Jump to content

Talk:Christopher Columbus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:::October 2006 Peer Review

League of Copyeditors, January 2007 copyedited

No original research

isn't all research original? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.225.41 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus was Genovese, i.e. ITALIAN nationality.. even imprisoned by the Spanish "because he was Italian not Spanish."

{{Editprotected}}Nationality: Genovese, i.e. ITALIAN.Talk:Christopher Columbus/Editprotected

Columbus was Genovese, i.e. ITALIAN nationality.. even imprisoned by the Spanish "because he was Italian not Spanish"; it is in the official Columbus logs of his third voyage (I believe) to the Americas.

This article is not fully protected; only semiprotected. Further, I believe the statement "...Christopher Columbus was born between 25 August and 31 October 1451 in Genoa, part of modern Italy." makes it quite clear that Columbus was Italian. Intelligentsium 03:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He may have been Genoan, probably he was. But he was not Italian since Italy did not exist at that time as such. Therefore, writing that his nationality was Italian or probably Italian is wrong. It is inaccurate and errors like that should not be in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcglscss (talkcontribs) 05:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC) You're WRONG! The Italian peninsula has been called "Italia" ("Italy") since the Roman Conquests of Ancient Times. Columbus' lifetime was 1500 years later during the Middle Ages. Genoa was certainly a part of Italia (Italy) during Columbus' lifetime. You're confused by the "Italian Unification" which politically unified all states, on the Italian peninsula (Italy), in the 1800's.[reply]


Sorry but Italia didn´t exist as a country till XIX century, so it´s impossible that Columbus could be Italian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.10.27 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC) You're wrong! Italy DID exist! The Italian peninsula was called "Italia" ("Italy") way before Columbus's time. Check Wikipedia's "Maps of Italian unification" section in the "Italian unification" article". There are maps of Italy shown that begin in the year 1000. What the "Italian unification" ultimately did was: unite all states in Italy, give Italy one ruler, and one united Italian military.[reply]

typo

I cannot fix the typo under the "1st Voyage" section because I do not have enough posts.

Will someone please change this sentence: "He remarked that heir lack of modern weaponry ..."

to: "He remarked that THEIR lack of modern weaponry..."

Another Typo

The caption under the picture of Columbus, the Atlantic, and the ships refers to, "...his three Spaniard Ships..." This would be like saying that Drake used "Englishman Ships" instead of "English Ships."

Unless we have evidence that the ships under the command of Columbus were somehow sentient, the caption should read, "...his three Spanish Ships..."

Since I do not have the privs necessary to fix this problem, I commend my observation to those who have editing rights.

Sesquipedalian101 (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I've tried to reword the image caption. ClovisPt (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

was it him?

The article says that it was Columbus who discovered America men Is not it a little wrong? there should Blogging is not only it is a theory on it was ham ham?. Under the Constitution, checkers and biologist Lars Thomassen (Dane) bog several unexplained phenomena is at kensingtonstenen So I says: In the year of our Lord 1362 was 8 Swedes and 22 Norwegians then sailed across the Atlantic to Nordamerika.det had entered the country in Minnesota where it died der.så I do not think it is fair that it says that it was only him who discovered America when there is evidence that it was skandinaverne.stenen were discovered in 1898 in Kensington in Minnesota.--It is proven that it is healthy to celebrate birthday! Statistics show that people who celebrate the most birthdays become the oldest. (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the people who really "discoverd" the american continent were the asians who ame across the bering starit land bridge, and started iving here. the norse were the first know europeans to go to north american, but culombuse was the one to start european coliniztion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Columbus was Italian.

Christopher Columbus was Italian. Almost all Encyclopedias (90%): " Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer "

And the number of sources reporting this theory (Italian nationality) is quite frankly ten, maybe one hundred times bigger than the number of sources reporting that he was portuguese or spanish. Other sources for the avoidance of doubt:

1. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Christopher_Columbus.aspx

2. http://doc.studenti.it/appunti/storia/7/cristoforo-colombo.html

3. http://html.rincondelvago.com/cristobal-colon_4.html

4. http://www.answers.com/topic/christopher-columbus

5. http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/C/ColumbusC.html

6. http://www.encyclopedia.it/c/cr/cristoforo_colombo.html

7. http://www.universalis.fr/corpus2-encyclopedie/117/9341/E950271/encyclopedie/COLOMB_C.htm

8. http://www.christopher-columbus.ch/it_teil_2.htm * Documents demonstrate the Genoese origin of Columbus *

9. http://www.treccani.it/Portale/elements/categoriesItems.jsp?pathFile=/sites/default/BancaDati/Enciclopedia_online/C/Biografie_-_Edicola_Colombo_1026121330.xml

--93.148.98.200 (talk) 15 January 2010 (UTC)


Probably Colombus was a Spaniard

There are also thousand of studies demonstrating other possible born places of Colombus, mainly as a Spaniard. References are too easy to be found, so I save list them here. Many of them are real results of research, not simple transcryptions of another authors. Discussion will end shortly when DNA analysis will offer results.

That is clear is everything is known about the live of Colombus is related with the Kingdom of Spain, as for instance he called 'La Hispaniola" his first discovery in the New World. In Spain lived his brother, and also his son. He wrote his letters in a perfect Spanish languaje without the usual mistakes of any foreigner. Family names "Colón" and "Colombo" are also known in Spain from centuries before Christophorus.

In any case, all the ships of its fleet in the 4 trips he made to the New World were Spanish, and all the crew too. You can not question that the discovery was Spanish.

A last consideration: at XVI century, still Italy did not exist. Every of its regions were independent and many of them belonged to Spanish Crown. So, Colombus never could be an Italian.

(Juan A. Malo de Molina (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]


italian as in ethnicity, not nationallity. and there were sevral italian states, like there used to be german states. any way, he went to the italians, portugese, both of whom turned him down for the voyage, but the spainyards suplied him, so it was an italian discovery, but since it was funded by the spainyards, they got the land. an —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC) DNA tests have already been made and have proved that Columbus was not a Sephardic Jew (Spanish or Portuguese). Columbus did not write in perfect Spanish. He wrote in a mixture of Spanish, Catalan and Portugeuse. It is generally agreed that he wrote in this hodgepodge because of his lack of education in Genoa. He picked up a mixture of these other languages during his travels. His writings of his childhood in Genoa, and his early sailings from Genoa were kept in Spanish vaults for centuries. Columbus' brother, Bartolomeo, did not live in Spain. He lived in Lisbon, Portugal for part of his adulthood. Also, many Spanish regions belonged to or were governed by Italy during that time, too. His discovery of the New World is acknowledged as an Italian victory! Lastly, the name "Columbo" is originally Italian. It was the Italians who taught the Spaniards Latin Culture. This is why the Spanish language so closely resembles the Italian language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.217.237 (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have references for any of this, great. Otherwise it is just discussion about the subject and really doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were you talking to just one of us, or to all of us, Doug? Because NOTHING is referenced by anyone in this "Probably Columbus was a Spaniard" topic! Besides, where do you think discussion belongs, if not in the discussion section?

As it says at the top of the article, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." This is a discussion page for the article. As there is and probably always will be a dispute about his origin, the article will always describe the dispute using reliable sources. We should not be trying to settle it or discuss it in the abstract. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, there's nothing in the original poster's text which has anything really related to the main article, itself. It's all quite abstract and shows nothing slightly akin to the main articles' text or tone. Yes, there are disputes going on. There's one which claims that Columbus was Greek...and a newer one claiming that he was British! It seems that everyone would like to jump on the bandwagon!
You write: "Also, many Spanish regions belonged to or were governed by Italy during that time, too."
It was rather vice versa, 82.67.217.237. Spain was part of the Roman Empire until the 5th century, but Columbus lived in the 15th and 16th, when Spain ruled half of Italy and most of the rest was under Spanish influence. SamEV (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "Spain ruled half of Italy and most of the rest was under Spanish influence". NOT! You'd better check your facts! And "Spanish influence"? Most of Spanish culture (e.g. the language, religion, overall mentality) was derived directly from Italian culture! The Sephardic Jews of Spain were eliminated to make way for the Roman Catholic Religion and Roman Culture. But you're breaking the Wikipedia rules: All of this has nothing to do with the article, itself
OK, if you want to get in the weeds, here's my rephrasing of my statement. During Columbus's lifetime half of Italy, that being the Kingdom of Naples (encompassing one third of the Peninsula), the Kingdom of Sicily, and Sardinia were under the direct or indirect rule of the Crown of Aragon, Aragon being a country in Spain. By the time Columbus died, all these areas were under the rule of the Spanish king Ferdinand the Catholic. Spanish influence extended to other Italian states, furthermore, and after 1559, when the last of the Italian Wars between Spain and France ended, more than half of the Peninsula was ruled by Spain and the rest (Venice being the likely exception), was under Spanish hegemony, a situation which persisted until 1700.
And you're right to say that all this is off-topic. Are you suggesting that the solution is for me to overlook your falsehoods? Or should you stop inserting off-topic falsehoods in the first place, or revert them if you have? I have no issue with all the off-topic material's being excised from this thread if done fairly. SamEV (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put NO falsehoods in any of my comments! You said that Italy didn't exist as a country during Columbus' time. I gave you proof in Wikipedia's "Italian Unification" map section that it did! Spanish influence is NOT the same as Spanish governing! Spanish culture is HEAVILY influenced by the Italian culture. Why don't you get onto the Jennifer Lopez discussion board and behave yourself there?! I've noticed by your Wikipedia history that quite often your topics and comments get deleted! (You'll probably find your own deletions somewhere in the weeds!)
And what's that you say about my comments' being reverted "quite often"? Where? Diffs, please, diffs. SamEV (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historians and the sources

If Christopher Columbus was a Spaniard (!) then Picasso was an Italian.

Many historians say that he is from Genoa, Italy.

The 90% of encyclopedias, argue that Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer and navigator.

- http://www.humanities-interactive.org/newworld/columbus/ex020_timeline.htm

- http://www.articlesbase.com/history-articles/christopher-columbus-what-did-he-do-in-1492-1400794.html

- http://www.biographyshelf.com/christopher_columbus_biography.html

- http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/103053.html

- http://www.lepotentiel.com/afficher_article.php?id_edition=&id_article=28044

- http://www.linternaute.com/biographie/christophe-colomb/date/

- http://internetalis.fr/histoire/stars-histoire/christophe-colomb

- http://enciclopedia.studenti.it/cristoforo-colombo.html

- http://www.tanogabo.it/cristoforo_colombo.htm

- http://skuola.tiscali.it/storia-moderna/cristoforo-colombo.html

- http://www.oppisworld.de/philo/kolumbus.html

- http://www.st-thomas.angus.sch.uk/christopher_columbus.htm

- http://www.grin.com/e-book/97570/kolumbus-christoph

- http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/116/372927/text/

- http://www.staidenshomeschool.com/calendars/lessons/october/columbus.html

--93.148.99.53 (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Italy (Italia) has been around since the Roman Conquests!

I cannot believe that people are actually claiming that Italy wasn't around during Columbus' lifetime. The Italian peninsula has been called "Italia" ("Italy") since the days of the Ancient Roman Conquests. Columbus was born much later (during the Middle Ages). The Italian unification was a political unification which happened in the 1800's. It politically unified all states in Italy into having one government and military. The entire Italian peninsula has been called "Italia" ("Italy") since Ancient Times. To say that Columbus was Genovese, but NOT Italian is grossly incorrect. Genoa has always been located in Italia (Italy)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talkcontribs) 19:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But "Italia" as used before 1861 meant the Italian Peninsula, i.e. it was a geographical term. SamEV (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No! You're wrong! The Italian peninsula was called "Italia". On Ancient Old World and Medieval maps, the Italian peninsula is charted as "Italia" (not as "The Italian peninsula"). Genoa, Rome, Naples, Venice, etc. have been situated in "Italia" ("Italy") for 2000 years. One might have called his city Genoa, but he would have certainly referred to his country as "Italia" ("Italy"). Before the Italian unification, of the 1800's, each separate Italian state had its own leader and military. ]] comment added by 82.67.217.237 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"One might have called his city Genoa, but he would have certainly referred to his country as "Italia" ("Italy")."
You see, Wikipedia is not about 'would haves'. His country was well known, and it was well known as "Serenissima Repubblica di Genova", "Most Serene Republic of Genoa", but commonly as "Genoa". That was his country. Italy was a region, a peninsula, an idea, etc, but it was not the sovereign state wherein Columbus was born.
BTW, Italian unification gave the country one king, not president. Presidents have existed in unified Italy only since WWII. SamEV (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "You see, Wikipedia is not about 'would haves'". Well, you're full of "would haves", yourself! Italy WAS a country when Columbus was born! Italy is charted on pre-Medieval maps! Check the "Maps of Italian Unification" section in Wikipedia's "Italian unification" article. There are maps of Italy shown that date back to the year 1000! What's wrong with you? Why do you think Italy is known as the "Italian peninsula"? It's because Italians live there! Why? Because the country is called "Italy"! It's funny how some people consider Spainish history to exist before and after the Romans called it "Spagna". Yet, some people would like us to believe that Italy wasn't called "Italia" during Columbus' time. Such nonsense! Especially, when there are enough Old World maps showing that the peninsula was called "Italia" back then. And don't hand me any of that "geographical term" stuff. (The "United States of America" is the geographical term for the USA!) You erroneosly (and rather tellingly) wrote that Spain ruled half of Italy during Columbus' time and that, simultaneously, most of the rest of Italy was under Spanish influence. What poppycock! You double crossed your own claim, that Italy didn't exist at that time, by referring to the country as "Italy"! Spain never owned half of Italy, nor influenced most the rest of it! What an extreme falsehood, and an outright overstatement! (Don't you think the Italians would be speaking Spanish now if that were the case?) Your comments are ultimately hilarious! It is a well-known fact that it was the Italians (Romans) who influenced, by way of imposition, Latin culture on the Spanish, French and Portuguese (e.g. language, religion, etc)! As far as the "president" thing goes...I used the word "leader"! (You used the word "president"!) What the Italian unification did was ultimately merge all Italian states so that Italy could have one government and military. The Italian unification started in 1815. It did give Italy its first official king later in the unification (Vittorio Emanuelle 11 (circa 1870)). But that's not where the Italian unification ended. It went on until after WW11. The unification is ultimately responsible for giving Italy one president and a singular military. Thank goodness schoolteachers will not let their students use Wikipedia as a primary or secondary source of information. It just isn't very reliable! (But it can be very amusing, nonetheless.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.217.237 (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one's saying there was no place called "Italy". What didn't exist was a sovereign state called "Italy" encompassing Columbus's birthplace of Genoa, let alone the whole Peninsula.
And no, you used the word "president". Wikipedia pages have something called a "history", which allows us to see who wrote or did what. Here's the word "president" being added, [1], and here it is being removed, in the edit following mine: [2].
As for the rest, I trust that in the articles History of Italy, Italian Wars, Kingdom of Naples, Kingdom of Sicily, Sardinia, Milan, Parma, etc, you will find enough information and sources to mitigate your tremendous ignorance of Italian history. Good luck. SamEV (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have proven NOTHING with the revision times! YOUR history times aren't listed! My revision went through first! Besides, the Italian unification ultimately DID give Italy a president. Who cares if I chose to change "president" to "leader" before I finalised my comment? An Italian president WAS the result of the Italian unification! You've no grounds for an arguement! It's YOU who are full of ignorance on Italian history. I've noticed, by looking at YOUR history, that quite often your topics and comments are removed permanently. I suggest you do something constructive on Wikipedia...like comment on the Jennifer Lopez discussion board! But remember to stay faithful to the article in your discussion topic! I will be sure to check from time to time to make sure that you don't deviate from the article (which is often your wont)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.217.237 (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the third relevant diff, that of my edit: [3]. It's funny how you only 'finalized' your comment after I pointed out your error. And your 'finalization' did not consist of replacing "president" with "leader", but of blanking the sentence.
Yeah, go ahead, watch for my comments at the J-Lo article... Bring some lunch, too...
IP, with all due respect, you're full of it. I'm a constructive editor and my edits stick overwhelmingly. Become a constructive editor yourself and you'll be able to say the same. Good bye. SamEV (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did NOT point anything out to me. I made my revisions on my own! And I wouldn't brag about edit #3 if I were you! On the bottom of the right side, you wrote: "BTW, Italian unification gave the country one "king", not president. Presidents have existed in Italy only since WW11". WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Ultimately, the Italian unification did give Italy a president. The Italian unification outlasted WW11. Obviously, you didn't know that the war ended in 1945 and Italy got its first president in 1946! Luv those automated bots and deletions on your history page! bot! bot! bot! LOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.217.237 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of Columbus' sister in the article?

The article mentions his brothers: Bartolomeo, Giovanni Pellegrino, and Giacomo. But why no mention of his sister, Bianchinetta? She should be mentioned in the article. Shouldn't she? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talkcontribs) 14:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]