Talk:Gaspar de Portolá

Governor of the Californias

The list of pre-statehood governors of California only covers the area of the current US state of California. The title Governor of the Californias was used from the founding of Loreto, Baja California Sur in 1697 until Alta and Baja California were split in 1804. Portola became Governor of the Californias in 1768, taking over from Fernando de Rivera y Moncada, who had held the post from 1751. Gentgeen 08:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by Everard Proudfoot

Everard Proudfoot insist in reverting editions correcting the article. The article should mention that Portolà was a spanish national, and were it was born, but Everard Proudfoot is using the article to further its political agenda. --84.126.10.233 (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Everard Proudfoot continues vandalizing the article, reverting legitimate edits without discussion in this page--84.126.10.233 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Differences of opinion are not vandalism. It's you who has been considered to be a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked vandal. You came in and started removing information that a person born in Catalonia is not a Catalan, you'll need to prove that, though previous edits from this user show a particular pro-Spanish bias. Note that I never even heard of the town that Portola was born in till this incident came up. The Spanish Wikipedia seems to think it's in Catalonia. Do you have information which contradicts that? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of name

Is his last name spelled "Portolá" or "Portolà"? The foundation in his name lists it as the latter but almost everywhere else it is the former. Being Spanish, I would assume it to be Portolá, but if he's Catalan then Portolà seems more correct. Can anyone help on this?

There have been other discussions on this subject, and it has been concluded that based on his actual signature the correct spelling is Portolà.--Lord Kinbote 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Where are the discussions mentioned by Lord Kinbote? It would be helpful to see the arguments and evidence. The copy of Portola's signature attached to the article has a grave accent (Portolà), but his signature shown in the photograph at the top of this article has an acute accent (Portolá). During the period in which he lived, spellings were not standardized (Shakespeare famously spelled his own name several different ways, and none of his surviving signatures use the spelling Shakespeare that we now consider standard), so I'm not sure about the wisdom of using a single signature as the basis for settling on a standard spelling. Most other reference works seem to use the spelling with an acute accent (Portolá). --DavisSta (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible that he may have used the acute accent in official correspondence with Spanish superiors, but the grave accent (Catalan style?) for less formal writings? WCCasey (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussions are here and the evidence here. Right spelling is Portolà Friviere (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

There can be more than one "right" spelling. For an article about a Catalonian person, Portolà would be correct. This article, however, is about a man notable only because he was an officer in the Spanish military, and whose notable writings are in Spanish. So the "right" spelling of the name for the title of this article is Portolá (as it is in all standard reference works, and as has been discussed and decided repeatedly here). In the past, the Catalan spelling has been noted in the first sentence of the article, but now I see it only in the "Born" field of the infobox. Before the "Revision as of 19:08, 30 June 2024", the Catalan spelling was noted in the first sentence of the "Early life" section". Confusion could be further reduced by changing "Spanish Army officer" to "officer in the Spanish Army". WCCasey (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

A Thought on the Portrait.

The portrait of de Portola reproduced here is described as an "Oil painting of Gaspar of Portolá. He was painted about 1770".

A) It is not an oil painting, it is a medallion. B) It clearly bears the inscription "M. Clover Copyright 09" and thus does not date from 1770, but 1909. C) The person depicted looks nothing like Gaspar de Portrola, who did not have a beard or wear "Roman" armour.

I have no doubt the original is intended to be the great man, but it is clearly a piece of early 20th century nonsense. I do not wish to intrude on an area far from my expertise, but some knowledgable person might care to post an authentic image.Jellyandjocko (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

20th-century nonsense, I agree. The gentleman from the medallion looks like a 16th-century Spanish conquistador (helmet, armour, beard), not an 18th-century army officer (cocked hat with red cockade, white powdered wig, coat, moustache)_"http://www.sellosmundo.com/Europe/Espa%aF1a/sello_327973.htm". There's too a portrait of Portolá as a Dragoon officer (moustache, powdered hair, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.84.125 (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of "Father" as a priest title is unacceptable in Wikipedia articles

In Wikipedia articles, the names of priests should not be preceded by the title Father. Note this guideline concerning use of Father as a title:

Father

Use the Rev. in first reference before the names of Episcopal, Orthodox and Roman Catholic priests. On second reference use only the cleric’s last name. Use Father before a name only in direct quotations.

(Source: Religious titles | Religion Stylebook -- http://religionstylebook.com/entries/category/religion-and-culture/titles) Mksword (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The "Religion Stylebook" noted above is not a Wikipedia style guide, and therefore does not apply to Wikipedia articles. There is, however, a section in the Wikipedia Manual of Style on biography called "Honorific prefixes", which states that, in general, no title prefix of any kind should be used. WCCasey (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No consensus on spelling of name

The recent page move was done unilaterally, without seeking consensus first on this Talk page. I, for one, don't agree that Catalan accents should be used in the name "Portolá". This article is about the Spanish explorer and his deeds as a soldier of the Spanish empire, not about the famous Catalonian. WCCasey (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree--I've looked at several reliable sources and all of them use Portolá. Glendoremus (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree, Glendoremus and WCCasey. This is the English Wikipedia. We go by the common English name. As most sources available to us in the English language use the name Portolá, this is the name we need to use. We do not go by the local name, even if widely used. So, for example, in English, we call the Italian city Milan, even if all Italians and Milanese of course call it Milano. The page therefore needs to go back to Portolá. XavierItzm (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, renamed to Portolá per the above discussion. Glendoremus (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Gaspar de Portolà right spelling

Gaspar de Portolà

I am sorry but the accent is the other way, this is his own signature!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaspar_de_Portol%C3%A1#/media/File:Gaspar_de_Portola_signature.png This was discussed many time ago and agreed so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Friviere Paco ✉ 17:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how he spelled his own name, what matters is the WP:Commonname. The fact is that the Spanish spelling of his last name is far more prevalent than the Catalan spelling. Also that image of his signature says nothing on the matter; the accent is not unequivocally acute or grave and there is also a similar mark above the "r" in Gaspar, so the signature isn't exactly a great example to use.

Examples of scholarly sources dedicated to the subject matter using "Portolá":

• NUTTALL, DONALD A. “Gaspar de Portolá: Disenchanted Conquistador of Spanish Upper California.” Southern California Quarterly 53, no. 3 (1971): 185–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/41170367.
• de Cañizares, José, et al. “Putting a Lid on California: An Unpublished Diary of the Portolá Expedition.” California Historical Society Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 2, 1952, pp. 109–24. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/25156351.
• Treutlein, Theodore E. “The Portolá Expedition of 1769-1770.” California Historical Society Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 4, 1968, pp. 291–313. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/25154307.
• Larson R. “Gaspar de Portolá, Explorer and Founder of California”. By Fernando Boneu Companys. Translated and revised by Alan K. Brown. (Lérida: Institute de Estudios Ilerdenses, 1983. Pp. 404. Photos. Illustrations. Charts. Map. Notes. Paper. No price.). The Americas. 1986;42(3):370-373. doi:10.2307/1006941
• Skinner Eldredge, Zoeth. “The March of Portolá and the Discovery of the Bay of San Francisco.” California Promotion Committee, 1909.
• The Costansó Narrative of the Portolá Expedition. First Chronicle of the Spanish Conquest of Alta California. By Costansó, Miguel. Translated and with an introduction by Brandes, Ray. Newhall, 1970. Hogarth Press. Hogarth Series of Early California. Maps. Bibliography. Index. Pp. 11

Other examples of reputable sources using "Portolá":

• Encyclopedia Britannica - Gaspar de Portolá
• National Park Service: Ohlone - Portolá Heritage Site
• NPS - Encounters with the Portolá Expedition
• California Office of Historic Preservation - Portolá Expedition historical landmark
• Orange County Historical Society - 250th Anniversary Portolá Trek
• Monterey County Historical Society - The Portolá Expedition of 1769
• Camp Pendleton Historical Society - https://camppendletonhistoricalsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/CPHS.Vol13.Nr1_.pdf
• InMenlo - Taking a look at the history of Gaspar de Portolá’s visit to Menlo Park

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristiano Tomás (talk • contribs) 14:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Friviere, you state This was discussed many time ago and agreed so and provide a link to your statement on your own talk page with one person agreeing. That isn't a consensus, and I find it far less persuasive than the previous discussions on this page. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)