Talk:Fernando Ruiz de Castro

Toda la lealtad de España

I have removed the attributed nickname, since there is no evidence it was used in period times --Spain didn't exist back then--, or even before the XIX century. In her book «Galicia Feudal», Victoria Armesto states, regarding the (supposed) inscription in the knight's tomb: «The supposed epitaph reeks of the XIX century; it does not seem likely that nobody back then would think of such a nickname. Speaking about 'the loyalty of Spain' in the XIV century seems to be premature, and furthermore inappropiate, when talking about Castro. Fernán Ruiz de Castro was loyal only to his brethen, and to what he considered to be the best for Galicia.» Gatonegro (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

* The term "Spain" has existed since Roman times as a reference for the entire peninsula. Medieval kings like Alfonso VI used the title "Emperor of Spain". The modern country happens to use the same name, but is not the exclusive use of the term. It was used to refer to the area long before.

* The inscription on the tomb is old, and has been known to exist on record since at least the 16th C. There are pre-19th C. works referring to it, e.g. 1588 ed. of Nobleza del Andalusia; 1657 ed. of Calederon, 1780 ed. of Ayala.

* whether that particular nickname was used contemporaneously when he was alive does not matter. What matters is whether it is commonly used today to refer to him. And it is. References to the nickname appear immediately almost every time his name is mentioned. So that is how he is known today, and needs to be retained. Walrasiad (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

* The term "Spain" doesn't equal to the roman "Hispania", which was a geographical demarcation. The term "Hispania" itself changed meaning through the centuries, at onen point specifically being used by contemporary european chronists to refer to the muslim-controlled territories of the Iberian Peninsula ("Gallaecia" being used for the main of the christian-controlled lands). The usage of the phrase "Imperator totus Hispaniae" (in latin) does not translate to "Emperor of Spain" but attempts to place a claim of sovereignity over the whole peninsula (you can translate it to «Emperor of all Hispania» although probably «Emperor of Iberia» would be better) -- a claim, by the way, which was in opposition to the Holy Roman Empire and therefore was abandoned by later kings which aspired to the crown of Holy Roman Emperors, the most notable of which was the castilian king Alfonso X The Wise.

* Those sources belong in the XVI (nearly XVII) and XVIII centuries, respectively, times when the modern concept of 'Spain' was well on its way to its modern meaning. They are between 250 and 400 years younger than Fernando Ruiz de Castro and cannot be considered contemporary or reliable. Anything beyond the XV century is bound to be contaminated by the rethoric shift that did construct the modern meaning of Spain. Specifically, the castilian crhonicles are well-known to be widely invented for the purpose of legitimation for the newly stablished castilian crown (see Miguelanxo Murado, Invención del pasado: Verdad y ficción en la Historia de España).

* I disagree that Fernando Ruiz de Castro is commonly called «toda la lealtad de españa» --it is far from being a nickname (even a contemporary one) such as «the Black Prince» for Prince Edward of England, and one of the main reasons is that the phrase is not a nickname in itself, but an epitaph supposedly written on his tomb (a tomb which nobody has seen, by the way, and of which we have no photograph), which is what commonly appears in articles regarding this character. Therefore is not something we use in replacement of a name (i.e. a nickname).

* In summary, my opposition amounts to the whole loose usage of 'Spain', 'spanish' and 'spaniards' referring to pre-renaissance places (its usage in post-renaissance context is a whole different discussion too), culture and people, because it promotes a false idea of continuity and identification between present and past that washes away the many turns of history. This is not accidental, by the way --it has been used on purpose by historians many times, when pursuing personal political agendas (see, again, Miguelanxo Murado, and you will find there a host of other authors supporting the same idea). Wikipedia does not reproduce the bias of any particular group or age, but rather an aseptic and scientific view on history, and should avoid semantically-charged terms which don't fit their context.

You can add a section or paragraph talking about his supposed epitaph, though, although I still would like to see sources closer to the actual death of the knight. A picture of the tomb would be awesome. Gatonegro (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

1. The term "Spain" and "Hispania" are the same - one is in English, the other in Latin. The term has been there since antiquity, it is in Medieval documents aplenty. Just like "Italy" and "Germany" and "Britain", it refers to the geographic area, not a State. That a modern state happens to have adopted that same name today does not pertain to the matter.

2. You first alleged 19th C. I showed documents proving you wrong. Now you try to shift the goalposts. I will take that as indicating that you were never actually familiar with the evidence, and now are merely speculating (WP:OR).

3. He is commonly called that. Any modern book on Medieval Spanish history will typically include that appellation. Indeed, the nickname is used and useful to help distinguish him from many other similar-sounding namesakes ("El Castellano", "El de la Guerra", etc.) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.

4. That is a rather peculiar and anachronistic objective you set for yourself. The term "Spain" and "Spanish" is used plenty in Medieval texts, and used generically in many history books, without apology or confusion or "secret political agendas". The terms Germany, Italy, Britain, etc. are used in the same loose manner. Not sure why you think anybody would be confused (Are you confused?)

That said, your "campaign" sounds like WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not the place to "Right Great Wrongs" (WP:RGW).

Whatever the exact origin or accuracy of the appellation, it is there, he is commonly referred to by that, in the chronicles and in modern texts. That is undeniable. As a consequence, that appellation needs to be in the article. If that doesn't fit with your "campaign", so much the worse for it. You may argue Philip the Handsome may not have been handsome, or that Peter the Cruel may not have been cruel, or that Henry the Navigator may never have navigated (and was first called that by an Englishman over two centuries later). But if they are called that today, it is our obligation to make note of that appellation. Walrasiad (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1. However, when referring to the peoples moving through Europe during the Age of Migration these are commonly called «Germanic» peoples, rather than «German». Likewise, people originary from places that nowadays would be «Italy» are referred frequently as «milanese», «bolognese», etc -- terms in concordance with the historical region or entity they hailed or should be adscribed to. «British» is a particularly good example --the Kings of the Scots or the Kings of England are not called «british» until the union of the crowns. Nobody refers to Rober de Bruce as «a british king». Some degree of confusion between past and present entities is unavoidable, but vocabulary and an accurate usage of terms are there to help us. The adequate term for someone originary from the iberian peninsula would be iberian rahter than spanish, since the latter induces some degree of confusion.

2. That my first assertion of the epitaph being an XIX century invention is false does not constitute OR, but simply a mistake on my part. I cited clearly a source (you can go check) which postulates that year for the origin --it cannot be, therefore, my original research. In my second reply I cite another source that questions the validity of the castilian chronicles, so I assume you won't consider that OR either. What is left in my post was mere math -- substracting the years in which the references you posted were printed from the dates in which Fernán Ruiz de Castro lived. That leaves us between somewhere over two hundred years (for the oldest source, published according to your link in 1588) and up to 400 (your last link, 1780). Please, don't throw OR accusations around lightly. It just muddies the discussion.

3. That is not so true. Many 'common book on Medieval Spanish history' will, as many echo the discourse of Sánchez Albornoz and Menéndez Pidal, repeating the same anecdotae and storyline (not only because this echo phonomenon is common in academia, but also because of the closed ideological theater that the spanish dictatorship fostered). That means these sources have an implicit bias. You won't use them to testify the veracity of the Battle of Nájera, for example --they have been largely discredited. For an alternate view, check portuguese books on the history of portugal, the petrist wars and the people involved. Furthermore, check galician books on that matter. Even in many spanish history books Fernán Ruiz de Castro is not tagged with that supposed epitaph. 1, 2, 3, 4. Notice that even genealogy texts (5), where similar names often have to be distinguished, don't use that nickname. Some, then, even discredit the matter, as I mentioned already. What I try to point out here is that the nickname is not so «commonly used», and there are doubts as to where it was originated (again: any picture of the tomb? Any contemporary source?). At the very least, these doubts should be credited somewhere. Otherwise, you are just trying to have Wikipedia take sides with one of the alternatives.

4. Non sequitur. That certain authors do something wrong or loosely repeatedly doesn't mean Wikipedians should. There are equally books where language is used with greater care. Precission in language is something to aspire to, as is scientific neutrality.

5. I would rather you not threw accusations lightly around. RGW is within the context of WP:TE. I have said before that I don't have any problems with the epitaph being listed in the article, but it is not a nickname, certainly it is not systemmatically used (there is no systemmatic writing about Fernán Ruiz de Castro in any case), and there is enough doubt as to its veracity (remember the later sources claim it to be written in stone, but the stone is nowhere to be found and the sources are tendentious themselves).

6. All the examples you list (Philip the Handsome, Peter the Cruel, Henry the Navigator) are of particularly notable characters whose nickname is well stablished, even if in some cases it might well fall under considerations similar to the ones I expressed here. Since your main argument seems to be «but Fernán Ruiz de Castro is commonly called 'toda la lealtad de España'», I counter that this is not the case: he is sometimes called such, and sometimes not. He doesn't constitute someone that would have a stablished nickname (not many people know he existed or why is he relevant, apart from a few historians and you and me). Therefore, his apparent nickname (which I insist is an epitaph, not a nickname) may be listed in the article but can't be considered stablished, and since it is questionable that such epitaph really exists, that should also be reflicted. I will also stress the fact that in the example you mention of Peter the Cruel there is a whole section dedicated to the implicit Black Legend implied by his nickname (very much like with Portugal's contemporary Peter the Just). Edward «the Black Prince» is another good example of a page where a prominent nickname is explored and its origins questioned, explicitly clarifying it was not used in his time.Gatonegro (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

1. We talk about British kings in the Dark Ages. We also talk plenty about German bishops, Italian sailors, etc. The term "Iberian", in historical writing, often insinuates pre-Roman peoples or the Caucasus. It is awkwardly anachronistic, and not essential. "Spain" and "Spanish" is used aplenty and quite comfortably in Medieval writing. And in writing on Medieval history. We talk of Muslim Spain, of Spanish Jews, Spanish student nations, etc. with no difficulty.

FWIW, I am Portuguese, so you might expect me to be prickly or sensitive to the term "Spain". But I know the historical validity and usefulness of usage, and don't mind it in this context.

2. You launched into allegations about the veracity of the script, the motives of these writers and assumed they had "secret political agendas". If you were actually familiar with the evidence, I might have taken you seriously. But your error revealed you were actually not very familiar with the documentary evidence, so I felt safe enough to dismiss all the rest as just idle speculation.

3. And now back to conspiracy theories. And repeating the same Armesto claim - which even you, now, have evidence is mistaken.

Granted it is a long appellation, so it might not always be used. But it used often enough to need to be mentioned here. (BTW, I first came across this appellation in Portuguese texts. And I have seen it in Galician ones too. So you are wrong on that gambit too). The nickname is, of course, used in both the Portuguese and Galician Wikipedia entries.

Let us recapitulate. My only obligation here is to show the nickname is used, not that it is used in absolutely every source. And I have shown it is, and used often enough, and used as a nickname. You have not proved I misread these texts, or even that these texts are mistaken. Your have provided speculations, mumbled about "secret political agendas" and "implicit bias", and openly advertised your quixotic crusade to force everyone, alive and dead, to comply to your particular preferences about usage of geographical terms.

4. The task of Wikipedia is to deliver information quickly and efficiently, not labor over scholarly precision at every turn. Over-precision can be tendentious and obscure the task getting actual information across. Precision has its place. If you ask me specifically for Amerigo Vespucci's nationality, I will say Florentine. But I have no problems calling him an "Italian cosmographer" in quick speech. Or referring to Martin Luther as a "German theologian" or discussing the "Umayyads in Spain".

5. You are welcome to put the reservations you want, and a footnote explaining your doubts. But it is used as a nickname in plenty of texts.

6. If "Toda la Lealtad de Espana" was as "well-established" as those examples, I would actually be pushing to use it in the article title itself. But I am not. I am just for putting it in the lede, where it belongs, in the same place where lesser-known nicknames are often put in most biographies here on Wikipedia. So that if a reader comes across a reference to the man with that nickname in a book and comes here to look it up, he can see at a glance that this is the Castro the book was referring to, the man he is looking for. It is correct enough and, above all, functional.

That is our primary obligation here. I don't particularly care to debate you on whether "Iberian" versus "Spanish" are the better or acceptable manners of speech. You have your preferences, I have mine. What is not conscionable is deleting vital information from Wikipedia because you want to impose your linguistic preferences, or because you're convinced you have distilled "secret political agendas". Even if there was an agenda (which I do not grant, you have provided zero proof for, but assuming it is) it is still our obligation to put it here because that nickname is used in the chronicles and in secondary sources.

That, that, is the important bit. Don't lose sight of it. Walrasiad (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)