Talk:Christopher Columbus

:::October 2006 Peer Review

League of Copyeditors, January 2007 copyedited

Columbus presented at Duke University Columbus. A Spy Unmasked by Manuel Rosa- Part 1 of 2

Wife's Family

The article reads "He married Filipa Moniz Perestrello, daughter of the Porto Santo governor and Portuguese nobleman of Genoese origin Bartolomeu Perestrello." Bartolomeu Perestrelo was NOT Genoese he was from Piacenza which is not the same as Genoa. Furthermore, I suggest that a page for his wife, Filipa Moniz be created. I had created one but the all-knowing-powers-that-wiki saw fit to delete it, therefore someone who is not seen as a "minor fringe writer" by the all-knowing may have a crack at it.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Native Language

The article says "Columbus never wrote in his native language, but it may be assumed this was the Genoese variety of Ligurian." This phrase is deceiving and should be rewritten to say "Columbus never wrote in the Genoese language, it is unknown what his native tongue might have been." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colon-el-Nuevo (talk • contribs) 19:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Why no mention of Columbus's 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? jpgordon, can you tell us? Cheers, ducky! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any proof to back that story up? (Proof, please. Not hearsay and theories!) Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What we need are reliable sources, not an argument here based on people's own research, so deleting some original research here. And Rosa is not a reliable source by Wikipedia criteia. Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it laughable that Manuel Rosa who has spent 19.5 years researching in-depth this history and who is fluent in English, Portuguese, Spanish, plus French, Italian is seen by you as "not a reliable source" however James Loewen, Eliot Morison, Tavianni and even Robert H Fuson (who has holes so big in his books you can drive trucks through) are reliable. It is truly a state of the blind leading the blind and the blind insisting they can see. Colon-el-viejo (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Cabot

I have now twice remove the sentence "John Cabot is also believed to have reached North America (Newfoundland) before Columbus" from the introduction. I have done this for two reasons: 1) Columbus never reached North America, so the statement doesn't make logical sense. 2) The information immediately before where this sentence was placed relates to verified European expeditions to the Americas prior to Columbus, a category that does not include Cabot, at least in mainstream historical thinking. Hopefully this is clear. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly clear, I was careless and not rewording - Morison phrased it correctly in fact as I said on your talk page. Is it entirely irrelevant to the article do you think? Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. As far as adding Cabot's travels to North America to the article, I don't see exactly where that would go, but if you can find a place, it seems like it could be a fine addition. ClovisPt (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What to do about this talk page

For the last month, this talk page has been a complicated mess because of people (or maybe one person) continually modifying their comments, making the discussion real hard to follow. I'm quite tempted just to archive the whole thing up until the last section or two. Would anybody object if this quite inappropriate noise was archived? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding the page so much more interesting and informative with people updating their comments. There's nothing wrong with adding new information to make the page more informative. Now, is there? However, I wish some of the editors weren't so snide. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll be reverting any further edits you make on this page that either change already answered comments or are otherwise not in keeping with our talk page guidelines. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Calgo, this page is a mess, one of the worst I watch (and I watch over a thousand pages). You are modifying comments made weeks ago without any indication of what you've done, including modifications of comments made after you've had a reply. Please read WP:TALK. You and others are using this page to carry out a debate and that is emphatically not acceptable, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article". The "Probably Colombus was a Spaniard" section, where you've been changing your edits, has indented comments without signatures.

And that arugment is WP:OR, we should simply be using the term (Italy or whatever) used by historians, not arguing about whether it was Italy. You also seem to be editing not logged in, and I'm pretty sure "simultaneously catty and vapid!" is your edit - and it's clearly a personal attack.

Worst of all, except for one edit to Peter Lupus, all your edits are on this page, none to this article. It's time for you to stop talking and start editing the article. I'm sure you have something to contribute there (seriously). As for the Peter Lupus edit, I'm reverting it. See your talk page for an explanation.

Yes, let's archive the page. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, Be fair! I was personally attacked, beforehand, by one of your own staffers (check the archives) by being asked "If you want to get down in the weeds...". I didn't appreciate this licentious attack, I assure you! The same staffer accussed me of "ignorance". Not a very friendly way to be on a website which is meant to promote knowledge! Much too hostile and aggressive! At any rate, you suggested that I start editing the article, itself. How is one to edit or contribute to the article, itself, when it is semi-protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 13:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We have no staffers, I've said on your talk page that 'get in the weeds' (he didn't say 'down' I believe) is definitely not an insult. You can make suggestions here as to things you'd like changed/added, or start editing other articles and after a while you'll find you can edit this one. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, By staffers, I meant editors (or, whatever it is you people do here.) I didn't say that the "weeds" thing was an insult. I said it was an attack. It does have a licentious tone to it and is an extremely disagreeable sounding thing to say. (Not at all gentrified.) Anyway, I've edited articles in the past, how are users to know as to when they're able to start editing semi-protected articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgo (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You are an editor/staffer then. And it definitely was not an attack. You can edit semi-protected articles, IPs can't. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool it, Calgo. If you keep this up you'll be blocked. I know from personal experience. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 03:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

he was going after india not east indies

i know its kind of the same thing but to be fair he wanted to go to india east indies? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

its not the same at all. He was leding the spanish in the wrong direction while V. Gama was preparing what would become the greatest discovery of all times - the sea route to India. Anyway the discovery of America only became important a couple of centuries later with the rise of the british empire... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coimbra68 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What a joke is this introduction?

The introduction of this article is very much in line with the hundred-year-old cheap Anglo anti-Spanish sentiment and propaganda. Black lengend and sheer jealousy of Spanish achievement in History. "The Norse discovering america¡", the awareness of the American continent by Europeans¡, etc.

"It was a Spanish expedition led by a Spanish citizen (even if his Italian origins are accepted, which are by the way contested¡). In any case, again, a Spanish expedition led by a "Italo-Spaniard" if we accept the Italian theory and he is credited in the Western World with the discovery of America. No one in the Western World knew of that continent, or just outside of the Americas<¡. The Norse thing is as stupid as claiming that the Native Americans discovered America. If a Native American had discovered the so-called old world and had told everyone else and had initiated a era of discovery, exploration, mapping and intense change of the world, then that Native American would be credited with the discovery of the Old World¡.

Again, cheap Spanish jealosy, especially in the Anglo world, is well known and documented since the creation of the Black legend but it is sociologically very interesting to see how it lingers on. One does not have to be a sophisticated eye to see how the most important event in Modern History is constantly either downplayed or how its Spanishness is constantly smudged in the Anglo world and its literature, even in Wikipedia. Just check the versions in other languages!. Someone with a minimum of shame should write a more objective introduction (I know it will not happen. Jealousy, oh old ancient envy, the green-eyed monster¡. Another example of this piece of gigantic, monstrous envy in the Anglo mind is the fact that Wikipedia has no article called "The Discovery of America", which is indeed the most important event in Modern History and probably in History. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.106.254 (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A nice attempt at trolling. Since nobody has responded yet, I'll add my two cents as an impartial observer (I am not "Anglo", not Spanish, not American, not European). It seems that there is incontrovertible evidence that the Norse "discovered" the Americas (I put "discovered" in brackets because it had, of course, already been discovered by the native people who crossed the land bridge from Asia). The best that can be said about Columbus is that he rediscovered parts of the Americas and bought its existence to wider consciousness in Europe. Your contention that this was "the most important event in Modern History" is certainly a very big contention. There are many, many events in history that were important. Invention of the wheel? Electricity? Standing on the moon's surface? Splitting the atom? The transistor? Global communications? The internet? You speak also of jealousy, but I fail to see why anyone would be jealous of a man who created ruin for the native people of the Americas, a man who kidnapped native people, a man who condoned the enslavement of those people, a man who was imprisoned for cruelty. I really don't think there's too much to be proud of there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.75.103 (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much of this discussion is directed towards improving the article and how much is just forum style argument - Calgo, I deleted your recent edit (please login to edit) as I saw nothing there about the article. As for no article on 'The Discovery of America', we actually have several - I've added the 'History of the Americas' template to the article which guides readers to them. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)