Amen Booklady...

If it was the Harvard University which told that Columbus was catalonian I would believe it, but I am not going to give credit to such a webpage (for me it has the smell of a nationalistic paranoia: kings of Barcelona a title that has never existed, impotent castilian kings,...).

Fernando

What! Mulletheads! Aliens!
No Soup for You!

Booklady,

Are there any sources that are completely trustable, and we have to bindly accept what they say just because 99% of the historians say so?, does it have to be originated by an official source (Academic source) to be the only thing credible?. What can you tell me about this 102.000 websites that claim that Graham Bell was the inventor of the telephone:

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&n...ct=a ny&as_ dt=i&as_sitesearch=

What can you tell me about those thousands of official books that claim in the whole world in the last 150 years that Graham Bell was the inventor of the telephone? How can you explain that millions of childrens in the last 150 years in tens of countries have been taught that Graham Bell was the inventor of the telephone. Do you think those 102.000 websites are "authenticated" and "inquestionable" (in your words)?. The final conclussion is that Graham Bell was a lier and a thief, despite that official support over the years from official, authenticated and inquestionable sources over the world, and that Antonio Meucci was the real inventor.

Why revisionism?. Because revisionism study historic issues from different perspectives trying to claim what official sources have given as facts about an historic issue. So revisionism is the fight of a few investigators fighting against the ""authenticated" and "inquestionable" theories. So the same for the website I have told you. What is "Unauthenticated and questionable" for you?, does it have Colon to wake up and tell us in person that he was a genovese or a barcelones to know the truth?. When I say facts I mean facts (pictures of the time, correspondence, notarial documents, historical data, letters to the kings, biographies of the people living in the time, contemporary documents and biographers, ....). All of it is in that website. I believe there must have been a Cristobal Colon from Genova in that time but he was not the real discoverer because there was also another Cristobal Colon born in Barcelona at the same time that has many more documents, historical data, ....... that proofs that he was the real discoverer.

1. that website looks like it was made in a 1994 microsoft 'frontpage' for beginners class, which is the first red flag for me (aside from the tripe it preaches - anti-castilian for sure!)
( http://www.bcngrafics.com/cristobalcolon/index2.html )

AND,

2. Fernando, interesting how that website sets off the 'catalan paranoia' sensors for you. i'm sure you've grown up witnessing the struggle between the autonomies in a way that we have not. i won't add what my La Mancha pueblo die-hard friends say about Catalunya (probably more in rivalry than in seriousness).

yo!
:wq

[my edit]:
Booklady! i gotta know what soup i'm missing out on... if it's 'ajo blanco' i say no way! not fair!

ERT, in response to your question regarding how do I recognize an authoritative web page, I use standards developed long before the Internet, standards for evaluating the reliability of information. These traditional standards can be adapted to any resource and include the following:

Accuracy
Can the information given be verified by other sources? Are there spelling or other obvious errors that indicate less than scrupulous standards of publication?

Authority
Who is the author of the information? What are this person's qualifications for writing on this subject? Is the Web site sponsored by a reputable organization?

Objectivity
What are the aims and goals of the author? Is the material biased or presented to persuade the reader to adopt the writer's point of view? If the site is sponsored by a particular organization, are the goals and views of that organization presented clearly?

Currency
How up-to-date is the material presented? Is this important? Is the publication date or dates of subsequent updates easily determined?

Coverage
To what depth are the issues explored? If some aspects of the subject are not discussed is the reader told?

These standards should be used only as a guide to the reliability of the information presented. A "No" answer to a single criterion does automatically render the information unreliable. Used in an overall context, however, these criteria can be good indicators of quality sources.

booklady is flexing her academic muscles.

That's definitely good information on the method of authenticating "academic" materials. Interesting...

"Accuracy
Can the information given be verified by other sources? Are there spelling or other obvious errors that indicate less than scrupulous standards of publication?"

102000 websites, thousands of books, hundreds of enciclopedias, thousands of historians claimed that Graham Bell was the inventor of the telephone. A few investigators showed that all of this "reliable" sources were wrong and that Meucci was the real inventor.

"Authority
Who is the author of the information? What are this person's qualifications for writing on this subject? Is the Web site sponsored by a reputable organization?"

Is it necessary to have a Master Degree in History to be qualified to show historical facts?. Can any investigator without any historical career (just a normal person) and being just a fan of History that have readed thousands of documents be able to proof things that other believe as inquestionable facts?. The answer is YES. Does it need the website to be sponsored by a reputable organization to be more credible?. BTW that website is the consequence of 40 years of investigation but the website is not the source, there are 9.000 documents studied before it. The website was created by someone that have readed those 9.000 document and believe in what they say. Are the 102.000 websites (a lot of them probably sponsored by reputable organizations more credible than the few Antonio Meucci´s supporters?

"Objectivity
What are the aims and goals of the author? Is the material biased or presented to persuade the reader to adopt the writer's point of view? If the site is sponsored by a particular organization, are the goals and views of that organization presented clearly?"

About the rest...

"Objectivity
What are the aims and goals of the author? Is the material biased or presented to persuade the reader to adopt the writer's point of view? If the site is sponsored by a particular organization, are the goals and views of that organization presented clearly?

Currency
How up-to-date is the material presented? Is this important? Is the publication date or dates of subsequent updates easily determined?

Coverage
To what depth are the issues explored? If some aspects of the subject are not discussed is the reader told? "

I don´t have time to answer all of it but I think you haven´t read the 63 pages of that website at all.

Well, I have heard that Colon was indeed a MORISCO and he switched faiths in order to escape the Inquisition. Kind of like some of my ancestors...
Anyway, I think we can all agree that he was a man of vision and not some murdering opportunistic goyim that many revisionist historians make him out to be...

Shalom, y'all!

ERT,

i don't think anyone is doubting *YOU*, per se (unless you believe something crazy like Colon was not Italian. just joking ), but rather that the site you cited is not necessarily the 'oracle' of all things academic and therefore correct. that's ok, isn't it?

questioning sources is scientific in and of itself, as this is how we arrive to a conclusion with which we can feel confortable. can you imagine the theory of evolution being forced upon everyone if were just a simple idea with no scientific evidence behind it?

if you believe what the website has published as true facts, great. but please understand that your view may not be everyone else's, and that is not wrong.

also, thank you for posting that site for all of us to look at and judge for ourselves.

andrew
:wq

Well said, Andrew.

p.s. Of course you may have soup!