Talk:Giovanni Antonio del Balzo Orsini
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group. | ||
 |
Giovanni Antonio del Balzo Orsini is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
Crusades task force | ||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
It is Tarent in English. The English name should be used. 62.78.104.103 23:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- See Talk:Taranto. Adam Bishop 03:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] name in Italian: why?
With feudal princes, the common practice in Wikipedia is to use their English names. Thus, we have Philip I, Duke of Burgundy (Philip I of Burgundy); not Philippe de Bourgogne, although Philip was certainly and fully French. And, we have Frederick, Count of the Palatinate, not Graf Friedrich von der Pfalz. We have John, Count of Gravina; not Giovanni di Angio, conte di Gravina, here in English Wikipedia.
All native and other name forms then are explained in the text of the article.
John Anthony was also such a semi-independent, reigning feudal prince, not a regular nobleman.
Moreover, John Anthony was actually quite much French, not Italian: his principality was of Norman origin. His descent was from French (both del Balzo = des Baux and Enghien-Brienne). His claims were to certain frenchified principalities, such as Athens, Cyprus, Jerusalem. If we would like to use his family's language, he could be here Jean-Antoine de Tarent.
His name was usually in Italian vernacular "Gianantonio", not Giovanni Antonio. Thus, he actually was not mostly known by the name which the article title now gives.
However, we do not use French here, nor Italian. We use English, and only exemption could in this be if he were a fully Italian "lower" noble, not a feudal prince, and moreover best known in English literature with that fully Italian name form. That is not the case here, and therefore the article should be transferred to under english title. 62.78.106.188 13:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- He's rather obscure, of course, but "Giantonio del Balzo Orsini" (or "Orsini del Balzo") is the only form of his name I can find in English texts. This is the relevant issue according to the Naming conventions page: the overall point, after all, is to file it in the place where English readers are most likely to find it, not to be pedantic about translation of names. The articles on the Medici are similar in aspect. (For that matter, his paternal line was that of the Orsini, a famous Italian dynasty.) And "Giovanni Antonio" seems to be more prevalent as a form of his name (even on Italian pages) than "Gianantonio", although a redirect from "Gianantonio del Balzo Orsini" would certainly be appropriate. Choess 15:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Using "John of.." will also help keeping Wikipedia consistent. That is one of reasons I favor that form. 62.78.105.49 05:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is rather funny. Usually, if someone is a historical ruler, his/her name appears translated in English texts. Thus, if Giovanni was a real ruler, a real feudal lord, we expect his name be John of Taranto (or of Tarent) in history books written in English. Not "Giovanni Antonio del Balzo Orsini" which form is clearly the practice used for unknown and unimportant and obscure noblemen who did not reign and who were not feudal princes, not recognized as rather independent rulers by other rulers. (Of course, history books written in Italian are no evidence for this question.) One of the reason of translated names in use for historical rulers is that they communicated directly with other monarchs than their own suzerain, and because of this, their names have often been preserved as parts of history of other than their own country. Thus, in contemporary, translations of name were used and usually spread, and therefore it is difficult to presently cut that variance into just the name form of native language. If the history books written in English really use that obscure Italian name for him, it is a signal for which we probably should reassess that person's role in history - if he really was just a local nobleman, without any sort of ruling status??? 62.78.104.96 10:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Choess, if you read more carefully, you will realize that "the most used" is a default rule in Wikipedia. Not the main rule. 62.78.104.96 10:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
