Talk:1383–1385 Portuguese interregnum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Instead of "John I" and "John I", would "Juan I" and "João I" be clearer, if used consistently? --Wetman 19:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the use of the English names clutters it up. This article used to use the native names, why change back? 140.159.2.31 07:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC) James Perkins, Australia

Done. Joaopais 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Insufficient title

The present title was doubtless moved from a History of Portugal subsection at some point. It needs a sufficient stand-alone title: Portuguese succession crisis, 1383-1385. Or something. --Wetman 04:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

oooops!

Noting the remark about original names, which is perfectly valid I am sure, and seeing that they had NOT been restored in spite of the above note "done", I proceeded to do it. But I am affraid I may have deleted a link that said João, inadvertently. Can anyone help put it back? Thamus (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see someone reverted the names back to their English "translation". In addition to making the article very confusing (there are just too many Johns), names never ought to be translated. there are a number of reasons not to:

1. respect for the person who wears the name. 2. Juan, John, João, Joahnn, Jean, are names that share the same root, but they are not the same name. 3. loss of reference. let's say Mary Stuart. Spaniards, notorious for translating names even when it is not possible to (I commend the editors of this article for refraining to translate Nuno Alvares Pereira) would render it Maria Estuardo. How are spanish speaking students to guess that Estuardo is Stuart? Saludos, Thamus (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the names back to their English form because the titles of articles about those persons are John I of Castile, Beatrice of Portugal, John I of Portugal, etc. These Johns are known as Johns in English and referring to them as Juan and João can confuse people who have read the article about John I of Castile and are now coming across a certain Juan. Ok, I agree with this of course, only I'd much prefer changing every reference in those other articles, insane as it may sound to you - Anyway, I have never understood people who keep saying that referring to somebody by non-native form of their name is "disrespectful". Did these Johns think that the King of England disrespects them by calling them John? Did they think that the Pope disrespects them by calling them Iohannus? There weren't many wars about that. How can you be sure that something is disrespectful for the person who died 400 years ago when translating names was a standard? I know this is normal and accepted practice, my contention is it shouldn't be. You may have noticed it's not so common in Portugal. I am glad for it. Even if you are sure that it is, Wikipedia does not have to respect people who died 300 years ago; in fact, Wikipedia is supposed to give a neutral description of them (which means saying things that are far more disrespectful than referring to a person by their non-native form of name). I can´t see that referring to person by their real name violates neutrality standards either, but I have to agree with you once again. I was reading Jim Wales' biography last night and it doesn't appear very respectfull to me; and after mucking Wales up calling a guy who's been dead this 900 years or so by a name that wasn't his doesn't seem so bad... However if the things you are saying about the person are true, it's the person who didn't respect himself or herself and is thus exposed to commentaryFor as long as majority of scholars refer to John I of Portugal and not to João I of Portugal, Wikipedia should use the name John. Pozdrav, Surtsicna (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind the answers I left inside your answer. I do not mean to start a controversy over this issue; I am glad you answered, even if I still cannot agree with the translation of personal names as a rule. I can see the use of it when that name has a particular meaning, say Sitting Bull, but I would much prefer that translation was presented in parenthesis next to the original rendering (which I wish I new what it is). But there's a lot to do here and I am not sure this is so (relatively) important. Thank you for taking the time to answer, and I sincerely hope it wasn't too much work to revert those names. Next time I'll wait until there is a consensus. How about my other comment (below) about the duplicate articles? anyone?

I'm glad we've agreed. The problem with Wikipedia is that our points of view do not matter. It is very difficult to determine the "real name" of a medieval person. John I of Portugal's real name would've been Iohannus, as he was probably christened as such. Furthermore, all official documents of early medieval rulers are in Latin and refer to them by their name in Latin. To complicate the matter even more, princesses often married kings of other countries and "changed" their names - thus, someone christened as Iohanna and raised as Infanta Juana suddenly became Queen Jeanne. What was her real name? I'll see about the duplicate articles later; perhaps some parts are supposed to be duplicate? Surtsicna (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Surtsicna, as I've written below. Personally, I think the translation of names into English violates the two Wikipedia sections he cited. Clearly the rulers at issue spoke languages other than Latin, and both Portuguese and Spanish were written languages at the time. IMHO English royal name translation is a throwback to Victorian era compilers of aristocratic pedigrees, not modern historians.Jweaver28 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Article is duplicated

There is a much better article in Wikipedia, Battle of Aljubarrota (even if they insist on translating every name they can) and the information is essntially duplicate. Why not just transfer from this article whatever isn't there (if anything) and change the link? Saludos, Thamus (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Would transferring the information from the Battle of Aljubarrota article here be a better solution, as the battle was a part of the crisis? Of course, if the battle is known better than the crisis, the main article should be Battle of Aljubarrota. Surtsicna (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide, I don't know. In Portugal, Battle of Aljubarrota certainly is a much easier reference. Even people with no inkling of history, who never heard a word of the crisis of which it is a climax, recognize Aljubarrota for the battle. They might not be able to tell you the dates, or much detail about it, but they will tell you that "we" won an overwelming victory over the Spaniards. They might also have a vague notion that it was instrumental for the existence of Portugal as an independent nation. This being WP in english, however, that may not be a relevant argument. I don't have the impression the world at large associates Portugal with its history so much as with, say, soccer. So, thinking of scholars, what would be the best title? Apart from that, I can only urge you to visit the article I am mentioning and if you can, proceed to unify them. My idea was to maintain the link 1383-1385 Crisis, only redirect it to that article, and... oh, hell, I see it now! you ARE wright there, the title there would have to be changed, and Battle of Aljubarrota become a subtitle, with the links that already exist pointing there. Well, here am I giving other people work (I cannot do this myself) but the intention is good, it seems to me that there is unnecessary clutter with things such as they are now.

P.S I do NOT agree with you about the names, I submit because I realise I am in the minority, and because we have more important things to discuss, but I still would like to see Sitting Bull in parenthesis instead of Sitting Bull (Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake)... if you see what I mean. Cheers, Thamus (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Thamus, Wetman and James Perkins rather than Surtsicna about the names. As a native English speaker (American) who has traveled in Portugal and Spain (and who hasn't taken the time to master typing accent marks, etc. in those languages unlike modern newspaper typesetters, etc.), I understand that names have a political aspect that probably can't be avoided, especially here. Switching them to modern English only seems to avoid the problem of Joao vs. Juan, which perhaps not strangely might actually clarify matters in this instance (using the Portuguese form for Portuguese and Castillian for Spanish). IMHO, translating both to John seems extremely disrespectful, particularly because that was a language these probably multi-lingual people never spoke. Personally (and I daresay like most educated people of this day and age unlike circa 1700 or 1800 when the English translation practice began), I can handle Fernando and Isabel--and I prefer it to Ferdinand and Elizabeth. To me, the Mary Stuart example only proved the point of the imperial-era arrogance of switching the names into English. Of course this particular article reads like a native Portuguese speaker wrote in English, with the polite passive voice and lengthy constructions. I don't have the time for the heavy editing this article requires, and agree that a name/title change might also be in order. Also, I do think that the political/dynastic situation needs a separate article from the battle.Jweaver28 (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Why the new name?

I unilaterally changed the name. Why Did i do that?

The original event is an important part of Portuguese history. Thus, the event will be written by Portuguese historians in a Portuguese perspective. Also, to note, the event will be known as the “1383-85” crises in the Portuguese language, and thuse will know the event as it is. In addition, to anyone who is not familiar with Portuguese history will be extremely confused in regards to its reference. To any English person, a bare reference is a bit confusing. Also, it is more of a “minor” thing, so it is not well known. Thus, I thought it was apprproriate to move the page to 1383-85 Portuguese Interregnum crises. That is why I changed the name.

Winterysteppe (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)