 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Some articles say that Favila was Pelayo's son. This one says Pelayo was Favila's son. AFAICS, either the article is wrong, or both Pelayo's father and son must have been called Favila, which would also account for how one Favila is said to have been killed by a bear, and the other by Wittiza's henchmen.—Wikipeditor
- Both father and son had the same name. Srnec 21:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, that explains it all. Thank you!—10:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Year of Birth
editWorking on the German page I came across this article. The year of birth ist given as c. 687 (which would be the year when his father was crowned). But Ergica was already 77 when he became king. On the other hand some believe that Achila II was the son of Wittiza. Agila became king 710 (or 711). This would mean that Wittiza had been about 24 then, which makes it impossible that Achilla was already grown up to face the Muslims. The German article on Ardo states, that Achilla was forced to abdicate for himself and his three sons in 714. These temporal problems would be solved if Wittiza was born earlier. Does anybody have any sources on that? --Reinhold Stansich 09:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- This article is very well sourced. Achila was not a son of Wittiza and he was not forced to abdicate. Wittiza was the son of Cixilo, only married in 687. The "sons of Wittiza" play a major role in legend, but none in history. Srnec 01:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Sourcing issues
editQuoting from Reliable Sources:
- Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.
This means that your sources are not as good as the ones already cited and should not be used in place of them. This is why it is unacceptable to keep insisting on the date 701, for example, when the article already explains what is wrong with it (and sources it to the secondary literature). Srnec (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Name
editIn the Codex Vigilanus he is named Uittizzanc. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Pelayo. --Manfariel (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)