I won't make up a meaning for why it was called Veragua who knows maybe it stands for 'Ver Agua'.213.13.246.254 16:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Diego de Landa, in the "Relación de las cosas de Yucatán": "y que llegado Cortés a la Nueva España comenzó a poblar y al primer pueblo llamó la Vera-cruz conforme al blasón de su bandera;" Translation: "Arriving Cortés to New Spain he began to populate it and named the first village Vera-cruz, according to the sign of his flag". Additionally I did not concoct a meaning for every case (as you do), but theorized it to be the same meaning everywhere. At a minimun, it is more consistant.

OK so you theorized. I did not theorize, I gave you the correct meaning of the Latin words Vera Cruz. You can't make the leap between the arms of his flag "al blasón de su bandera" to mean that these arms were a "Red Cross" to be correct you must research what were the arms of the flag Cortés used.

You theorized it is latin. I gave you the correct translation from catalan, not form latin. About the flag used in America, you can see it here http://www.navego.com.ar/images/senyera.jpg

Honestly trying to help you see the facts as they really are is a waste of time since you have crossed over into a fantasy that the words Vera Cruz mean Red Cross. Your own link that you posted here: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/mexico/Michoac-n-Zacatecas/Veracruz.html clearly says that Cortes named it Vera Cruz (True Cross).' As for Ver Agua' it could means 'See Water' but I don't have any documentation to prove it since I never read where CC got the name from.Colombo.bz 05:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless the replica of the so called Santa Maria is not correct in using the crosses of the Ordem de Cristo on its sails. The Ordem de Cristo was strictly a Portuguese militia (as can be seen by the Portuguese red and green flag on the replica) and would not have been sailing for Castile, they hated Castile.213.13.247.3 01:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa still Unmasking Columbus

While using a flag on a large or small fabric is a matter of customs that we don't know well, evidence cannot be dismissed so lightly. There are lots of mentions to the "flag of the cross" in CC History and other episodes of the conquest of America. This is consistent with the red cross in the sails, and king Ferdinand was the king of Aragon and the red flag was the flag of the aragonese military. Why should we consider it a portugese flag? The red cross is the english flag too, for that matter. At that time Aragon had lots of ships while Castille had close to none. The conquest of Granada by Castille was made a few years before using aragonese ships, for a reason.

>.... Maybe for you, who I suspect are without any idea of how sacred a country's colors or 'standard' is, say that is "a matter of customs that we don't know well". Maybe you don't know well the menaing of a flag or an Order's symbol but I do. And no matter how hard you insist that the red cross on the replica of the Santa Maria shown in the article is a cross of Aragon it is not. It is an exact replica of the Cross of the Order of Christ whihc was never used in Aragon. Indeed they could not use it it was not theirs. The standard that CC used was a cross with an F and a Y for Fernando and Isabel. If CC used the Cross of Christ on his sails, to put it in some form you cna understand, it would be like the quarterback from the Dallas Cowboys wearing a uniform from the NY Jets and therefore he would be a NY Jets quarterback even if he was playing for Dallas. 213.13.246.254 16:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

You said "Never used in Aragon". Sorry to contradict you. It was used for centuries. We even know its origin. From the letter by Pere el Cerimoniós (king of Aragon) to his brother Ferran, "...havem ordenat que totes les companyies de cavall tinguen, el dia de la batalla, sobresenyals a senyal de Sent Jordi. E així, manam-vos e us pregam que façats fer per vos matex e semblantment féts fer a cascú dels vostres los dits sobresenyals, que sien blancs de tot ab la Creu vermella". Translation: "I have ordered that all companies on horses wear at the day of the battle the sign of Saint George. I order to make for you and for all your people such signs that should be white with the red Cross".

Again you misunderstand what you are arguing. I never said that Aragon did not use a red cross. I said that Vera Cruz means not "Red Cross" but "True Cross" and I explained that the cross on the sails of the Santa Maria shown on the article is the cross of the Portuguese Order of Christ something you are completly out of touch with. Now I grant you that the cross of St. George is a red cross on a white field. True. But this is not the cross on the sails of the caravel shown as the "replica of the santa Maria". Those crosses are very clearly the red and white double cross of the Order of Christ. You should first familiarize yourseof with the history of this order before insisting that the cross was the saem as the cross of St. George it is not the same thing.213.13.246.123 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa - still Unmasking Columbus.

Be careful not to violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Crosses of the Order of Christ and the Santa Maria replica, (note that it is red and with a white cross inside and 45 degree tips on the arms).

The Cross of St. George is solid red with straight arms.

I am sorry to have to say that your arguments are self contradictory. You say that it doesn't make sense to use a symbol in a sail, yet you state that the portuguese did. You say that it would be stupid to use the same symbol as another nation yet the english did. And this is all that you say, because for the other evidence you cannot dismiss so "easily" you just ignore it. The cross in those sails has been there for all the representations that we have. Instead of inquiring about its origin (maybe the origin was an error, this is possible), you mark it as an error... because it dosn't fit your theory. The history of CC as has arrived until us contains lots of contradictions. Any theory should try to explain these contradictions because there are too many of them to be "a few errors". Even the theory that CC was trying to hide who he was is against evidence, as has been shown. You cannot ignore the parts that won't fit your idea because it would be possible to prove anything in this way.

It is really a sad state of affairs when someone canot see the clear evidence that is presented and insists on maintaining a stance that is contradictory to the proof this can only be due to ignorance or to misinformation. In this age of information I fail to see how one can be so misinformed. The crosses shown on this replica were never used on the original Santa Maria unless CC was sailing a ship of the Order of Christ in Portugal. I have tried in every post relating to this man's history to be clear on what the evidence is and on where the misinformation came from. I admit that in some cases it is harder to grasp but on this of the caravels of the Order of Christ it is so cut and dry that I don't understand what I can do to correct your wrong assumption so I am updloading a photo I took of the very same caravel in Madeira where you will see that the cross is that of the Ordem de Cristo. I will also include a cross or flag of St. George in hopes that you are not so misinformed that even with this you will insist that the cross on the sails of the Santa Maria replica are actually those of St. George. Colombo.bz 18:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa - not all knowing but I can learn what I don't yet know.

Please help

Somone has done great damage here. Please help tpo restore proper contents - simple roll back is not going to help! --Bhadani 15:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored to this version at 13:51 today. Looks like it was OK. I'll look to see if there were any legitimate edits after that to include. Fan-1967 15:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is Manuel Rosa?

He's edited this page a lot, and identifies himself in this discussion as a historian of Spain. Yet, his edits are very biased to his own theory, stating things as facts that are simply his theory. For example,

However, historian Manuel Rosa writes in Unmasking Columbus that Colon and Colom are not the same names nor do they have the same meanings. Columbus is Latin; Colombo is Italian; Pombo is Portuguese; Colombe is French;and Colom is Catalan. All these translate to dove or pigeon, but none of these were the name of the discoverer since Fernando Colon says that Colon in Greek means member. Therefore the name Colon was a stand-in for the Greek Kolon chosen by Christopher to mean member, and none of the above names for pigeon (dove) are correctly applied names. The name Xpoval Colon was only assumed in 1484 when Christopher fled from Portugal to Castile and was not his real name.

Googling "Manuel Rosa" and "Columbus" brings up Rosa's own web page, a few places where you can order his book, and lots and lots of forums where he's been posting about himself. Also, the revelation that Rosa is not a recognized historian in the field, but a contract worker for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

I see absolutely no reason for Rosa's theories to be included here, unless in a 'short' paragraph about non-majority theories about Columbus. --Eileen R 02:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Eileen, the quote you use here is not theory. It is simple dicitonary meanings of the word in different languages to show how worng those who insist on calling CC by Colombo instead of his real name Colon are. The words Colombo and Colon have two different meanings.213.13.246.254 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Manuel Rosa, if you use simple dictionary meanings in order to make an original argument 8and on your website, you claim it is an original argument) then you are violating our NOR policy. This is the issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Eileen, I am inclined to support you. Please first review this policy [1] and this guideline Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines and if you feel confident that these support you, revert away. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Eileen, I have not put forth a theory. I have only explained the real facts of history as they are. If you can point to one thing that I have written on this site and prove that it is wrong by showing me facts, I will gladly retract. So far everything I have stated is backed up by real facts in history. I may be contracted to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences but I can read and understand English, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Italian, Russian, French and Latin... when you can read as much as I have done in the past 15 years about this CC you can get a whole picture of the history. Soon it will be proven that the Genoese was a cover-up story. But for now if we can just stick to the KNOWN facts about CC I will be happy. 213.13.246.254 22:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

By "theory" Eileen means an explanation of facts. So far I have seen no evidence that you are a credentialed historian. Your book is not available on Amazon.com. If it is a vanity publication, then your work should not be used in this article following our vanity guidelines. have you published any peer-reviewed articles in academic history journals? Has your book been reviewed by any academic history journals? If your work does not meet our standards for a reliable verifiable source, then putting your "explanations" in the article violates NOR. You can read whatever you want to in as many languages, and believe what you wish. An editor of Wikipedia is still bound to comply with NOR policy.Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I am a historian of CC's life 15 years now and I am involved with DNA tests of CC and although my Portuguese language book is not available in Amazon.com it will be there in 1 short month where you will see the falsified 1998 Testament. Feel free to edit, delete, remove whatever you wish. It is not furthering the truth. 213.13.246.254 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa

Manuel, first, please use colons like everyone else to indent your remarks. If your keyboard does not have a colon, cut and past from above. Second, would you be kind enough to tell me where you received your degree in history, and what professional organizations of historians you belong to, and in which peer-reviewed journals of history you have published in? If you do not care to present yourself as an expert, of course, you need not answer any of these questions. But if you wish to present yourself as an expert, please do. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

All ships that carry a red cross with a white cross inside belonged to the Templar Order of Christ in Portugal. This Templar Christian Militia headed by Prince Henry 'the Navigator' were responsible for initiating the Age of Discovery. The red and white cross with the triangle pointed arms belonged only to this order.

Mr. Rosa, your contributions are welcome, but please note that Wikipedia has stringent policies related to what we can include in articles. In particular, I would invite you to read the policy of Verifiability. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I will not edit the article anymore since I am unfamiliar with all of the policies here. I first found this site many months ago when I noticed someone had quoted me in the article and afterwards I tried contributed to bring more truthfull facts to it since many historians like Morison are severely misinformed. I will refrain to discussing here what I see incorrect instead and let someone else decide what to add or delete from the article. It would be a good idea to state that the Santa Maria shown is not a replica of CC's ship but is a instead a Portuguese ship of similar size and form as CC's.213.13.246.21 10:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Manuel Rosa