Talk:Menendo González

Galician or Portuguese?
There is no doubt that Menendo was, in some sense, Galician and, in another sense, Portuguese. The original opening called him a "Duke of Galicia" and a "Portuguese count". This was, in my view, entirely sufficient. It was more or less as precise as could be. It was changed to read "Galician noble" in place of "Portuguese count", this despite the fact that it already remarked that he was "Duke of Galicia"! This lede was both redundant regarding his Galician-ness and less precise, since it did not locate his power base in Portugal nor specify his comital title (count). The compromise is an improvement on this, but it reads more awkwardly than the original in my opinion. "Galician Count of Portugal" is comparable, in this context, to "American Governor of California" or "Italian Duke of Benevento". Srnec (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we both agree that Menendo (or Mendo) was Galician (ethnical and linguistically) and in addition he had the title of Count of Portugal, as well as Galleciae Dux. However, I disagree with you about in your following statemen:
 * It was changed to read "Galician noble" in place of "Portuguese count", this despite the fact that it already remarked that he was "Duke of Galicia"! This lede was both redundant regarding his Galician-ness and less precise, since it did not locate his power base in Portugal nor specify his comital title (count)
 * From my point of view, be a Portuguese count, is not the same that to be "Count of Portugal". William the Conqueror was King of England, and he wasn't English but Norman. Alexander the Greater was king of Persia, but he was not a Persian king, see for example the introduction in wikipedia about Alexander the Greater: "Greek king of Macedon", as you see, we might define Menendo as a "Galician count of Portugal" and this would be absolutly right. Not always a title is associated with the ethnicity of the title owner, and therefore, not always this relationship is so redundant.
 * The compromise is an improvement on this, but it reads more awkwardly than the original in my opinion. "Galician Count of Portugal" is comparable, in this context, to "American Governor of California" or "Italian Duke of Benevento"
 * I disagree again, I don't think it is awkward or confusing, first because I'm not so sure that for the general reader it is obvious that Portugal was a Galician County at that time, and second because in my opinion, that example is not extrapolable for two political medieval structures very unknown for most, everybody knows Califormia is an American state, but how many people know that the County of Portugal was a Galician county in this period?. I think the writting of this article is impeccable, but I think it is not so obvious the relationship between Galicia and Portugal (in middle age) for the general reader, and for it I think it is important to specify that Menendo was Galician, and Count of Portugal, in my opinion, it's not redundant nor confused, it's essential for the reader.


 * Apologies for any grammatical mistake.--Alexander Vigo (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really have a dog in this fight - just looking for compromise and trying to avoid 'semi-autonomous noble'. That being said, it is awkward now. enough so that I think a change is in order. I think, along with Srnec, that the repetition of Galicia in the intro is redundant. However, with Alexander, I do not think it is necessarily comparable to American California. Rather, it is comparable to calling that region Spanish California in reference to a time before it became American, or more relevant, referring to Massachusetts-controlled Maine, the Pennsylvanian province of Delaware, or the New Hampshire Grants in Vermont.  Given that County of Portugal simply redirects to a page on the Portuguese nation-state, perhaps some clarification or rephrasing to make its vassal status withing the Leonese nations state would help.  Agricolae (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the actual "Duke of Galicia and Count of Portugal".--Alexander Vigo (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If he's gallician, and not related in any way to castille, why is he mainly addressed in the article in the modern castillian term, in an english language article, instead of his actual name?
 * I don't want to get into an edit war with castillian hispanophiles, but this strikes me as extremely odd. RustyRapier (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)