Talk:Gudmund Gudmundson

Name
There's nothing in the sources that suggests Guðmundsson legally changed his name to the Anglicized form. It appears to have been merely for convenience in America (how do you tell someone how to spell your name when it has letters not used in their language? — you adjust it as needed to the best appropximation). Further, it may be confusing for a reader for the name the article refers to him as changes midway through the article. For these reasons, I think he should be referred to as "Guðmundsson" throughout, which was the name he was given at birth. Snocrates 04:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It has nothing whatsoever to do with "legally changed his name". That was his name in America, because that is what he used.  It is perfectly legal to change your name in the United States; you don't need anybody's permission to do so.  Very few people did so, especially back in the 19th century before the now-ubiquitous drivers licenses and Social Security Account names.  It was his American name.  It was almost certainly the name he used on official documents such as deeds for land.


 * It shouldn't be confusing to anyone. It was already explicitly explained in the article.


 * Furthermore, since that is the name by which he is generally known in English, as well as the name he himself used the last 25 years of his life, it likely should be the name of the article as well under Naming conventions.


 * Not only that, but there's a pretty darn good chance that he didn't use "Guðmundur" in the Danish language, either, but rather the normal Danish version of his name without the -ur ending and likely without the edhs in his names either; he was probably already Gudmund Gudmundson or Gudmund Gudmundsson or Gudmund Gudmundsen long before he came to America. Do you have any evidence of what name he used for those years? Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do, but since you seem to have already decided that such details are "nothing whatever to do with" what we decide, I'll spare you the brain pain. But in any case, consistency throughout the article is the main point that should be observed, in my opinion — it's not necessary to change how the article refers to someone midway through the article. That's tacky and adds unneeded confusion, with or without an explanation.


 * If you think the article name should be changed, then by all means propose a name change so you can see if there is a consensus to consistently use the name you would like, but please don't try to justify  a a change in name referral half-way through an article through your own personal speculation on name formatting from the mid- to late-19th century in the Icelandic alphabet and Utah Territory. Prior to your edits, the article consistently referred to him by the surname "Guðmundsson", and until the article name changes there is no reason to change the references to the surname. For what it's worth (not that I think you care), I disagree with a name change b/c the main things he is notable for occurred prior to his emigration to Utah Territory and before his name began to be Anglicized at all.   Snocrates 08:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. For my part, I think the Anglicised name should be used, since all the English sources seem to use that, and for the issues Gene Nygaard raises. Snocrates, could you provide the evidence of what name he used for those years that you said you have access to? That might change my mind. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Surname
Guðmundsson and Gudmundson are not surnames. Icelanders don't have surnames. Guðmundur's father was Guðmundur and Guðmundsson is a proper patronymic. -- Evertype·✆ 20:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When the person moved to the United States, "Gudmundson" would have "become" his surname, since in the U.S., people need surnames to function in society. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)