Talk:County of Portugal

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: 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
*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.
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The source I was referring to (Sampaio) is more than 100 years old. Srnec (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: *If the report at AIV was baseless, why did you take any action at all? Srnec (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Because I made the mistake of reporting a legitimate 3RR violation. You see the outcome: m:The Wrong Version. Agricolae (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sort of, although I would say that your bigger mistake was participating in the edit war.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *(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)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kingdom of Galicia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms 

message: '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)
thread_title:  Titles of Counts