Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title: Introduction

message: 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)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Columbus National Origins 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Portuguese Controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Columbus Chapel? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  first § is a mess 

message: 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.
The Admiral gave Johnny command of a caravel on the Third Voyage to America, and entrusted him with confidential matters as well."
Samuel Eliot Morison saw no legal documents connecting the discoverer who was called Cristoval Colon  to Cristoforo Colombo. No such documents exist because it has never been proven that they were one and the same man. 82.154.144.230 01:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So there were two contemporary admirals in Spain with the same name? Funny. And both of them had a cousin called Johnny. Ha! --euyyn 16:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal docs 

message: Some could be said about the current location of his corpse. – Error 01:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Could it? I think there are no less than four places which claim to have it! – Nunh-huh 01:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Grave

message: Either he not only wrote flawless Castilian, but that he used the language even when writing with Italians. or Nor was it ever easy to read Columbus's nonnative Spanish with its Portuguese phonetics and Genoese locutions..
How was Columbus' language?
Remember that until 1492 there was no published grammar of Spanish.
– Error 02:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: His language

message: The surname doesn't mean "colonist".
Colón is similar to colono, but columbus, colombo, colom, colombe mean only "male pigeon". – Error 01:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The name colonist comes from the spanish name Colon. But also note that the country name Colombia comes directly from the name of the discoverer. It is Colombia, not colonia.
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 and all these translate to dove or pigeon but none of these were the name of the discoverer since Fernando Colon says that Colon...en griego quiere decir miembro Colon [Kolon]...in Greek means member. 
Since the name Colon was a stand-in for the Greek Kolon chosen by Christopher to mean member none of the above names for pigeon are correctly applied names. The name Xpoval Colon was only assumed in 1484 when Christopher ran away from Portugal to Castile and was not his real name.82.154.144.230 02:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Columbus" meaning

message: Just to state that this article is part of the paralel goal of the WikiAward for Greatest Sea Explorer of the period of the discoveries.
* If you do not know what are the WikiAwards just find out here. 
* If you already knew register as participant and choose a category to vote. This Award is part of the History category. 
Have fun, see the results, watch Wikipedia grow...--Gameiro Pais 05:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiAwards

message: "Felipa's father had partaken in the conquest of the Madeira Islands and owned one of them"
i changed "conquest" to "discovery" since this could look like Madeira was conquered.. (or it wasnt meant this way?)
also, did Felipa´s father really own one of the islands? there are just two... i assume it would be porto santo? 
---Cyprus2k1 16:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Madeiras probably were conquered – check the Wikipedia article to be sure. By the way, why all the links? Most of them are red. Brutannica 04:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There was nobody living there, so they weren´t "conquered" in any sense of "invasion".. – --Cyprus2k1 04:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Well then, I guess they were "settled" instead. Brutannica 03:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madeira question 

message: Bartolome de Las Casas was a friend of Columbus. So he didn't blame him for the atrocities committed against Native Americans. Just check A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies. --Mixcoatl 12:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Las Casas 

message: Don't know if this clears things up, but the passage pointed out the arrogance of Columbus in "claiming land" that was already populated and governed and then establishing himself and the Spaniards as rulers in the Caribbean. What gave him that right? Maybe it's not fair to single Colombo out from all the various other European land claimants in history, but I thought it gave an interesting perspective to the "Columbus as villain" argument.
By the way, the "Columbus as hero" section could use expansion. Brutannica 05:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: see Terra nullius, "a Latin expression meaning "empty land" or "no man's land". The term refers to a 17th century legal fiction that permitted European colonial powers to assume control of land that was unclaimed (at least by each other)." Peter Ellis 17:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Informationless Rant"

message: "He'd heard the word "Kulkukan" (Feathered Serpent), and rejoiced that the land of "Kublai Khan" or the "Great Khan" was nigh."
I never heard of that before, does someone has evidence Columbus heard the name Kukulcan? (Apart from that, the name is misspelled it's Kukulcan, not Kulkukan. --Mixcoatl 14:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kukul Khan"? 

message: On May 20, 1506, Columbus died in Spain, fairly wealthy due to the gold his men had accumulated in Hispaniola. He was still convinced that his discoveries were along the East Coast of Asia
:CC never thought he was on Asia. He wasn't such an ignorant. He was accused of believing to be in India when the king wanted to withdraw the given privileges conceded to discover a new land. The accusation was that he did not knew he had discovered a new land. Many of the false information about CC comes from those trials.
It was my understanding that this was a myth, and any belief that Columbus had that he was in Asia died when he visited the mouth of the Orinoco river, and realized that he was dealing with a bonafide continent.  Or did he think that this was another part of Asia? --Bletch 18:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Still thought he was in Asia?

message: What is meant by "european historical account?"  How many are there (the recent edit says "all")?  Is this a synthetic claim, which would violate the no original research rule?  I am tempted to revert it but would like to know what others think. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  00:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rape and stuff 

message: How can someone "discover" something that people have already found.  more specifically, i do not believe that columbus should have credit for discovering anything, because there were already people where he landed (and did  you know he killed a bunch of natives for thier gold??)
Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)
This is semantics but nonetheless rather worth dealing with, since use of the word makes the text Euro-centric. Aside from the native Americans already there, it's clear Europeans had come before (some apparently keeping it secret to protect fishing areas). Columbus does get credit for going there on the first successful, public, state funded expedition that resulted in a significant and permanent European presence (what a mouthful! ...even the vikings get credit for the "first" we know about). Anyway I've removed the word discovery and used alternates like find, exploration and journey as appropriate. The word discovery remains in a quote, also in a reference to an archaeological find of a bullet. Wyss 10:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "discovery"

message: There is a legend which quite everone knows in Galway, Ireland that Columbus stopped there and, moreover, found certain evidence of land existing beyond the sea. I added what I (and others) could find about it to the Galway page and also to the Christopher_Columbus#Early_Life page. However, I don't really know anything about the author of the letter that I'm quoting from, and about his reliability. Another theory explains his learning about land beyond the Atlantic from his somehow getting in touch with the Natigatio Sancti Brendani by St. Brendan – this is claimed on the Brendan site: Christopher_Columbus relied on the legends told of St Brendan as part of his argument that it was indeed possible to travel to Asia by crossing the Atlantic. Some propose St Brendan as one of the ancient visitors to the Americas. However, there is a contribution on Diskussion:Christoph_Kolumbus#Beatriz_Enr.C3.ADquez.2C_Indianer.2C_Navigatio_Sancti_Brendani_und_Kolumbus_Lekt.C3.BCre.2C_Kampf_gegen_die_Mauren 
 in German which says he does not mention this book in his writings.
Another contribution on Diskussion:Christoph_Columbus#Christoph_Columbus.2C_5._Januar states that "Columbus certainly knew the book because it had been spread and translated into several language from the 10th century onwards."
It is also said on a website () that that "he mentions the city in his writings, and claimed to have visited England, and sailed as far north as Iceland."  
There is, however, no source indicated.
Can anybody take a look at this problem?
--Robin.rueth 11:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (message inserted from user:Robin.rueth's talk page
I had a look for "Armand de Châteauroux" and spotted that the author of the translation may not be bona fide.  He appears to be of the Eric von Daniken and Dan Brown school of "creative archeology".  So a little further looking found 
this – see Sulle (false) tracce di Atlantide – di Mariano Tomatis.  My italian is not great, but it is good enough to see that this is a cutting criticism.  I would like the see the original latin document and to be assured of its provenance.  It might be wise to transfer your text to the Columbus talk page until you have more confidence in the source. It's just a pity I didn't spot this earlier! --Red King 14:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I have removed my contribution from the Christopher_Columbus site until the problem has been solved. --Robin.rueth 14:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Signs of Land beyond the Atlantic in Galway? / Navigatio Sancti Brendani

message: Spice trade has been nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Come and support the article with your vote!--Fenice 06:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: I think it should be noted (with full citations, of course) that Christopher Columbus believed the world to be pear-shaped.  violet/riga (t) 21:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pear-shaped 

message: This page needs to be shortened into a more brief description so as to make it possible for you students to read without getting bored to death.
:I think this was supposed to give a decent overview of this man's complicated life. "Tedious" books were written about him that are much much longer. Thanks for your comments. Dominick 13:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: there are other articles linked from this page. Enjoy following them! Dominick 23:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is too long and tedious 

message: I would particularly mention in the third voyage section, that in that expedition it was the only time when one of his expeditions actually disembarked in the continent (as opposed to an island). This was in Macuro: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuro (from the Spanish Wiki). --Anagnorisis 05:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Macuro

message: First. his name appears written on the Papal Bulls as Cristofõm Colon.(Portuguese name)
Second. This Papa Bulls had been written by the Pope Alexander VI and he ordered to publish four Papal briefs related with the discovery of America.(they are in the Vatican Library)
  
Third. We must notice that the texts of the 4 Papal briefs are written in Latin. It was to wait that the name of the navigator was in Latin, Christopher Columbus, but it is not.
We could wait that the name was in Italian, a time who the Papal brief was published in Rome, Cristoforo Columbus, but also it is not.
Or then in Spaniard, Cristobal Colon, a time that the Papal briefs had been directed to the Kings Catholics, but also it is not.
The name that appears in the Papal briefs has the archaic, old form, of the Portuguese name Cristofõm Colon that gave to origin the Cristóvão Colon. This is that it is the true name of the navigator
See this site: http://www.dightonrock.com/columbus_was_100_portuguese.htm
(FORMATTING) Dominick (TALK) 04:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbus or Colon the real name! 

message: :Historian Harrison Osaki has recently added speculation that Columbus was not a man, but a super-intelligent robot from the future who travelled back to 15th Century Europe. Osaki believes that the robot who would become known as Christopher Columbus was actually built in Davesylvania (present-day Brazil) in the year 4673 by cyborg Parakeets and sent back in time to alter the future to their liking. This theory has been met with considerable opposition, especially when Osaki speculated that Columbus flagship, the Santa Maria, was actually created through a transformation of robo-Columbus' posterior.
LOL. I think mr. Osaki is in trouble, that idea is from The Terminator, I think there are copyright issues.--Pedro 20:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL 

message: Many articles in the English Wikipedia are not neither neutral nor respectful to History. Some people think they can criticize and present their opinions as if they were god.
-Are they trying to change History? 
-Are they trying to blame past events on whom? 
-Are they trying to rewrite the History or just present the facts?
They are talking about atrocities and other issues. Every civilization, every country and every culture, as far as I know, has had a role in History.  Maybe, we don't agree with it, but we can not turn back time. We should respect what their world and rules were at that time.
If you would like to criticize something, then speak up about this: atrocities are still taking place in our "civilized" world. Reflect on what those "bigger" and, supposedly, more civilized countries are doing this very minute. 
Wikipedia is not and should not be the foro anyway. Jose.
I think that the "atrocities" need to be more strongly emphasized in this article. I wouldn't presume to judge the man—what good would it do?--but currently the article gives the impression that the genocide is either a debated issue, or otherwise inconsequential. There is debate as to how many Arawaks there were when Columbus arrived (estimates range from less than a million to eight million). It is not debated that they were all dead by 1650. Clearly this cannot be all laid at his feet, but to not mention it at all is very misleading. Tenebrous 20:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ATROCITIES

message: what exactly are the POV problems with this article so they can be addressed and the NPOV notice removed.   Thanks  Hmains 02:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: :On the Vatican´s Library there are 2 papals buls to the kings of Spain that say «Christophom Colon» and «Cristofõm Colon».«phom» or «fõm» is the ancient Portuguese form of «vão» (Cristovão Colombo). The tilde (~) on the «o» is used only in the Portuguese language.Is name wasn't written in Latin,Spanish nor Italian, but yes in Portuguese. Why? Because he was PORTUGUESE!!!! The Portuguese king João II wanted a better contract, so he sent his cousin Salvador Fernandes Zarco to Spain under the name Cristóvão Colon.He should convince the spanish kings to go west and distract them from the real way to India. He didn't accept all the propositions of finance his expedition if they werent from the spanish kings. The guy waited 7 years! 
:And don´t forget that Colombus called the islands he found with Portuguese names. For example, S.Salvador: he´s real name was Salvador; Santa Maria da Conceição: nor in Córdova, nor in Sevilha nor in Génova existed any church to that saint, but yes in Beja, the convent built by the prince D. Fernando (Colom's father) in 1467; Fernandina: it wasn't in honor of Fernando, king of Spain. Don't forget that his real name was Fernandes; Isabela: It could be in honor of queen Isabel of Spain, that suported him, but in that case, why didn't he caled Isabela to the third island? We can´t forget that his mother's name was Isabel da Câmara; Juanina: this is obvious. It was in honor of the Portuguese king D. João II. But, to not be suspicious, he changed it to Cuba, his homeland in Alentejo,Portugal. S.Bartolomeu, S.Vicente, S.Luís, Sta.Luzia, Guadiana, Porto Santo, Mourão, Isabel, Sta. Clara, S.Nicolau, Vera Cruz, Espírito Santo, Guadalupe, Conceição, Cabo de S. João, Cabo Roxo, S.Miguel, Sto.António, Sto.Domingo, Sta.Catarina, S.Jorge, Trindade, Ponta Galera, S.Bernardo, Margarida, Ponta de Faro, Boca de Touro, Cabo Isabel, ilha dos Guinchos, Salvador, Santarém, Cuba, Curaçao e Belém, and so on. Some may say that there are names that are both spanish an Portuguese, but names like Brasil, Santarém, Curaçao, Faro, Belém, Touro, and Ponta only exist in Portuguese.
:Now, you're all talking about documents , letters an all, but a lot of them are fake. The name Cristoforo Colombo is fake,  the will is fake and the so called Codicilo Militar  is fake to. All the "evidences" that suporte the genoese theorie are, you gess, FAKE!! 
:colombus didn't explore the west part of Cuba because he was afraid that it might be a passage to India, and he didn't wanted the spanish to have it.
:He used the storm to stop in Portugal and talk with D.João II and visit is family in Madeira.
:And to the ones that still think he was a genoese, I tell you that no weaver could be received by the kings of Spain.
:In conclusion: HE IS PORTUGUESE!!!!!!!!! 
::The tilde was the usual abbreviation of an n (and maybe an m) when writing in Latin and other languages. That is the origin of ñ (=nn).--Error 00:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  He was portuguese 

message: Repeated changes made to this article in the last few days may have introduced false information into this article and may have been vandalilsm.  The last good edit that I can see for sure is by kbh3rd on 3 Feb.  Anyone else have other ideas on this?  Thanks Hmains 00:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking into that Manuel Rosa Umasking Columbus, it looks like someone's got some pet theories and is hawking a book.  (Forgive me if I've characterized it wrongly; I'm merely reporting my first impressions.)  If this is not peer-reviewed research that has widespread, though not necessarily universal, scholarly support, then it should be reverted, or at least marginalized as, "some crackpots posit that ...".  Or words to that effect. ;-)  I'm not a Columbus scholar and have this page on my watch list solely to revert the frequent obvious vandalism that occurs to it.  I don't think I'm qualified to pass final judgement on these edits.  --Kbh3rdtalk 06:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, I won't make judgement calls that I'm not qualified to, but this makes me wonder if this runs afoul of the official Wikipedia policy on no original research?  --Kbh3rdtalk 03:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism? 

message: There was a section in this article a few days ago that talked about Colombus's wife and marriage, but it has been removed.  Why is this? – Conrad Devonshire 02:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colombus's Love Life

message: Under National Origin appears an image of Columbus' signature. The caption under this picture reads:
:Sanctus, Sanctus, Altissimus, Sanctus, son of Mary & Joseph, Salvador Fernandes Zarco
However, the last line of the signature clearly reads:
::ΧροFERENS./ → Chi rho ferens → Christopher
Nowhere here is anything even remotely like the "Salvador Fernandes Zarco" mentioned in the accompanying Portuguese origin theory. --MrShoggoth 15:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and / = Colon – Bearer of Christ
and –
Christ = Saviour = Salvador (in Portuguese)
FEREN = Messanger but also reduced form of Fernandes (son of Fernam)
S – in fact an inverterted lambda = Z of Zarco
see also this analysis (Port)
--BBird 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of Columbus' signature 

message: The cryptic signature of C.C. can be deciphered the following way and has yet to be proven since there was never located a document in Portugal that a Salvador Fernandes Zarco y Colona ever existed. However the fact is that C.C. used this signature to mean something that only he and a few close to him knew.
C.C. signed as Xpo FERENS . / 
Xpo = Christo in Greek
FERENS = from the Latin verb Fero meaning to ferry but is probably an anagram for FERNES a contraction of Fernandes (meaning son of Fernando). The proper form of the name should have been pher and C.C. always wrote in CAPS making it unusual for a first name ChristoFERENS instead of Christopher. 
. / = our semi-colon ; which was used by C.C. to replace Colon.
The last S of FERENS was usually written by C.C. to stand out leading some to believe it was the Hebraic Zarqa a sideways S used in Music. Zarqa is feminine and Zarqo is masculine.
Thus we have Christo Fernandes Zarqa Colon.
Since the name Cristo was not used as a proper name it is subsituted by Christ's other name Salvador Savior and since Zarco was married to a distant relative of Pope Martin V Odonne Colonna we make the leap to:
Salvador Fernandes Zarco y Colonna
Working backwards we can see that a Salvador or a Savior brings Christ and is therefore a Christopher or Cristovam Pt. Cristobal Sp. and since C.C. was trying to hide his lineage of Zarco he used his great-grandmother's name of Colonna and shortened it to have the same sound as the Greek Kolon meaning member as clarified by his son Fernando.
Now it stands to be proven and DNA can be the only true tool to do confirm or deny it.81.193.8.173 11:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ./ Salvador Fernandes Zarco y Colonna 

message: If no one has objections, i will include the following entry from his journal : source Thomas Friedman's book The World is Flat. suggestions on where this shld go in the article?
"Your Highnesses, as Catholic Christians, and princes who love and promote the holy Christian faith, and are enemies of the doctrine of Mahomet, and of all idolatry and heresy, determined to send me, Christopher Columbus, to the above-mentioned countries of India, to see the said princes, people, and territories, and to learn their disposition and the proper method of converting them to our holy faith; and furthermore directed that I should not proceed by land to the East, as is customary, but by a Westerly route, in which direction we have hitherto no certain evidence that anyone has gone. 
– Entry from the journal of Christopher Columbus on his voyage of 1492"    -gunslotsofguns 19:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Columbus' journal 

message: I recently read that he may have been from Barcelona.  Does any one have any info on this? I think we should discuss this but alas, I don't know much about the topic.
I just watched a show on the Science Channel about it that was fairly convincing, but ultimately inconclusive. Danahuff 19:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catalan Columbus? 

message: I think a new picture needs to be added.  I do not like the ring around the picture of Columbus.  mrmewe 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Picture on Page 

message: Do we really need this section at all? It all appears to have been added on March 29, 2006, by a non-registered user, presumably Manuel Rosa himself. And reading Mr. Rosa's webpage on the theory does not inpspire confidence at all: "This journey of discovery has led to a chase of the illusive truth in seven different countries from which we can distill the facts of a conspiracy of lies that is much larger in scope then anyone could have imagined. Everyone around this man, from kings to friends, lied about his true identity. For five hundred years there have been historians inventing details, forging documents; and countries maneuvering against one another in order to claim this Colombo because of the political and economic investments that were at stake."
This is the kind of conspiracy-theory nonsense that Wiki can do without. You can't prove anything by discounting all the evidence against you as "forgeries".
--Keithpickering 19:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, you are violating NOR and the passage must be deleted. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Portuguese Hypothesis 

message: The first picture is not aligned correctly and there is a big chunk of white space at left. Can anyone sort this out? Carcharoth 15:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting mess 

message: I left actively watching this article for a while and coming back I see a sad appropriation of this article by mainstream Genoese theory and "the master said" kind of statements which I frankly regret. I read several books and theories about Colon and the one sure thing is that he was a mystery man. He could be from Genoa but also from many other places. The mystery comes from facts, sentences, and fake documents (invariably those that support the Genoa theory and were produced after the Italian reunification. I don't want to go on balancing this article on my own, but I am sure it became less informative and less wikipedian. Just my HO. thanks. --BBird 21:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes created a propaganda like unilateral view 

message: The formatting of the "Columbus' name in various languages" section needs repairing. It is currently messing up the following section – see here for an example of when it looks really bad. Carcharoth 10:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my fault. I don't quite know how to fix it, but you should've seen it before! I think it was in a seperate floated box on the right. I'm not even sure if we need that whole section, quite frankly. Wes! • Tc 23:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though I do have a soft spot for that sort of thing after trying to track down variations of Ptolemy for Ptolemy (name). Still haven't found Egyptian or demotic forms... Carcharoth 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What is the point of "Columbus' name in various languages"? Is that really relevant or adding anything to the article? I'd like to scrap it; the article is pretty long as it is.Civil Engineer III 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More formatting problems 

message: Where is the proof for Columbus kidnapping indians? Why would he kidnap them if he thought "love would convert them to christanity?"
Well, when you take someone without their consent, and when they try to escape and you try to recapture them, what word properly describes such activity? I'd say kidnap is both fair and accurate. --Keithpickering 23:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kidnapped??? 

message: There is a section on what Columbus is called in different languages, but what was his real name? Kernow 04:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real name 

message: I added the following article  to external links. Could someone please write something about it in the article page? Thx... ArmanJan 10:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbus, the tyrant 

message: A lot of statements are missing references.
For example, it is written he wrote only in Spanish, and later that he had a secret diary written in Greek: any reference?--Brunetti 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for nationality section?

message: I attempted to cleanup some of the writing, especially in the Catalan theory section, but I don't have time at the moment to really go over it.  Attention should be given to the writing quality throughout.  I found and fixed some spelling errors, fragments, and organizational issues, but more errors and writing issues in general plague this article. Danahuff 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Writing Cleanup 

message: At this edit  on 23 June 2006, almost all of an entire section of this article disappeared AND NO ONE CAUGHT IT.  Only because I checked the article today, I realized that someone had deleted my photo of the freeway sign honoring Columbus FOR THE SECOND TIME. I'm putting the photo back, but let's get our act together, people!  We need an admin to impose semi-protection on this article immediately to get the vandalism under control.  --Coolcaesar 02:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just caught some vandalism AGAIN, the article needs semi-protection NOW 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spin off origins 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Colombus as a villain? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article in disgraceful state 

message: I think so, but what are your opinions and why? Please say! 71.199.244.231 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absolutely irrelevant to the article.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Is Columbus Evil!? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Genoese Navigator 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Please help

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Eileen, I am inclined to support you.  Please first review this policy  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Who is Manuel Rosa?