Talk:Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article rename[edit]

I really wish folks would post on discussion pages before renameing an article. I renamed it to Cardinal Cisneros for a reason, that is the name he is most commonly known by, because he has what, 10 different names? Now we have a situation with a lot of work required to fix the links coming into the page (see "What Links Here") no matter what happens (I had previously worked a bit to try and clean that up). Please discuss your reasoning before I change it back and go through the trouble of once again fixing disambigs and redirects. Stbalbach 03:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, in the first place, standard policy for names is to use a real name, rather than just "Cardinal X", if a fuller name is available. In the second place, the Jiménez frequently shows up, and I've definitely seen him referred to as Jiménez rather than Cisneros. The article in the Columbia encyclopedia is at Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, and refers to him as Jiménez in later references. Britannica's article is at "Francisco, Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros". Since a) he's frequently referred to as Jiménez rather than Cisneros; b) other encyclopedias use the full name; and c) this better follows general wikipedia practice wrt cardinals, I don't see what is wrong with my version. I also made sure to fix all the redirects after I moved it. john k 03:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Britannica, let me add, also refers to him as Jiménez, rather than Cisneros. (And it's an article by H.G. Koenigsberger, who is/was a leading early modern historian) On the other hand, John Elliott's "Imperial Spain" calls him Cisneros. It seems evident that we need an article title which contains both Jiménez and Cisneros, and I see no reason to exclude his first name. john k 03:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the courtesy of an explanation, I spent a good 8 hours on the article and there is certainly no entitlement or ownership implied, I do feel it is a courtesy, to the other editors, to discuss renameing in particular if you have no previous edit history. Now, the problem I saw with the nameing is, there is no standardization, every place gives him a different name (See all the redirects, those are the ones I found, but there may be even more). "Cardinal Cisneros" is a fairly modern way to refer to him: simple, easy. Google has 568 hits on "Cardinal Cisneros" (search excluding the word Jiménez). The other thing is, he changed his name from Gonzoles to Francisco when he became a friar, so which is correct, his birth name Gonzoles, his chosen name Francisco or his ordained name Cardinal? And of that name, do we use the Spanish version or the English version? I've seen him refered to by all of the names in the What Links Here, for example is it Ximenez, Ximénez, Jiménez or Jimenez? Why choose one over the other?I think it should come down to popularity, how do people know him by best (in the English world), that is also a policy on article nameing when there is more than one choice. Another option is to have a footnote number next to his name that lists all his possible names he is refered to by. Stbalbach 05:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Francisco is the commonly used name. Cardinal is not a name - it is an office. As to which spelling of Jiménez, "Jiménez" seems to be most common, and is the one used by other encyclopedias. "Jimenez" and "Ximenez" should be excluded for not having the accent. The "J" is the modern Spanish spelling, and is the principal way to do it. I think we should certainly have some discussion of the name. I'll add that when one includes Jiménez in all its various spellings, there are considerably more than 568 hits, so I think it's wrong to exclude that name, even if it's not always spelled the same way. john k 16:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, you're right I should have said something on the talk page before moving it. I assumed that it was probably just an old article and that nobody would object to the move. But i should have checked first. john k

This is what it looked like before I started, every sentence had to be re-written and researched. I was thinking of taking it to the featured article process with a couple more things in the last section. A recent editor recently cleaned up the Franciscan terminology to be accurate.

I thought about the name and Fransican was his name at death, so that makes sense, and the modern spellng makes sense, and if there is a general policy about not using titles, then what you changed it too makes the most sense. Stbalbach 16:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The naming convention for cardinals is "Given Name Cardinal Surname," where possible "Cardinal Name" where not. There are some articles (like Cardinal Richelieu) that don't yet fit this format, but more through uncertainty to where the article should really be than uncertainty about the convention. The article itself is quite good, I think, so kudos on that. john k 17:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


In this article is correctly stated that Cardinal Cisneros changed his name during his lifetime. But there is a mistake in the name itself, which in the article is spelt "Gonzales", instead of the correct form "Gonzalo". In Spanish "González" is not a name, but a surname, a surname which means, precisely, "son of Gonzalo". "González" was used during centuries as a patronimic, before becoming a proper surname, but was never used as name. So the original name of the cardinal was Gonzalo Jiménez (or Ximénez in the original spelling)de Cisneros.

I would like to add that in modern Spanish (or more properly in Castilian and Galician)all surnames which mean "son of (personal name)", end with the letter "z", not with "s". For example "Jiménez" (son of Jimeno), "Rodríguez" (son of Rodrigo), Pérez (son of Pedro), Velázquez (son of Velasco). The same surnames written with an "s" are not of castilian or galician origin, but portuguese: "Rodrigues", "Gonçales" or "Gonçalves".

For mor information you can consult "Diccionario de Apellidos Españoles", written by Roberto Faure Sabater, María Asunción Ribes Lafoz and Antonio García Sancho. You can find some information in

I was going by what the historical sources say. There may be a reason for the Gonzales spelling. I'll see what I can find. If you can show any sources that spell it as "Gonzalo" that would be helpful. Stbalbach 14:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I see now the Spanish Wikipedia uses Gonzalo as do other sites. Must be a translation error from EB1911, although could be older than that. Noted in the Notes. Stbalbach 15:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

References (Improve inline citations)[edit]

This article needs proper footnoting. I suspect much or most of it is from the 1911 EB, but what exactly is from that source should be indicated, particularly with regard to the bits that sound more like anecdotal hagiography than encyclopedia-worthy material. If the passages discussing, for instance, his legendary asceticism are not from the EB, they really do need a footnote citing the source or they should be significantly abbreviated/paraphrased. There are just a few sources listed in the "References" section, which could be improved. (Oddly, some are not cited in the article itself.) Cheers, Moises de la vera (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Except for a few things it appears to be a modern re-write of the EB1911 article. This is not unusual on Wikipedia many such articles were imported wholesale and modernized. The way to handle it is say so in the notes but not add the same footnote for every sentence of the article which is redundant and makes it hard to read. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Dealings with "las indias"[edit]

Las Casas references Cisneros in his work, and it would perhaps be fitting to include some of that material in this article, since it dealt with the conquest of the Americas (where the Spanish established themselves).Studyhard12 (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 19:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)