Talk:Ramon Berenguer V, Count of Provence

Untitled
Garsenda - wouldn't it be more accurate to describe her as the Countess of Forcalquier rather than 'heir to' the county of... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.183.148 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea whether to prefer "Ramon" or "Raymond" here. Stan 13:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A note is needed to distinguish from Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Barcelona, his grand-father.--Friviere 10:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It also needs to clarify whether the Ramon Berenguer IV of the title is correct or the RB V of the opening paragraph. ljd 04:40, December 30, 2005 (UTC)

Aix, France
Some family research has turned up Aix, France as his place of death. Noles1984 18:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely this article refers to Ramon Berenguer V not IV? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

It's Berengar, not Berenger... Srnec (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Moves
As the naming is disputed, please do not move the page again without discussion. The Requested moves process should be followed here. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are the numbers from Google Books (a fairly good representation of how things are done in published scholarship):
 * 597 Ramon Berenguer IV
 * 379 Raymond Berenger IV
 * 158 Raymond Berengar IV
 * If one limits the results to books published since 1970 then Ramon Berenguer IV becomes overwhelming dominant (430 to 63 and 58). Perhaps the editor who has made TWO DIFFERENT name changes within the last week could explain why Wikipedia should not use the form of name which is overwhelming standard in English-language scholarship. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is worth noting that Google books isn't limited to English-language works. Deb (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly is true that Google Books is not limited to English-language works - but in this case it isn't "worth noting". I looked through the first hundred results for "Ramon Berenguer IV"; 99 of the 100 were from works in English (the exception was a work in German). Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is "Ramon Berenguer" the Provençal? john k (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, couldn't those numbers involve many references to the COunt of Barcelona also called "Ramon Berenguer IV"? john k (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the googlebooks results, but the name "Ramon Berenguer" is Catalan. The Occitan (Provençal) is "Raimon Berenguer" and the Spanish "Ramón Berenguer". Subtle, I know. Raymond Berengar is the English form. This figure belonged to a Catalan dynasty and ruled an Occitan province which was a part of France. I support either the Catalan or English form, but a look at the others of his dynasty suggests that the Catalan is preferred at Wikipedia. Srnec (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Provence was not part of France until the 15th century. I'll just add that the Catalan for counts of Barcelona makes rather more sense than the Catalan for a Count of Provence.  That the Habsburgs were a German dynasty does not make us have Philipp II of Spain, nor does the Bourbons' status as a French dynasty give us Philippe V of Spain.  Either the English or the Occitan seems most sensible, but it's really rather a mess. john k (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay then, that is a reason to support the present title. Deb (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. I did not meant to say that Provence was a part of France. But it should be noted that English scholarship uses the Catalan forms for these figures quite extensively. If English sources favoured Philippe V over Philip V, we'd use it. And Catalan and Provençal are very similar languages. Srnec (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That was what I understood you to mean. Deb (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But what evidence do we have for English usage? Google Books is, in this case, not terribly useful, since these references could be to the other Ramon Berenguer IV. john k (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried limiting to "Provence", but even then I got "Ramon Berenguer IV of Barcelona" doing something in Provence. It is clear to me that "Raymond Berengar" and "Raymond Berenger" are dominant in older scholarly literature, and that "Ramon Berenguer" is increasingly common in more recent scholarship. Whether it is absolutely dominant nowadays, I could not say. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, but isn't this bloke sometimes called Raimundus Berengarius V (rather than IV) (can't get more neutral than the old Latin)? There isn't any Raimundus Berengarius V south of the mountains, is there? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never seen the Latin in English literature, but I have seen the numeral V. I have no idea how anybody got V, however, so I would avoid it. Also, could not the Latin be Raymundus or Raymondus? I'm not sure this was ever the case with the Provençal counts, but they are alternate Latinisations. Srnec (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was being too oblique there. What I meant was, instead of searching for Ramon Berenguer IV/Raymond Berengar IV/Raymond Berenger IV, you could try Ramon Berenguer V/Raymond Berengar V/Raymond Berenger V, which would be referring to this guy and be unambiguous because there's no such count of Barcelona. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (Ha! I was confused. I knew you weren't seriously suggesting the Latin, but I only understood the intended "neutrality" now. . .) Do you know why he is sometimes enumerated that why? If there is a bad reason, we might get badly biased results. Srnec (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I finally realised that the alternative numbering comes from numbering Raymond B. IV of Barcelona, who was regent of Provence, as a ruler of Provence. Srnec (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)