The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Rosa

[edit]
Manuel Rosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No 3rd party evidence of notability, the references are from the author's site, 2 Cuban newspaper reports. Doug Weller (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at the sources you listed? Please do. Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Rosa's investigation is referenced in Belgium, in the book Expeditie Columbus, Kris Clerckx, Roularta Books, Globe, 2008, Roeselare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.240.96 (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A historian is an individual who studies and writes about history, and is regarded as an authority on it.[1] Historians are concerned with the continuous, systematic narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race; as well as the study of all events in time. If the individual is concerned with events preceding written history, the individual is a historian of prehistory. Although "historian" can be used to describe amateur and professional historians alike, it is reserved more recently for those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline.[2] Some historians, though, are recognized by equivalent training and experience in the field.[2] Historian became a professional occupation in the late nineteenth century at roughly the same time that physicians also set standards for who could enter the field. The professional association of historians in the United States is the American Historical Association, founded in 1884.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.240.96 (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


“Another nutty conspiracy theory!” That’s what I first supposed as I started to read the manuscript Unmasking Columbus sent me just to edit its English. After all, it turned upside down most of what I had learned about Columbus since the 1940s. It claimed that Columbus knew in October 1492 that he was nowhere near India, but that he called the Caribbean region he had reached “the Indies” in an outright lie, because he was a double agent actually serving the king of Portugal and double-crossing his patrons, Ferdinand and Isabella, that he was an expert geographer and navigator and a Portuguese nobleman, not a shipwrecked ignorant sailor or wool-weaver from Genoa. I thought I would read a little of the book to enjoy myself poking holes in its arguments and then decline to edit it. However, the more I read, the more convincing its massive accumulation of historical details became. Far from fanatics, its authors present their claims modestly, pointing out areas that need further research, and even saying that their conclusions at present lack 100% proof. True, history rarely admits of 100% certitude, but I would say that their book provides the best answers to many previously unexplained problems in the Columbus puzzle. I now believe that if Columbus were alive and on trial by any fair civil court, he would be found guilty of huge fraud carried out over two decades against his patrons.... Against my initial instinct, despite a lifetime that has taught me to question all things, I found myself believing that the case against Columbus presented here is about as solid as Fawn Brodie’s claims that Jefferson sired slaves by his Black slave Sally.... I refer you to two news clippings about my doctoral research at Columbia University, dealing with questions of authorship (to show that I am used to weighing evidence, evaluating sources, drawing conclusions from written remains). They are the New York Times, Sunday, August 6, 1961, pp. 1 (col. 2), 70 (col. 1) and Time magazine, August 18, 1961, pp. 43, 44.
JAMES T. McDONOUGH JR., Ph.D. (James T. McDonough, Jr. earned his Ph.D. in classical philology from Columbia University and taught at St. Joseph's University for 31 years. He was a Professor at a number of Universities)71.111.240.96 (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)History Buff[reply]

If your assessment were published in a reputable source, it would carry a lot of weight. As a comment here, unfortunately, it has no value for establishing notability. Looie496 (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's from this blog [3] which is one of Rosa's (see [4] , and put there by this guy [5]. I've just removed it from the article where 71.111.240.96 had put it. Doug Weller (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If having his interviews air on four major TV stations in 3 countries, having been interviewed and written about in all of the major Portuguese papers, participating in a 5 hour TV Andalucia Documentary, being invited to speak at Portuguese Universities and Historic Societies, having worldwide known historians support his work, and having his book referenced by 6 books that are already in print isn't enough to show notoriety, what is? How many interviews did Kirkpatrick Sale do? I know your problem. Because it is not a success in USA therefore it is worthless. 71.111.240.96 (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)History Buff[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category