Talk:Christopher Columbus

Identity of Christopher Columbus (He was not Italian)

The common claim that Christopher Columbus was “Italian” deserves closer examination. This label reflects a modern interpretation of identity rather than the political and cultural realities of the 15th and early 16th centuries.

1. Italy did NOT exist as a Nation-State 2. Italian nationality did NOT exist at the time.

This article erroneously states:

Christopher Columbus[b] (/kəˈlʌmbəs/;[2] between 25 August and 31 October 1451 – 20 May 1506) was an Italian[3][c] explorer...

Columbus nationality is unkno3n, but he is traditionally said to have been born in the Republic of Genoa. Therefore, calling him “Italian” is wrong and anachronistic. At most, one could say he was Genoese. The concept of Italian national identity did not yet exist in the way we understand nationality today.

Moreover, Columbus wrote primarily in Castilian Spanish, not in an Italian dialect. His surviving writings show linguistic patterns that some scholars argue are not typical of a native Genoese speaker. He never wrote extensively in Italian.

Recent DNA studies have proof that Columbus was in fact Spanish, of Crypto-Jew ancestry belonging to converso families. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhmQABFVhFQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlitterHead (talk • contribs) 01:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The DNA studies are rejected by mainstream scientists. You need a better reference than Youtube. As for the “not Italian” claim, that has been hashed out over millions of words over the entire life of this article. What you are saying is nothing new. The facts you state are correct (sort of), but the conclusions you draw are wrong. Italian did exist as an identity. Please peruse the chat archives. Strebe (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Pretty sure the source is FRANCE 24, that uses Youtube as a platform to disclose information.

There are other tv channels who reported this new evidence.

The question is... "DNA studies are rejected by mainstream scientists." Who are these scientists that you speak of? You replied, but did not answer backed up your reply with names or sources to counter argument the OP.

Several sources have came in defence that Columbus was indeed a Jew and not Italian...

https://www.reuters.com/science/columbus-was-sephardic-jew-western-europe-study-finds-2024-10-13/

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/16/g-s1-28462/christopher-columbus-spanish-jew-documentary/

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg2049ezpko/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/13/christopher-columbus-was-spanish-and-jewish-documentary-reveals/

https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2024-10-14/scientists-cast-doubt-on-claims-christopher-columbus-was-a-sephardic-jew-from-spain.html

https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/christopher-columbus-jewish-dna-hv0323hdp/

https://nypost.com/2024/10/13/world-news/columbus-was-a-sephardic-jew-from-western-europe-study-finds/

https://www.foxnews.com/world/columbus-remains-verified-500-years-show-he-jewish-documentary

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/new-genetic-study-says-christopher-columbus-may-have-hidden-sephardic-jewish-heritage-6784242

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/13/christopher-columbus-secret-jewish-dna-analysis

and the list goes on...

How many sources are we going to deny until we accept new studies? Who are we wiki editors to chose what to deny and accept as credible sources? DutchManiac (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Who else is to determine that? That's precisely our job as Wikipedia editors: to make editorial decisions such as what to deny and accept as credible sources, guided by WP:CONSENSUS. Checking out your links, almost all of them are 404. Once I fix the bad links (don't put trailing slashes on them, and don't put the "pipes" on them), they're all just reporting on the same story -- "So and so documentary says...". So there's only one source here. But these sources aren't "in defence" of the story. For example, the article in the Guardian says, "Unfortunately, from a scientific point of view, we can’t really evaluate what was in the documentary because they offered no data from the analysis whatsoever...My conclusion is that the documentary never shows Columbus’s DNA and, as scientists, we don’t know what analysis was undertaken.” So there's no science presented here -- just multiple reports on a conclusion from one researcher. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The TV show and the study was based on a flawed methodology and its results are unreliable. It was also criticised for being sensationalistic as opposed to academic. See, for example, here (https://www.abc.es/sevilla/ciudad/adn-colon-sigue-abriendo-heridas-20241006202403-nts.html) and here. (https://elpais-com.translate.goog/ciencia/2024-10-12/el-show-del-adn-de-cristobal-colon-pudo-ser-un-judio-de-valencia-o-no.html?_x_tr_sl=es&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=it&_x_tr_pto=wapp). The following is google translated.

Antonio Salas:

Antonio Salas heads the Population Genetics in Biomedicine group at the Santiago de Compostela Health Research Institute. “The documentary promised to focus on DNA analysis, as its title 'Columbus DNA: its True Origin' suggests . However, the genetic information it offers is very limited. Only at the end is it mentioned that the only thing that was recovered from the presumed remains of Christopher Columbus was a partial profile of the Y chromosome. The problem is that the Y chromosome represents only a tiny fraction of our DNA and our ancestry,” he reflects. "The documentary rushes to a conclusion with the claim that Christopher Columbus was a Sephardic Jew from the Spanish Levant. This hypothesis is, to say the least, surprising: there is no Y chromosome that can be defined exclusively as a Sephardic Jew,” argues Salas. “Even if all of an individual’s DNA were recovered, it would still be impossible to reach definitive conclusions about their exact geographic origin. Renowned geneticist Mark Jobling put it precisely: The best answer to the question ‘Where did my ancestors live?’ would be ‘Everywhere'. "

Rodrigo Barquera:

Mexican Rodrigo Barquera is an expert in archaeogenetics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, one of the most prestigious centres in the world for the analysis of ancient DNA. Barquera has carried out DNA studies of human remains prior to the arrival of Europeans in America, such as those of children sacrificed by the Mayans in Chichén-Itzá (Mexico ). The researcher is very critical of the way in which the data has been presented, through a documentary, and without the support of a serious scientific article reviewed by independent experts, especially given the enormous interest aroused by the figure of Christopher Columbus and his origin. “Normally, the article is sent to a scientific journal,” he explains. “This assigns an editor and at least three independent reviewers who rate the work and decide whether it is scientifically valid. If it is, it is published, and from there the rest of the scientific community can say whether they agree or not. Putting it on a screen, away from this dialogue and with all the media spotlights, makes it difficult for the scientific community to say anything about it," he points out.

Antonio Alonso:

Geneticist Antonio Alonso points out that there are groups of genetic variants (called haplotypes or haplogroups) that tend to be inherited together and can be characteristic of certain family lines, but he warns that they often coincide with those of other groups, for example in historically Jewish or non-Jewish populations. “In any case, having a genealogy, a haplogroup or a haplotype of 'Jewish' ancestry —or Sephardic?— does not call into question Columbus's birthplace in Genoa as defended by historical sources, nor does it tell us anything about the religious beliefs professed by the generations of relatives (parents, grandparents...) close to Columbus,” he stresses.

Most importantly, historians argue that Columbus was Genoese because all the sources talking about him in his lifetime or shortfly after his death say he was Genoese (and therefore Italian, the definition "Italian from Genoa" was agreed in several discussions we have had previously), the other theories (including the Jewish one) have all been invented much more recently (usually for political reasons) and have all been rejected multiple times by most historians. Barjimoa (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Regardless, isn't it per Wikipedia policy to not state ethnicity in the lead unless it is strongly relevant to their notoriety? Italian in this case would mean ethnic identifier rather than nationality or citizenship. Genoese explorer would be more accurate and per guidelines. ~2026-47810-58 (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Was Columbus of Galician origin?

This article reports of findings, based on DNA evidence, that Columbus was of Galician ancestry (I mention the article without taking a stand in the matter):

Newcomb, Tim. 2026. “Scientists May Have Finally Solved the Mystery of Christopher Columbus’ Origins: Christopher Columbus purposely kept his ancestry a mystery. But unfortunately for him, scientists have uncovered it.” Popular Mechanics. 17 April . AlageveR45 (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Right now it's only a "may"... it has not been scientifically peer reviewed... so it's nothing thus far. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks like dna is rewriting history once again. ~2026-24086-93 (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not a forum, and so I’m violating that rule. But. The Popular Mechanics article completely misinterprets itself. This is not evidence of Columbus’s ancestry. It’s evidence of ancestry of some of Columbus’s descendants — specifically great, great grandsons. Descendants have other ancestors, not just the most famous one. The man identified as the common ancestor was a contemporary of Columbus, not in Columbus’s ancestry. The usual sensationalist hokum. Strebe (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Popular Mechanics is a weak source. However, all the other sources I have seen are weak too and I have been unable to find the earliest source, which would be the preferable one to list here, quote from, and evaluae. Better half a loaf than none at all. Can anyone determine where Tim Newcomb took his material?AlageveR45 (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

My understanding of the article in Popular Mechanics is that DNA was extracted only from Columbus's descendants in the male line. The Y chromosome passes from father to son. Therefore, those descendants' Y chromosome should have been identical to Columbus'sAlageveR45 (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)AlageveR45 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You’re right—well, I could be mistaken, but I’d swear what you’re saying is true, which would imply that Columbus did indeed have Galician ancestry.

However, having Galician ancestry is one thing, and being of Galician origin is something else entirely. Blue3777 (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

This is true, not a forum. Do you have a very specific request that an article change is in order, and exactly where that change should be placed? Otherwise this discussion should end. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

There is pretty well-documented evidence these days that Columbus (Colombo) was a genoese peasant born 1451 and 27 years old in 1479 whose identity was mixed up with D. Colón, a high-nobleman in Iberia who wrote in 1503 he was 28 years old in 1484. There are now, not only extensive publications presenting these new facts, but there is a recording of a public lecture by Prof Joao Paulo Oliveira e Costa saying the new facts make it "impossible for Colón to be a genoese weaver colombo" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSGJ6LmzAKY

I think the editors should seriously consider balancing out the article. Reynatour (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

You’re going to need to list these “extensive” publications, not some Youtube video. Strebe (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CRJ 102 - 1200 Criminology

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 2 September 2026 and 21 December 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IlianaM24 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by IlianaM24 (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Editor making arbitrary changes without discussion to longstanding nomenclature in article

Chemasterwinz, a brand-new editor with only 408 edits as of this writing, has been making arbitrary changes without discussion to some of the longstanding nomenclature used in the article. While some of their preferred nomenclature may be just as correct as the status quo, which versions are used is debatable. I suggest they use the talk page when making such changes, rather than doubling down when their edits are reverted, if they want to have a good experience editing English Wikipedia. English is clearly not their first language, and they don't know it as well as they appear to think they do. Carlstak (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Carlstak, I apologize for not responding earlier, I see that you have arguments on how American Indians are framed, as Native, Amerindians or American Indians simply etc, yes they are referred to by these terms, but the reason I’m disputed over "native" is because many like the American Indian movement don’t self identify as native and stick with the Indian label given by Columbus and also white settlers such as Spanish criollos, portguese, and British settlers later identified as native to the Americas after successful waves of European colonization of the Americas, or the Native American party, that by "Native American" meant White Americans of old British stock have a sense of belonging to the American land, that was only reserved for them as a way to exclude the later white immigrants from Germany or Ireland, because of these reasons, I don’t think "native" is the neutral word, but I’m curious to know your thoughts on this, Thanks. Chemasterwinz (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, @Chemasterwinz:. I don't oppose every instance of "American Indian" in the article, I oppose your arbitrarily changing longstanding content in a top-level article without discussion, and then reverting it back when it was challenged. I actually have argued for using "American Indian" in other articles when certain editors maintained that "Native American" is the proper terminology. I said to them, and I say to you, I am part Cherokee, and I have Native relatives who refer to themselves as "Indians", rather than "American Indians". On the other hand, I have also been challenged myself by editors from India who insist passionately that we should not refer to the Native peoples of the present-day United States as "Indian" anything.

We are supposed to try to reach consensus here. After your changes were reverted last by Strebe, there are 11 instances of "American Indian" presently in the article body, 4 of "Native American" in the body and notes, and 11 of "Native" capitalized. So we have parity between your preferred term "American Indian" and the longstanding term "Native". That ratio is proportionate, and it seems like a fair compromise to me. Carlstak (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

PS: Sorry I took so long to respond, I've been dealing with personal issues. Carlstak (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Edits like this are entirely inappropriate:

Diseases and warfare introduced from the Old World had contributed to the decline or genocide of Hispaniola's American Indians

It is wrong to refer to some groups where the Caribbean context is critical by using a term that refers to the entire population of two continents. The term “indigenous”, on the other hand, is local, regional, or continental, as determined by context. I have criticisms of most of the edits that were made that I am not going to detail here. While they are not all the same problem, most of them suffer from similar contextual problems, stripped nuance, or else tendentiousness. Strebe (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Carlstak (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Right, I get that While regional specificity is important, rejecting the term "American Indians" here introduces an unnecessary linguistic double standard. The Caribbean is geographically and historically an integral part of the Americas, and the pre columbian peoples of Hispaniola have long been classified under the broader demographic and academic umbrella of American Indians, in fact they were the first pre columbian people to be called “Indians” by Columbus, so I’d argue it makes sense to add “American Indian” especially there.

Also Using "indigenous" in isolation is actually less precise because the term is entirely relative; it requires an explicit geographic qualifier (e.g., "indigenous to the region") to avoid ambiguity. In contrast, "American Indians" immediately establishes the macro-historical and geopolitical reality of the post-1492 context.

Furthermore, Wikipedia policy favors terms found in reliable, mainstream English-language historical sources. Major anthropological and historical texts frequently group the Taíno and other pre columbian Caribbean peoples under the broader hemisphere-wide umbrella when discussing the demographic collapse brought by Old World diseases and warfare. Restricting the terminology here isolates Hispaniola from the broader, interconnected history of the continents it belongs to if you ask me. Chemasterwinz (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

"Also Using "indigenous" in isolation is actually less precise because the term is entirely relative; it requires an explicit geographic qualifier (e.g., "indigenous to the region") to avoid ambiguity." Disagree. As far as I can see, in every instance where "Indigenous" (capitalized) is used, the context makes it quite clear which geographical region it applies to. Are these your own ideas, or were they suggested to you by an AI chatbot? Carlstak (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

The Indigenous Wikiproject use the term in context when need be... perhaps a simple note as is done with other articles?.....see Canadian Indian residential school#Notes for what is done. Moxy🍁 01:37, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

A note would be a good idea. Carlstak (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Indian vs Native

@Carlstak, I thought it was discussed that Indian or American Indian can be kept for some and indigenous or native for some in our previous talk page section here, if native needs mentioning, also india is a short way to refer to the subcontinent as presently, academically and also historically done, which a native well versed English speaker like yourself should know, I dont see why constantly revert it to the unnecessarily long "Indian subcontinent" over here, waiting for a reply pls, because your warning that you sent applies if i don’t gain consensus on the talk page, so I’m here ready to talk Chemasterwinz (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Despite your denial at EdJohnston's talk page regarding AI use, this text:

While regional specificity is important, rejecting the term "American Indians" here introduces an unnecessary linguistic double standard. The Caribbean is geographically and historically an integral part of the Americas, and the pre columbian peoples of Hispaniola have long been classified under the broader demographic and academic umbrella of American Indians, in fact they were the first pre columbian people to be called “Indians” by Columbus, so I’d argue it makes sense to add “American Indian” especially there. Also Using "indigenous" in isolation is actually less precise because the term is entirely relative; it requires an explicit geographic qualifier (e.g., "indigenous to the region") to avoid ambiguity. In contrast, "American Indians" immediately establishes the macro-historical and geopolitical reality of the post-1492 context.

does not sound like something you would write, especially with your imperfect grasp of English. Most of it appears to have been copied-and-pasted from a Chatbox reply to a query, as evidenced by the fact that the word "While" is unnaturally capitalized in your reply: "Right, I get that While regional specificity is important...", it certainly appears as if that was the starting sentence of an AI generated response.

Per WP:NOLLM:

Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest corrections to their own writing, and to incorporate them after human review. This is limited to spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar, and other simple mistakes (it does not include the use of LLMs to "improve style or flow")

You've never had consensus regarding changes from "Native" to "Indian", yet you keep doing it in one way or another. As I said above "So we have parity between your preferred term "American Indian" and the longstanding term "Native". That ratio is proportionate, and it seems like a fair compromise to me." Nothing had changed since then regarding your gaining a consensus. Carlstak (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I don’t understand with the focus on my knowledge of English, but i have a more casual way of speaking English which appears to be imperfect, that dosent change my knowledge on English despite not being a native speaker, also you say nothing had changed despite the "fair" proportion of American Indian and native, but despite that you’ve been making changes to add more native than Indian, that dosent sound like as "nothing had changed" to me Chemasterwinz (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

PS: Your grasp of English is not the issue, it's your comments that certainly appear to use LLM-generated text. It's not allowed to use AI-generated comments on talk pages per WP:AITALK:"As AI-generated[c] comments are not permitted in discussions, obviously AI-generated comments can be struck or collapsed with {{Collapse AI top}}". As I keep saying, you've never had consensus to make the changes we've been discussing. Carlstak (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

I’ve certainly used AI generated texts before when I wasn’t aware enough about Wikipedia policies, but I haven’t used it here, which I’ve already explained, also consensus or not, you’ve admitted and agreed that both native or Indian are appropriate to use in the article, yet despite this, you and @Strebe have been doing so changing the word “Indian” in the article slowly into native, despite “native” already mentioned a fair amount Chemasterwinz (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

The dominant problem is that Chemasterwinz has not received consensus on the edits they make after repeatedly being told those edits are inappropriate. Some uses of “American Indian” does not mean any use of, and ignoring the reasons given for why the edits are poor, reverting the reversions, and then threatening other editors with edit warring protocol, is cudgeling and exerting ownership. Any of these disputed changes will be reverted as long as no consensus has been reached. Strebe (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Actually, Chemasterwinz, you're the one who's trying to slowly change the parity and compromise we had reached. I'm taking this to Wikipedia:AI noticeboard to see what they say about this apparently AI-generated commentary you've used on this talk page. Carlstak (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

@Carlstak, go ahead and check, but I already made my case that it isn’t AI, also I’m not the one who’s changed certain parts of the article from "American Indian" to "American Natives" and then to "indigenous people" more simply, so please stop gaslighting the situation, also @Strebe, you haven’t given any reason other than "It is wrong to refer to some groups where the Caribbean context is critical by using a term that refers to the entire population of two continents. The term “indigenous”, on the other hand, is local, regional, or continental, as determined by context. I have criticisms of most of the edits that were made that I am not going to detail here. While they are not all the same problem, most of them suffer from similar contextual problems, stripped nuance, or else tendentiousness.", and to that, I’d argue that indigenous is a global term for the historical inhabitants of the land, which does not specify what people we are referring to, when saying "Columbus encountered indigenous people", what indigenous people? The Kurds from Kurdistan? The Persians from Iran? The Sámi from Scandinavia? We have to be specific on who we mention and "indigenous" isn’t a nuance term as many have historically seen themselves as indigenous to the Americas, like whites of criollo, portguese and Anglo saxons British descent, or the native American party even if the term has usually been predominantly used for the American Indians, that dosent make it a neutral term Chemasterwinz (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

"Indigenous" capitalized is used in the article in this text: "Indigenous populations of the Americas", followed by the next sentence, which says, "Among Indigenous peoples, Columbus is often viewed as a key agent of genocide." It's perfectly clear that the "Indigenous people" being referred to here are the Indigenous peoples of the Americas generally.

Then we have: "Historian Andrés Reséndez of University of California, Davis, says the available evidence suggests "slavery has emerged as major killer" of the Indigenous populations of the Caribbean between 1492 and 1550." It's perfectly clear which "indigenous people" are being referred to: "Indigenous populations of the Caribbean area".

Again, the very next sentence says: "He says that Indigenous populations did not experience a rebound." And again, It's perfectly clear which "indigenous people" are being referred to.

So these clearly contradict your assertions, which have no basis in fact as shown by the text of the article itself. Carlstak (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely have given reasons. Read the edit descriptions. Strebe (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Chemasterwinz, you seem to be confused about the word "Indigenous" capitalized, which I keep emphasizing. The consensus among Native persons from the Americas who are active on Wikipedia appears to be that when "Indigenous" is used to refer to the so-called "Native American" or "First Nations" peoples, it should be capitalized. That is the distinction they make, and this article respects it. Carlstak (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

@Carlstak, I do agree that when "Indigenous" is used to refer to specific peoples, that it should capitalized as per MOS:INDIGENOUS, and I do agree that direct quotes from historians like Andrés Reséndez, should be kept in their exact wording, however the fact that some cited sources use "indigenous" dosent mean "American Indian" should be gotten rid of from the article, as reliable sources like the Smithsonian National museum of the American Indian, actively uses both "American Indian” and "indigenous people" for example. Also under Wikipedia’s manual of style (MOS:IDENTITY and MOS:STYLERET), both terms (American Indian and native) are valid, and therefore established instances of "American Indian" rather than replaced to match a single umbrella term under "indigenous", keeping "American Indian” where it is already been established while also adhering to direct quotes, and naming specific tribes like the Taino, where relevant, maintains both accuracy and consistency. Chemasterwinz (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

PS: The same applies to the word "Natives" capitalized. 02:24, 14 November 2026 (UTC)