Talk:Gonzalo Menéndez

Title of father

Was father Hermengildo a count? Portela & Pallares don't show him as such (see Menendo González note 4). Agricolae (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Page name

• Dear Agricolae, this is not the Spanish Wikipedia and he was Portuguese has such the article should carry a Portuguese name, at most Latin, but never Spanish.---PedroPVZ 20:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This is neither Spanish Wikipedia nor Portuguese Wikipedia, it is English Wikipedia. The name that is given this Galician nobleman should be that preferred by English-language sources. Perhaps the three most prominent English-language scholars of this region and period, Roger Collins, Simon Barton and Richard Fletcher, all call him Gonzalo Menendez, as does the Encyclopædia Britannica. This appears to be the form preferred as far back as the 19th century, so that is what the page needs to be named, unless a broader survey reveals a scholarly preference in English-language sources for some other form of the name. Agricolae (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• he is Portuguese not Galician. And You should read what a County was in the middle Ages. Those authors did it, probably because they used Spanish sources. Nevertheless that is not correct. As it is not an English name, but just a Spanish (hence Castillian) name, anything to do with this count. This is a similar issue with the word "Spain", now in Wikipedia the word "Hispania" is preferred because of NPOV problems, even if most scholars used Spain when they were writing about the Roman province or even the medieval kingdoms. --Pedro (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a critical difference. Spain is not the same thing as Hispania. There is no difference between Gonzalo Menendez and Gonçalo Mendes - none whatsoever. Neither is more accurate, neither is more ambiguous. Neither is the form he used, but one is the form most used by English scholars, Gonzalo Menendez. The form used by Encyclopædia Britannica for this Galician count is Gonzalo Menendez. The form used by Roger Collins is Gonzalo Menendez. The form used by Richard Fletcher is Gonzalo Menendez. The form used by Simon Barton is Gonzalo Menendez. You have not come up with a single English language source that uses any other form, so that pretty much decides it. The form used in English is the form used in English Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you think all English-language scholars are incorrect in using the form preferred by the other side of your nationalistic pissing match, your opinion is simply that, your opinion and nothing more. The opinions of Barton, Collins, Fletcher and the Britannica trump that of a Wikipedia editor. (As to what I should read, you might want to be more WP:CIVIL and keep your prejudicial assumptions about my education to yourself.) Agricolae (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• What you wrote perfectly applies to you. And the only one that is being uncivilized, and quite a lot, that is you. Being rude, twisting.... and using modern age ideas to the middle ages. This is not nationalism, what? but correctness and npov. Who are you talking about? These names are also used in the Portuguese form by Portuguese scholars, who I'm afraid are better suited to study that period than those. Someone using a Spanish name in something not related doesnt look reliable.
• not mentioning this is a very obscure historical personality, as such the idea that is used by scholars is flawed.
• moreover, many wikipedia article names do not follow conventions, and have popular names it it. scholars are important for investigating facts and adding as sources, not for naming conventions.
• The only alternative to the Portuguese name in its current form is the historical name, while not being a popular name is historically the most correct.

---Pedro (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No other forms used by English-language sources, then? Agricolae (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to leave it at that but I won't. Only Portuguese scholars are suited to write about a nobleman whose political activity fell within the Kingdom of Leon (where none of the relevant documents are in Portuguese because it didn't exist yet)? The writing of trained and respected historians looks unreliable because they don't use the Portuguese form of this name? And this isn't nationalism, but is NPOV? Bullocks! This Galician count was part of the shared cultural heritage of Hispania, Europe and the world, and is not the private property of one country and its scholars. Further, it doesn't matter what those writing in Portuguese think is right. This isn't Portuguese Wikipedia. Unless you can come up with something less tautological than 'the Portuguese form is right because anyone not using it is wrong', this discussion is unlikely to move forward. Agricolae (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• you are JUST amusing! But Spanish existed then.... Spanish was spoken in Portugal and spoken and used by the Portuguese count and its people. of course... Ho wait, Portugal and Portuguese didnt existed then. lol. What mattered is that some supposed sources that use a Spanish name FOR NO VALUABLE REASON and our Spanish knight Agricolae moved every Portuguese count name in English encyclopedia to the Spanish name and comes up with this? laughable.

and lets make it clear, I've nothing against Spain much less the Spanish people, which I've always related with quite well, nor I'm debating this on nationalistic grounds, that is all in your head! nor I'm denying our shared history and everything else... the issue would be the same if your sources used Chinese, Javanese or Hawaiian as naming conventions for the counts. --Pedro (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Fletcher and Barton and Collins and the Encyclopedia Britannica had a valuable reason for using the name form they chose for this Galician count. All that matters is that they did use the form that is the current name of this page. English Wikipedia follows English usage. Agricolae (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The reputable Portuguese Historian, Alexandre Herculano in his monumental work (available online):

• Herculano, Alexandre (1868). Academia de Ciencias de Lisboa (ed.). Portugaliae Monumenta Historica. Diplomata et chartae. Vol. I. Lisbon: Olisipone. OCLC 504624362. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

includes several charters where Gonzalo appears always as Gundisalbus, Gunsalbo, etc. Menendiz or Menendi. See for example, pages 35, 47, 56, 61, 62, 81, 84, most from the Monastery of Lorvão. Instead of wasting time changing names, moving articles, etc. it would be more worthwhile (would also show more respect for this important figure) to expand and document the article in pt.wiki (ps. the São Payo reference is an index page), quite poor if compared to this one or the one in Spanish wiki, and, for that matter, all other wikis.--Maragm (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

@Srnec, just wanted to ask why you didn't want an infobox on this article? They're not required, but usually a biography this size would have one. Especially considering they're a title holder and infoboxes help with navigation between title holders. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

As a rule, I do not think that infoboxes are good for early medieval people. They were not designed with them in mind. They are also bad with uncertainty and there is a lot of that the further back in time you go. Srnec (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Srnec, Would you object to a small infobox with just name and verified family information? We can leave out the uncertain parameters and if we're really worried we can add a hidden note telling editors not to add those parameters. I understand limiting an infobox, especially when dealing with uncertainty, but like name, predecessor, and successor should be includable.

Also, including an infobox would not be out of line with other projects. There is one on the Galician article, Italian article, and Portuguese article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

An infobox is warranted. @TulsaPoliticsFan:, please feel free to add it. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Why must we repeat what is in the lead in a little box to its right? This is absurd. His name is at the top of the article and at the start of the first sentence. How many times must it be repeated? As for predecessor and successor, there is a succession box at the bottom. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)