Talk:Miguel de Cervantes

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

Horrible article[edit]

This article is full of meaningless drivel that has no place on Cervantes' page. It's getting quite tiresome to watch Wikipedia editors make a joke of themselves by trying to pretend that devout Catholics were secret secularist leftists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.32.91.98 (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement of article - start with the lead[edit]

If we want to get this article up in quality, we need to first start with the lead. Compare this with Shakespeare's lead. Why are his parents and brothers listed - that's something for the bio section. Birth city is enough and then we can go directly into summary of his works. Anyone else interested by the fact that he and Shakespeare died on the same day.--RossF18 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth is unknown[edit]

See Talk:Miguel de Cervantes/Archive1#It's unknown when Cervantes was born.

In keeping with other articles (Shakespeare, Beethoven, etc) where we make it clear in the body of the article that we do not know the exact date of birth, we certainly should not present a lede para with an unqualified date of birth as we’re currently doing with Cervantes. That is very misleading and, well, wrong. The best we can do is surmise, assume, speculate and believe that he was born 29 September, but we do not know it as a fact, so we should not present it as if it is a fact. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounce[edit]

Both family names (undoubtly Saavedra, subject to discuss Cervantes) are of Galician-Portuguese origin, and Saavedra were (and today is, as long as I can hear) pronounced with long vowel: [miˈɣel de θerˈβantes sa:ˈβeðɾa], Saavedra comes from Latin sala vetera (intervocalic l dropped, as usual in Galician-Portuguese, remaining first a long vowel and after a crasis, the vowel being long no more). The Spanish equivalent is Salavieja, another common surname. It is, curiously, in modern Galician and Portuguese that this surname is pronunced with short a, no long one, even with old spelling (double a).91.117.9.231 (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the usual anti-Spanish drivel. No Spaniard can be allowed recognition. Read through Wikipedia; any Spaniard of note was really "Portuguese," or secretly "Jewish," or actually a "Basque," or whatever. Just please, Jesus, don't let him be Spanish!98.162.136.248 (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

article sections[edit]

why is the don quichotte section included in the death section ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.236.28 (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new and unsure how to put in a section of my own, but this entire document needs revision. It sounds like it's written by an interested fan or aspiring critic, NOT an encyclopedia author. Monochromatica (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who Were His Wife and Kids?[edit]

He was married and he did have children, but nothing is said here about them, except a brief reference to one of his daughters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.234.242 (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

In the death section, there is a article about his plays. I am not entirely sure how to move or create a new headline, so can someone please fix it? Thanks, EpicFail7777777 (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating[edit]

Does anyone really say "the proof is in the pudding" as a shortened version of this? (Which makes no sense at all) Can we have a reference if this is really the case please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.74.69.18 (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever heard the shortened version, but I suppose it should be sourced. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do, particularly in the US. It's a pet peeve of mine, like "could care less" instead of the correct "could not care less". – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La Epistola a Mateo: historia de una polémica literaria en torno a Cervantes[edit]

The Spanish version of Cervantes' Wikipedia article says that this poem was a falsification, or that it was not written by Cervantes. I am currently taking a course on Cervantes, and my professor said this also.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NatalieAvigailL (talk • contribs)

That statement in the Spanish article has no source. If you can find reliable sources to support it, then it can be added to the English article.--ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The manuscript of this poem has been discovered and there is an article on it in Cervantes (the journal of the Cervantes Society of America) about 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deisenbe (talk • contribs) 09:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Died Date[edit]

Cervantes died in 22 April. See the reference, but even in the Spanish Wikipedia it is written like that. I´ll change it. See you Albertojuanse (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also leave you what is written on the website of Instituto Cervantes, in the biography of Cervantes: "El viernes 22 de abril, Miguel de Cervantes rinde el último suspiro. Al día siguiente, en los registros de San Sebastián, su parroquia, se consigna que su muerte ha ocurrido el sábado 23, de acuerdo con la costumbre de la época, que sólo se quedaba con la fecha del entierro: como se sabe, es ésta última la que se conoce hoy en día, y en que se celebra cada año en España el Día del Libro. [···] " What means: "On Friday April 22, Miguel de Cervantes surrenders his last breath. The next day, was recorded on San Sebastian, his parish, that his death occurred on Saturday 23, according to the custom of the time, which was t wio write the date of burial: as we know, is this one which is known today as Spain Book Day. [· · ·] " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertojuanse (talk • contribs) 15:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text gives death date as April 23, but the infobox gives it as April 22. Thisdaytrivia (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that Spain was using the Gregorian Calendar but Britain was still using the Julian Calendar, they were ten days adrift of each other, so Cervantes and Shakespeare did not both die within a day of each other. Also, Spain at the time had a custom of using date of burial as date of death. 2.31.162.59 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cervantes' Jewish ancestry[edit]

It is controversial, but a section of Cervantes scholars is firmly convinced that Cervantes, while not a Jew by any stretch of the imagination, was descended from Jews on both sides. If I put it in the article someone is going to take it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deisenbe (talk • contribs) 09:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TWO IMPRECISIONS[edit]

1- The article says: "His influence on the Spanish language has been so great that the language is often called la lengua de Cervantes" It's not for this reason, actually because is the greatest ambassador of the spanish language. El Quijote was the book most translated in the world literature, with the exception of the Bible. 2- El Quijote is the first modern (Polyphonic) novel in the History, and not only in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.203.59.67 (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC) k[reply]

The name of the book is not El Quijote. The name is Don Quijote. If you're writing Spanish, you can call it "el Quijote", but not "El Quijote". deisenbe (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

Haven't had my second cup of coffee yet, but I don't understand this sentence attributed to Fuentes:

"Cervantes leaves the page open where the reader knows himself read and the author written."
Sca (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the one source that is on line, it's still not easy. It's actually part of a larger comparison between Cervantes and Shakespeare. I think it's trying to say that with the coming of the book, the boundary between fact and fiction became less clear, but that Cervantes made the act of reading and writing more obvious. But that's a bit of a guess! Maybe the original Fuentes source makes it clearer. But it doesn't look like the best quote to put in the lede. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it out of the lead--it should probably just be removed altogether.

Style and Citations[edit]

The article contains half sentences beginning with lower case letters, words written in entire capitals, and huge swathes of unsupported claims and attributions. It's past midnight my time, I have fixed some of it, but much work is needed. μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYVIO[edit]

Compare the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 at NewAdvent.org

For the world at large interest in Cervantes centres particularly in "Don Quixote", and this has been regarded chiefly as a novel of purpose. It is stated again and again that he wrote it in order to ridicule the romances of chivalry and to destroy the popularity of a form of literature which for much more than a century....

To our text, attributed to a source from 2008 (!):

Don Quixote has been regarded chiefly as a novel of purpose. It is stated again and again that he wrote it in order to satirize the chivalric romance and to challenge the popularity of a form of literature that had been a favourite of the general public for more than a century.[23]

The matter has been reported to the copyvio board. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Encyclopedia, like all works published before 1923, is in the public domain. There is no longer any copyright to violate. Consequently, I have removed the copyvio notice. However, it is correct that all sources should be properly attributed, even when in the public domain. In that regard, the referencing should be improved. Here is the duplicate detector report to aid in identifying material taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia. [1] Dragons flight (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, I'm confused as to why you reinstated the {{copyvio}} tag after Dragons removed it. The 2008 source (I'm assuming that's New Advent) is a mirror of the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, as the website prominently states. -- tariqabjotu 05:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confused also. Was this ITN close justified or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all for keeping an eye out for copyright problems. The problem here was one of attribution rather than copyright infringement, as the original source is, as has been pointed out above, in the public domain. The required attribution was added with this edit, so I don't think there's any further cause for concern here.
For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that text 100 years old is very unlikely to be appropriate for this project, and any remains of the original text-dump should be completely rewritten from modern scholarly sources. As Dragons flight says above, the Duplicate Detector report is helpful for tracking down those remains. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That a source is in the public domain does not justify, here or in any other published content, the wholesale appropriation of the original author's words or ideas. To do so was, and remains, plagiarism. When identical wording is used, a quotation is in order, with a citation of the original work. When a paraphrase is used, inline citation of the original work is still required. See Charles Lipson's Doing Honest Work in College: How to Prepare Citations, Avoid Plagiarism, and Achieve Real Academic Success, published by the UChicago Press, or any similar content from any major, esteemed university. Wikipedia has to stop dodging the real issue of plagiarised content at its site. Call it what it is, and correct or remove it. Like breeds like. It will only get worse, the longer it is tolerated. 2601:246:C700:9B0:85BB:6F50:E2F5:B45F (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Following on from a discussion on the Exhumation and reburial of Richard III it is suggested that a similar title be adopted for Cervantes - whether a subheading within this article or a separate one. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article Exhumation of Miguel de Cervantes is certainly appropriate. It's really not about his biography after all. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The choice may be different for English WP and Spain-linked WPs - as with RIII where 'many WPs' include the rediscovery and reburial within the main text (and eg Phillip of Macedon. The parallel would be the articles 'Death and burial of...' 11:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Moving section on "Depictions, adaptations, and references in other works"[edit]

Since this section deals exclusively with Don Quixote I recommend that it be moved there. deisenbe (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Miguel de Cervantes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death? Get real.[edit]

Proclaiming that Cervantes's cause of death was Type II diabetes is completely unverifiable. It does not matter that a physician today, after reading what a "physician" (remember you could be a barber AND a surgeon in those days)wrote down some 500 years ago, decided to call it Type II diabetes. A patient MUST be examined before any diagnosis can be given and of course, in this case, that's not possible. Otherwise it's just pure conjecture and that should be stated in this article. Besides there are A LOT of reason why a patient could be chronically thirsty; renal failure for one. And renal failure can be caused by many illnesses. The fact is, nobody knows what he died of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a dogmatic assertion. This article only says his symptoms 'correspond with' Type II Diabetes, a statement I assess as not being a decisive diagnosis. England's King Henry VIII and the latter's onetime chief minister Cardinal Wolsey are both surmised to have been Type II Diabetes sufferers.Cloptonson (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Miguel de Cervantes/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs rererences plange 01:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Headline text ==

Arm amputated? I'm under the impression that his left hand was maimed during his military service, but have never heard that his arm was amputated. I know very little, but I wanted to raise the question.Sallypursell (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 07:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miguel de Cervantes. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hadath El Jebbeh[edit]

With regard to this recemt addiuton, can anyone provide evidnce that The Hidden Histories of Hadath El Joubbeh by Fraiha A. and Maalouf A, is a reliable source? Or even that it exists? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miguel de Cervantes. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 05:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spaniards of Jewish Ancestry category[edit]

I've removed the "Spaniards of Jewish Ancestry" tag at the bottom of the page. Considering the scholar who first put forth the theory of Jewish ancestry seems to have been trying to advance his own ideas of Spanish identity, and the article itself says that any evidence for it is circumstantial at best, I found it pretty absurd that this tag was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HBBorges (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. His Jewish origin is now completely mainstream consensus. Literally no one (except perhaps some crazy anti-semite) argues against it. At least among historians or academics. --79.153.124.157 (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A disasterous mess[edit]

I was embarassed to be called here after a student brought this article to my attention. See the 2015 Talk entries above, about Citations and Style, and WP:COPYVIO. The article remains substantially in the very sorry shape indicated 4 years ago, with the only improvement being that the article tags now give clear, appropriate warning to readers that the content is far from encyclopedic (or even fundamentally reliable). The same issues persist—appropriated content, and other huge swaths of otherwise unsourced material, paragraph after paragraph, section after section. On top of it, some subsections—see those on "Don Quixote" and on "Exemplary novels" in the "Works" section—are little more than draft student essays, lacking detail or sources, but full of editorialising. Teachers, send your students to Britannica; this article is an intellectual morass, without hope for better any time soon. 2601:246:C700:9B0:85BB:6F50:E2F5:B45F (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now updated, feel free to improve (I'm not a Cervantes expert).Robinvp11 (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undue[edit]

Vis-à-vis the current version of the article, does this recently added bit canonically contravene WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASP, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT? If so, what do we do?--Asqueladd (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the points stated above, I've removed the content.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Jewish origin[edit]

Cervantes' Jewish origin at least on his father's side is fact. It is not a theory, we know the Jewish family and when they converted and no contemporary academic source denies it. On his mother's side it is more complicated. Regardless there seems to be an attempt to hide this in the article with a very bizarre attention to his physical appearance.Php2000 (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is this a fact? Did you read the article that merely suggests that his gret-great grandfather MAY have been of Jewish origin, due to his payment of some fine to Inquisition? And even if this remote ancestor of his even was Jew, that doesn't make him a Jew, or a converso, since there were at least 4 generations of catholic Spanish people between them. And what to hell is with this placing him as a Jewish writer? Having a (possibly) jewish great-great-grandad doesn't make you Jewish. He was born Spanish, baptised in Catholic faith and obviously lived a life of a common Spaniard, nothing special about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:EE2:F0D:1500:EC9D:1FAF:2CDF:8A27 (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this: 2016 4-28 "Secret Jewish History of Don Quixote and Miguel de Cervantes" https://forward.com/culture/339346/the-secret-jewish-history-of-don-quixote-and-miguel-de-cervantes/

Cervantes is his mononym[edit]

I recommend that the article state explicitly that Cervantes is his mononym.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miguel_de_Cervantes&oldid=1210159244"