Talk:Christopher Columbus

Legacy section: Replaced "traditionally considered the discoverer of America"

I think the word "traditionally" is very problematic. It's a very poorly defined term. I have therefore changed text in the first sentence of the "Legacy" section from "Although among non-Native Americans Christopher Columbus is traditionally considered the discoverer of America..." to "Although Christopher Columbus was commonly considered to be the "discoverer of America" in popular culture until late in the twentieth century". This could still do with refining further to clarify *who* thought of him as the "discoverer of America". My European school education in the late 20th century promoted this idea but I am aware that even in popular culture it is now recognised that other Europeans travelled to the American landmass before him. A more detailed and nuanced opening to this section would be a good addition. thanks!--mgaved (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

To weigh in here, Columbus is still commonly regarded to have discovered America for Eurasia. The continent was originally discovered by the forefathers of its indigenous peoples, of course; but they never communicated news of this discovery back to the Old World (for obvious reasons). Other voyagers predated Columbus's arrival, but it's not clear that any of them even recognized they'd left the European continent, let alone communicated this finding back to Europe/Africa/Asia. So the Vikings only discovered America in the sense that someone struck by lightening discovers electricity. --Xiaphias (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear that Columbus recognized that he'd left Eurasia either. If he did, he never admitted it. -Wormcast (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Too Eurocentric?

Maybe this Christopher Columbus entry should be less euro centric and should include the theories about the Olmecs who many consider to be African as earlier visitors of the Americas, predating the Vikings. And the fact that when the Greeks entered into contact with the Egyptians they acquired a lot of the knowledge in terms of the roundness of the earth that is ascribed to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.197.191 (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Questioning Neutrality

I think the sentence, "Yet he studied these books, made hundreds of marginal notations in them and came out with ideas about the world that were characteristically simple and strong and sometimes wrong, the kind of ideas that the self-educated person gains from independent reading and clings to in defiance of what anyone else tries to tell him." is a little harsh. If someone could make it say the same thing but nicer, it would be cool. Thanks, Ronster21 (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Ronster21

The part that describes how Columbus punished a man found guilty of stealing corn (by having his his ears and nose cut off and then selling him into slavery) comes off a bit harsh also. Could there be a way to make that sound nicer, too? -Wormcast (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Having read Columbus' Journal, I just cannot agree with that conformist position. His journal shows that he was eager to communicate with the people he met there (what is surprising is the speed with which he arrived to quite elaborate conversations, not the kind one would have with "animals", though humans are mammals and mammals are certainly animals). The only very strange thing in that journal is that he is constantly speaking about gold, bit after all this expedition had cost a lot, he had lost one of his three vessels, and he probably wanted to be forgiven by raising hopes. 212.198.148.24 (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)uest

In the words of Jon Cryer, "Sarcasm is lost in print." -Wormcast (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Latin ?

"Columbus eventually learned Latin, as well as Portuguese and Castilian, and read widely about astronomy, geography, and history, including the works of Ptolemy, Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly's Imago Mundi, the travels of Marco Polo"

To read Marco Polo, he did not need Latin : Le Devisement du monde had been written in French : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devisement_du_monde#Langue . 212.198.148.24 (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Italian

I guess we are having this problem again - so again will ask . Can we get those removing this to provided sources to dispute those in the article. Have no problem if it not in the infobox as it is now.. but lets make sure the lead stays -- Moxy (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Martha Kneib (2003). Christopher Columbus: Master Italian Navigator in the Court of Spain. The Rosen Publishing Group. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-8239-3616-8.

I'm guessing that the objection of those removing "nationality Italian" from the infobox is not to Columbus's being described as "Italian"—which would indeed be silly—but to this being given as his "nationality".

David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I would guess that is the reason as Genoa was an independent city-state at the time. I have no problem leaving it blank in the infobox.Moxy (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I was going to agree that he couldn't have had Italian as his nationality at that time, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Moxy, that's why I agreed with the removal. He was ethnically "Italian", but not nationally. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Calligraphic Study: Columbus was Pedro Alvarez de Sotomayor, a galician nobleman. http://cristobal-colon-su-historia.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/estudio-pericial-sobre-la-identidad.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.80.98 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)