Talk:Gregório de Matos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregório de Mattos → Gregório de Matos – His correct name is "Matos", not "Mattos", which is an archaic form no longer used. See his article in Portuguese or Google books entires[1]. Thank you, Lecen (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment are there any English language books involving this person? And how did he himself spell it? -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: [2] This is actually not a controversual move. It's just that he's name is spelled in archaic Portuguese, which is no longer in use. --Lecen (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems about even with [3] ... so English language usage is split -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support even though I am not a fan of these changes in the Portuguese language, it is what it is. Modern sources use Gregório de Matos and not Mattos. Paulista01 (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gregório de Matos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

@Torimem

You won't find a single reliable source that claims there was a "Brazilian" nationality during the 17th century. Brazil was part of Portugal and not independent. Most of the times he is falsely called Brazilian because nowadays Brazil is an independent country, so the tendency is to call him Brazilian, but even if you know he is Portuguese, you can call him that because, in the same way that someone from the Azores is called Azorean, they are still Portuguese.

From what I have read, the source you provided does not state that a Brazilian nationality existed and that he wasn't Portuguese. It explains his importance towards Brazilian literature, which makes sense, since he was from Portuguese Brazil. Javext (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to also debate about the page of Eusébio de Matos, but you just reverted my edit without any counter-argument so I have literally nothing to start a discussion, except what I said in my previous statements. Javext (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Javext, the source literally states he was Brazilian (see page 110). Other than that, there's simply no reason to call him Portuguese, the page was created starting he was "Colonial Brazilian" and it stayed as such for all these years. The categories below also state the same. Of course Brazil was not independent back then, but it still existed nonetheless, and as I already said this sort of situation doesn't prevent Wikipedia from stating he was a Colonial Brazilian as evidenced by the hundreds of articles on Colonial Americans, explicitly stated as such. Torimem (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Torimem Once again, the source does not state that a Brazilian nationality existed and that he wasn't Portuguese. See: "Most of the times he is falsely called Brazilian because nowadays Brazil is an independent country, so the tendency is to call him Brazilian, but even if you know he is Portuguese, you can call him that because, in the same way that someone from the Azores is called Azorean, they are still Portuguese."
Just because it stayed like this for years doesn't mean it's not subject to changes, that would be crazy. But I am guessing you don't believe in that and are just using it in your favour since you removed the part of the infobox that said his nationality was Portuguese, wasn't that also there for a long time? Why change?
Keep in mind that he was also a descendant of europeans/Portuguese, not an indigenous american or even african.[4] So because a brazilian nationality did not exist, he would have to be Portuguese, not only due to his ancestry but also because he was from Portuguese territory. Javext (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Javext, Page 110: "Considerado o primeiro grande poeta brasileiro, estudou direito em Coimbra, onde pôde ler muitos autores clássicos que influenciaram sua poesia".
Matos was born, lived and died in Brazil. His work was about Brazil and its people. Changing it to Portuguese based on a mere technicality is undue weight. Whether his ancestry was European, Indigenous or African is irrelevant. This is all I have to argue for now. If you still want to change it, then we'll need a third opinion on the issue. Torimem (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Torimem I already explained why he is called Brazilian in the source.
A Brazilian nation/nationality did not exist, Brazil was Portuguese territory. He was Portuguese.
Matos was born, lived and died in Portugal (Brazil).
I gave reference to his ancestry because, had he been indigenous or even african that could give rise to the possibility that he wouldn't be fully assimilated as Portuguese. However, knowning that he is descendant of a Portuguese family, that he studied in Coimbra it's obvious that it couldn't be the case.
I have a proposal:
"Gregório de Matos e Guerra (December 23, 1636 – November 26, 1696) was a Portuguese Baroque poet from Colonial Brazil."
What do you think? Still need a third opinion or what? Javext (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Javext, you know what, I don't care anymore. Do as you wish. Torimem (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Javext (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gregório_de_Matos&oldid=1224620657"