Talk:County of Portugal

Nomenclature
Is the "First County"/"Second County" nomenclature used at all in English? I have never seen it, nor the Spanish equivalent. I can't read Portuguese, by I do get one GoogleBooks hit for primeiro and segundo condado de Portugal. Should Wikipedia follow this terminology? (I can find few sources in English or Spanish that deal with the period of the first county in any depth.) Srnec (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There was never a "County of Galicia". Galicia was always a kingdom. A kingdom is a state with its own laws. Loyalty is to the King, not the kingdom, so it doesn't really matter, especially then, what the official title of the king is.

As for the "forming" of nationalism in the middle ages, are you joking? Nationalism in medieval peasantry? That's a laugh. Provocateur (talk)


 * It is not used at all, notice that historical data from the early county was got, most of it, during the Estado Novo regime who tried hard to search information in old documents, I believe, and data was denied as nationalism after it, and only recently Historians noticed that it was reliable information and based on facts. It is for the sake of differentiation has there is not realistic differentiation on naming.


 * Very nice picture, but the picture shows Porto has being the largest town: larger dot. It that based on reliable data? Braga in the early middle ages was the most important city in the region, but as time went by and with the Discovery Age, Coastal towns related with the Discoveries boomed, and Braga died, and kept only as a religious center.--PedroPVZ (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

POV edits
They aren't. Blanket-reverting is not a productive approach to reaching consensus. Agricolae (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC) main concerns:
 * Ok. May be a good way to improve the article that was very poor.
 * Portugal as a march to those kingdoms.
 * The Royal title of Teresa. Your edits make it irrelevant, it seems quite relevant today, and especially with the recent research (2008). You stated that she was obliged to withdraw her Royal title by Urraca. How reliable is that.
 * The county of Coimbra, also has problems as it is presented in the article. All this was not linear, territory was lost and later recovered.
 * Portugal was recognized as independent by the pope? Needs a source, because what was recognized was Afonso's rule over the Kingdom, not the kingdom itself. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, what is claimed in the Portugal article is a problem of that article, not this one.
 * Furthermore, Middle Ages reality using modern ideas, creates reliability issues: country independence, and what counties were in the Middle Ages and what counties became in modern monarchies are different things. While we should help the reader understand, we cannot change their meaning. ---Pedro (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

[for the sake of in-line response, I will repeat your points]
 * Portugal as a march to those kingdoms.
 * Which are you questioning, that it was a march (that is what these counties were for, frontier protection, Rodrigo's Castile, Viscaya, Aragon, and Catalonia as well), or that it existed within the Asturian state until the demise of Alfonso III, then Galicia until his sons and grandsons sorted out their sordid squabbles, leaving a single state that historians refer to as the kingdom of Leon?


 * The Royal title of Teresa. Your edits make it irrelevant, it seems quite relevant today, and especially with the recent research (2008). You stated that she was obliged to withdraw her Royal title by Urraca. How reliable is that.
 * I took it straight from Theresa's article. Why haven't you challenged it there?


 * The county of Coimbra, also has problems as it is presented in the article. All this was not linear, territory was lost and later recovered.
 * And I am not questioning that, but this article is not about both counties - Coimbra was just the sometimes-neighbor to the south during the first County, as opposed to being a constituent part of the second. Thus we don't want to go into detail on what was happening in Coimbra, unless it had a direct bearing on the first County of Portugal (although we should probably include mention of the creation of the new Coimbra county by Ferdinand).


 * Portugal was recognized as independent by the pope? Needs a source, because what was recognized was Afonso's rule over the Kingdom, not the kingdom itself. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, what is claimed in the Portugal article is a problem of that article, not this one.
 * No, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, but if there is a problem in a main article, it should be addressed there, rather than being perfectly satisfied to leave it there but then challenge it in what is effectively a superficial summary - Wikipedia should be consistent between pages, rather than contradictory.


 * Furthermore, Middle Ages reality using modern ideas, creates reliability issues: country independence, and what counties were in the Middle Ages and what counties became in modern monarchies are different things. ---Pedro (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure I am following you here, but I think I agree with you that the concepts were different. I just may not agree with you on how they differed. As to independence, that is always tricky when dealing with a rebelling former territory. Do you date it from when they proclaimed themselves independent, when their former overlord accepted it, or when they received recognition from third parties? The same goes for adoption of the royal title - there are many more people who called themselves king than are actually held by historians to have been so, and there is a seeming arbitrary and nationalistic aspect to the decision (our guy was a king if only briefly, the guy who rose against us and called himself king was was just an unsuccessful rebel with delusions of grandeur).  Agricolae (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
I avoid doing personal attacks, because that's horrible. But Agricolae is doing intellectual vandalism in Portugal-medieval related articles, for some time, he even removes well-referenced information, with strange reasoning, just because he doesn't like it.

Agricola's vandalism can be seen here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=County_of_Portugal&diff=551209332&oldid=551144920 (he removed the info twice.) Under the summary: changes reflect an early history of the region, not specifically of the feudal entity fo the county

The correction of vandalism does not qualify as an edit war. As the person involved is not acting in GOOD FAITH. ---Pedro (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Information was not moved for somewhere else, he simply deleted it.
 * It is about the COUNTY of PORTUGAL and the origins prior to incorporation in the Kingdom of Asturias (Later Leon) as a county. Which is not only relevant for the article but EXTREMELY relevant.
 * It deals with art and architecture of the COUNTY of Portugal, its origins, etc. Great quality/interesting information. As it presents the transition from the Suebi-Visigothic period to Christian with Mozarabic influence.
 * And about medieval sources from the COUNTY of Portugal, and the Portuguese christian parishes of the county.
 * And it explains a lot of things that are misunderstood.


 * First, nobody's required to move information you added in the wrong place to anywhere else. But you can do so if you like. Second, there is no "County of Portugal ... prior to incorporation in the Kingdom of Asturias". There is a region, not usually called Portugal, that was once not incorporated in Asturias, but there is not County of Portugal from that period. Third, there cannot be a transition from "Suebi-Visigothic period to Christian" because both the Suevi and the Goths, along with their subjects, were Christians overwhelmingly. And your source for the non-conquest of the region by the Muslims is quite old. Srnec (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Pedro, to blaggard as a vandal someone with whom you are having a content dispute, and to accuse them of not acting in good faith simply because they disagree with you, is an attack. I disagree with your attempt to turn an article with a clearly defined focus into something else entirely.  This is about a feudal entity, a marcher county created within the Kingdom of Asturias and later part of the Kingdoms of Leon and Galicia, during the 9th through the early 12th century, not about the supposed cultural continuity of the Portuguese people. The king of Asturias did not say, 'There is a group of peoples within my kingdom that have retained a distinct cultural identity since Visigoth times so I am going to let them create for themselves an autonomous nascent nation-state'. He created a marcher county, indistinguishable in its role from other marcher counties such as Cerezo & Lantarón, Castile, and Coimbra, each owing their ultimate fates to the vicissitudes of reconquest Iberia and not to some unique inherent quality of their peoples. This material may be relevant for something on the History of the Portuguese people, but that is not what this article is about and it doesn't belong here. Agricolae (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * it does belong here, reasoning is above. the source isnt old. this is not about your personal opinion, sir, or Srnec's, which someone that follows this, already knows, this is sources, articles, and information.  Old source? eheh. I Don't think so, if the source is "old" it just shows that the wikipedia article had severe problems. If Portugal was a march add a source to that. I'm sorry, but it is VANDALISM, as this is not my opinion, but a fact. The information does not belong to the Portuguese people article, but to this article, history of Portugal, and Portugal articles. --Pedro (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The source I was referring to (Sampaio) is more than 100 years old. Srnec (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Added a notice on vandalism to admins. -Pedro (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've locked the article for five days. I expect all editors to use this time to resolve the content dispute in a civil fashion. No more frivolous accusations of vandalism or baseless reports at WP:AIV. No more attacks on editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If the report at AIV was baseless, why did you take any action at all? Srnec (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I made the mistake of reporting a legitimate 3RR violation. You see the outcome: The Wrong Version. Agricolae (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sort of, although I would say that your bigger mistake was participating in the edit war.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I talked about the disputed content on the Talk page. I did not fire back in response to the personal attacks, I waited for some indication of consensus (another editor agreeing with my position) before I reverted a third time, and I stopped short of a 3RR violation even though that left the disputed text in place. One wonders the value of a 3RR guideline if those who respect it and those who don't are painted with the same brush.  Agricolae (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather than defend your conduct, you should learn from it. 3RR is not a guideline; it's policy. You don't have to breach 3RR to be blocked for edit warring. Saying you behaved "better" may be true (you'll note I warned Pedro about his behavior and I didn't warn you), but it doesn't justify continuing to revert. One other editor agreeing with you is hardly a consensus. Finally, you reverted 4x, so you in fact breached 3RR. You probably don't want to count the edit at 20:22, but read the policy: it counts. You should be glad I locked the article as my other alternative was to block both you and Pedro. I strongly suggest you move on to resolve the content dispute rather than complaining that you've been unfairly treated.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would the edit at 20:22 count? He didn't revert Pedro then. He changed things that were in the article before Pedro's recent spate of edits. If two against one isn't a consensus for an article about early medieval Portuguese history, we're doomed. Unless you want to chime in? Srnec (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's very funny. The amount I know about medieval Portuguese history is equal to the square root of zero. If you read the policy, you'll see that a revert is effectively changing any material in the article ("whether involving the same or different material"); it doesn't have to be the material that forms the basis of the "dispute". I sympathize with the consensus issue, but even assuming that 2-1 establishes a consensus in this particular subject matter, it will never justify warring. You'll have to find some other method to enforce the supposed consensus. And given how many editors we have, there must be more than 3 of you who are interested and/or knowledgeable about the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Presumably because the policy (definitely not a guideline, heaven forbid) refers to "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions" (editors - plural). Of course given that any action that changes text (other than strict addition) may end up being perceived as undoing another editor's actions, under this interpretation it effectively becomes a 3 (non-addition) edit rule rather than a 3-revert rule.  I was even following this, having every intention of it edit being part of "a series of consecutive edits" but Pedro's prohibited 4th revert somehow sneaked in between without it showing as an edit conflict when I submitted.  If that means I get blocked for removing an anachronistic coat of arms inserted by a different editor 10 months earlier, then so be it.  It is all moot though, and I will just have to content myself with the gladness I derive from the experience.  You, however, will have to pursue your gladness elsewhere, perhaps even by discussing early medieval Portugal. Agricolae (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Once more into . ..
There is a page for the History of Portugal. This isn't it. This page deals with a specific political entity that existed from 868 to 1071, then from 1098 to the creation of a new political entity. It should deal with that entity and not with events that happened on the same land centuries before, nor should it deal with places that formed a part of the later kingdom of Portugal but which were not part of the county. I have tried to make this focus more clear and have played around with some phrasing. I welcome discussion of these changes. Agricolae (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me add my specific response to the specific text that has been repeatedly added without consensus:
 * Today, and unlike former historical views of the region, it is generally accepted that the land between the Minho and Douro river, of which the county of Portugal emerged, had maintained a significant share of its populations, between the 7th and the third quarter of the 9th century in a social and political area where there was no acting state powers. These conclusions derive from early works by Alberto Sampaio (1979 [1903]) As Vilas do Norte de Portugal (The Villas of Northern Portugal), Pierre David (1947), and Avelino de Jesus da Costa (1959 [1997]) and centered around the Northwestern Iberian Peninsula and the ancient diocese of Braga. Some of the most important sources for medievalists, the Liber Fidei Sanctae Bracarensis Ecclesiae and Inter Lima et Ave (Between the Lima River and Ave River, often known as "Bishop Pedro's Censual") are some of the most unique documents of the genre in Western Europe before the 13th century.[2]
 * The first sentence reds like a refutation of 'old' history, and yet the specific works cited are all over 50 years old and one is over 100 years old, so this is hardly the interpretation of 'today'. It then heralds the importance of a set of documents that have no relevance to anything else written about in the article, except they appear to derive from the same region.  The entire point of this being here escapes me.  Finally, the citation given is to a paper published on-line, that does not appear to have gone through peer review, so it is unclear whether it represents a WP:RS.
 * After the Muslim conquest of Hispania, the first steps in what has become known as the Christian Reconquista, was begun by bands led by Pelagius of Asturias. The Kingdom of Asturias was established in 718 and lasted until 925. During some of this time, it ruled over territory that extended as far south as today's northern northern Portugal, as part of Galicia. Amid several steps back and forward, the Christian kingdoms of Asturias, and later León, Navarre, Aragon, Galicia and Castile managed to increasingly control larger parts of the peninsula, starting from the north.
 * Pelayo ruled over a century before the County of Portugal came into existence, and none of his lands overlapped with that county. While the reconquest of Portugal was part of a larger process, we have an article ont hat, and it need not be explained in detail here, when this is about a stable entity that lasted for about 200 years within largely stable defined boundaries.  While perhaps one sentence of context on the reconquest would not be amiss, relating the County of Portugal to events in Aragon represents a severe loss of focus.
 * Concerning the arts and architecture, the Suebi-Visigothic sculptures showed a natural continuity with the Roman period. With the Reconquista, new artistic trends took hold, the Galician-Asturian influences are more visible than the Leonese. And the Portuguese group will be characterized by a general return to classicism, with Mozarabe influences. In this process the county courts of Viseu and Coimbra will have the most important role. The import of limestone sculptures, to the region, is followed by the election of Hermenegildo Gonçalves and Mumadona Dias to the government of the county of Portugal. The intimate relation that these hold with the court of Ramiro II of Leon explain the artistic similarities of the Portuguese group with Galicia, Asturias and, eventually, lower Leon.
 * I am not even clear what the point is here. Continuity between the Romans and Suebi-Visigoths all happened about 400 years earlier than the period in question here, so is hardly relevant, particularly when it then says as much, that the Reconquest period brought on new artistic trends.  More importantly, why are we talking about Iberian artistic trends in an article about a political entity?  Then County courts are mentioned, which have nothing to do with sculptural trends, but then we are back to limestone and sculpture.  Then it goes and says that there is nothing unique about what is seen in the County of Portugal anyhow.  The entire point of this escapes me.
 * Alfonso II of Asturias expanded the Kingdom, and sent parties deep into Moorish controlled territory, sacking Lisbon in 798. The Moors recovered from the raid and retained hold of Lisbon until 1147. The Moors pushed back and soon recovered most of the territory they had briefly lost, except for what is now northern Portugal.
 * This is about Lisbon, which was never, ever part of the County of Portugal, not even in its enlarged second iteration. Why is it relevant?

I get the distinct impression that these edits are intended to turn this article into one on the history of Portugal before nationhood, or origin of the Portuguese national identity, rather than a history of a political entity, the County of Portugal, that existed from the 9th to the 12th centuries. Maybe with some discussion and clarification, some form of some of this material could be brought back in, but I don't see how any of it fits as it currently stands. Agricolae (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Galicia
This is not really the best place to have this discussion, but the idea that there was a Kingdom of Galicia that was some sort of subservient crown within a larger Asturian state under Alfonso III is completely inconsistent with the very-much-personal concept of early-medieval kingship. Yes, you can find in the writings of the Arab chroniclers references to a ruler of Galicia, but that was their name for the one unified kingdom that Alfonso ruled. English-language historians have come to refer to this entity as the kingdom of Asturias, and Portugal was part of that kingdom. The same was true of Fruela's Leon. Agricolae (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
The coat of arms being attributed to this county is almost certainly anachronistic. There isn't a single coat of arms from all of Europe that dates from the lifetime of Henry of Burgundy. The earliest Iberian coat of arms of which I am aware dates from the reign of Alfonso IX, well after the date that this county ceased to be a county. Do you have any reliable evidence that Henry of Burgundy actually bore a coat of arms? Does it appear on a seal, or is there some other contemporary indication that this was the case, or instead is this one of those 'just so stories' that tries to explain a later more elaborate coat by falsely attributing a simpler one to an ancestor. Given that the Henry's immediate kin all used a gold and blue color scheme, it would very much surprise me if he bore blue and silver. Likewise, for the vast majority of the time that the county existed, there was no arms (nowhere in Europe), so to show these arms int he infobox gives a misleading impression. Since it is both misleading and uncertain, I think the page is better without the arms being displayed. Agricolae (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Titles of Counts
'Styled Queen' - The fact that Theresa has be 'styled' a queen later in no way overrides the fact that she formally renounced the claim.

'Recognized as "Infante"' - is completely meaningless, as Infante was not a title, per se, and there was no 'recognition' process. If this is supposed to be evidence that Theresa was 'Queen', there are two problems - first, it doesn't matter in an article on Counts of Portugal whether or not a particular count was called (or called himself) 'Infante'. Second, he had a contemporary, "Infanta" Estefania of Urgel, who was daughter of Count Ermengol V, so the word didn't mean what you seem to think it means. It does not provide significantly informative information to merit inclusion in an article about Counts of Portugal. Agricolae (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)