User talk:Lecen/Archive 14

Pedro

I added a comment on the RM. Cannot see why your figures are not correct. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I left such a message. But it doesn't actually appear closed - it should be green boxed. I still cannot see any specific conflict with NCROY. It wouldn't surprise me if there was, some MOS pages seem to have local editors either distant from, or in some cases totally at odds with, the broader "content provider" editor community. As this isn't an area I'm familiar with can't really say more. I care a bit more about living people than dead royals. I do note that NCROY apparent presumption of default "English name" thing about monarchs has a little of the aura of nonsense seen in tennis and hockey player WP:RM sagas, but since sources post 1990 seem to be about 5:2 in favour of Pedro I, II, III, ... anyway, I left a message as you asked. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You're wasting time with him. He closed the discussion and he doesn't care about anyone's opinion. I'm going to open a move review. --Lecen (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Inexplicable closes happen, see Talk:Bun cha or indeed Talk:Stephane Huet. You might find entering a new RM quicker/less painful. In fact if you feel that as proposer you shouldn't open a new one, and since Qwryxian has said anyone can, I'd be quite happy to do it for you, even though I'm not interested in royals, the post 1990 results speak for themselves. It's there as an offer, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ha, that was exactly my impression of move-review, seems designed only for those used to non-article space manoeuvres. Sure I'd be glad to put in a new RM, give me 20 min to get my head round the most germane points - you can feel free to edit it once it hits listing. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Draft

This is not my area, I'm not bothered about royals, but I'm a third party here, closing admin has encouraged a new RM, and original proposer also agrees. Therefore propose per WP SOVEREIGN "Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference. Where this cannot be determined, use the conventional anglicized form of the name, as Henry above.", although not overwhelming the trend per 1990 appears to be that use of "Pedro I, II, III of Portugal" has already overtaken "Peter, I, II, III of Portugal". See Peter I/Pedro I = 14 : 5, Pedro II/Peter II = 11: 8, P3 = 5:0. Results for Peter I/Pedro I (1320-1367) are particularly surprising since you'd expect "Peter I", as a standard English exonym for medieval kings, from Latin Petrus, and yet sources like The New Cambridge Medieval History: c. 1415-c. 1500 - Page 1033 Christopher Allmand, Rosamond McKitterick - 1998 has "Pedro I of Portugal" contrary the old J. B. Bury Cambridge Medieval History 1938, 1959 which had "Peter I of Portugal" ...it is this change in the Cambridge standard work from 1938/1959 to 1988 which makes me confident to support this move. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Results in Google Scholar (without a year restriction this time) produce similar results, "Pedro I of Portugal" = 33 results "Peter I of Portugal" = 6 results, "Pedro II of Portugal" 29 results, "Peter II of Portugal" 9 results ; "Pedro III of Portugal" 2 results and Peter III of Portugal zero. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I should have mentioned Pedro IV of Portugal!, I'll leave you to do the notifying of editors who already commented (what a chore). Cheers. I haven't considered this subject area before since it is only in the last month that we have finally acheived consensus on living people (non-Asian ones at least), you may not have noticed Talk:Dominik Halmoši. I hope that that, apart from 5 tennis players in limbo, is the end of anglicizing foreigners on en.wp. Surprised about Pedro I, really. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Pedro I x Peter I (como rende esta história!)

Lecen, I'll send you an e-mail. Best regards, Joao Xavier (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

EMDash

I thought about using an emdash,[1] but I wasn't sure if it's usage would be consistent with the style of the prose. Yours is a better solution IMHO :-) Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but you were right. It just didn't look good the way it was before. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil lead image

Regarding this edit, why is File:Pedro II of Brazil - Brady-Handy.jpg unsuitable for the article? --125.25.0.79 (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Because that has been the picture of the article since always. It is the most iconic of him, old and father-like. And I want to use the Brady photo in another article about Pedro II (Apogee of Pedro II of Brazil). --Lecen (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

RE:Paula of Brazil

Hello! Yeah, I've recently found an interest in the Brazilian Imperial Family. Sometime soon, I'd like to improve Pedro, Prince Imperial of Brazil. I saw that you uploaded many, many pictures of the imperial family, and I was wondering if you could upload some of him and maybe, if you could get some of Paula? Just saying that an extremely low resolution painting (on Pedro's article) and an imaginary portrait (on Paula's article) are not very iconic. So, if you could find any of these, I would be very grateful. Thanks, Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your feedback! I'm really sorry about the pictures though. Maybe something will turn up eventually. I could also find virtually nothing on Pedro, except that he died of a fever and convulsions. Maybe we could work together on improving the remaining articles (on Pedro II's mother, sisters and daughter Leopoldina). Would you be willing to do that? For the time being, I would like to make Paula's article a good article nominee. What do you think, is it good enough? Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Uruguayan War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colorado Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Last thing before you go

I know you're banner says retired but I rememeber you asking me to get you a good image of that painting of Pedro IV at the Museu Nacional dos Coches. While I was unable to do that, I think this is perfect.
Best as always, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to drag him back. He's not allowed to feed the trolls by leaving. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Complaints

I understand your frustration, but schoolyard squabbles don't take place in my office. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You've been quite useless, here. "I'm not Keller" fesses to a long history on your talk and you fail to act. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unretire. Now, please

No letting the fools win like this, Lecen. Get back in it. I'll not take no for an answer. Or silence. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Seconded.. ed ... whatever. don't let idiots stop you from contributing your knowledge and skills here. Just WP:DENY all the BS. — ChedZILLA 11:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Retired?

Just curious. Why do you have a retirement template? if you're still active? GoodDay (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That's cool, but ya should 'remove' the template until you are actually retired. GoodDay (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

you should mind your own business. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, you should. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Lecen is my business. And, due to my intervention, there's now a removed {{retired}} tag (that could be *usefully* recycled, if you get my drift). Have a nice summer off? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Maria II of Portugal

Could you include something on Maria II of Portugal, Prince Imperial of Brazil (which skips doesn't mention Maria's term from 1831 to 1835) and Princess Januária of Brazil explaining why the random and unexplained dated of 30 October 1835 is the end of Maria II time as Princess Imperial?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

See my reply in Maria II's talk page. --Lecen (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A question

Hi Lecen! I'm working on a translation of your work about Pedro Ist (congratulation, it's very interesting, by the way) and I have a question. In the section "Liberal Revolution of 1820", I read "Pedro, in his father's name, makes an oath of obedience to the Portuguese Constitution on 26 February 1821." Now, I can't find any reference about this constitution: the only one I can find is the one of 1822... Can you explain me? Thanks a lot, 31.39.53.205 (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC) fr:user:Konstantinos

It's good to hear from you again, Konstantinos. He made an oath of obedience to the Constitution that hadn't been created yet by the Cortes in Portugal. And as you guessed correctly, it would be created in 1822. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ! 31.39.53.205 (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Revista de Historia question

Hey Lecen. Hope this message finds you well! Would you be able to tell me the volume, issue number, and page number ranges of these two articles? [2][3] I assume, based on the citation information you gave for a different article, that the volume numbers are 4 and 5, but I can't guess at the other two things I need. Thanks very much! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, Ed, it's always good to talk to you. Unfortunately, I have some bad news: the second link you gave it's an online-only article. it was not published on paper. The first one I couldn't find in my collection. However, the article was written by João Roberto Martins Filho, the same author who wrote "A Marinha Brasileira na Era dos Encouraçados". Since the article is merely a short version of the book, why don't you tell me what part of it you want to use as source so that I can search it on the book? --Lecen (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually that's good news, because it makes my life/the citation easier. ;-) I'm now wondering if the first link is the same as this, which I've cited before, but I have to wait to see if the Internet Archive can get its act together again. I'm looking for more information about the Zeballos controversy, where he planned to invade Rio de Janeiro if Brazil didn't hand over one of the two dreadnoughts. Thanks Lecen! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The link isn't working right now. I don't recall Zeballos thinking on invading Rio de Janeiro. That would be a dumb idea. However, he was very, very incompetent, so it might be true. I found a few information about what you're looking for:

1) In the eyes of our [Hispanic-American] neighbors, the Brazilian war ships would be the main instrument of a strategy of assertion of Brazil as an hegemonic nation in South America, with the end of strenghtening an alliance with the United States. (Martins Filho, pp.161-162)

2) Zeballos believed that Brazil wanted the ships to form an alliance of Brazil with the US. (Martins Filho, p.162)

3) Zeballos believed that once the ships had arrived, Brazil would attack Argentina. (Martins Filho, p.162)

4) None of the above was ever considered by Brazil. (Martins Filho, p.163)

5) Chile was not as worried as Argentina about Brazil's warships. In fact, Chile considered purchasing ships only if Argentina did the same. (Martins Filho, p.163)

6) On 10 July 1908 Zeballos presented a plan to the Argentine government where it would request Brazil to divide its dreadnoughts with Argentina. (Martins Filho, p.163)

7) According to the plan cited above if Brazil refused to comply with Argentina's demands within 8 days of the request Argentina would mobilize its army and navy and its would explain the reasons to that to the Europeans powers (possibly to get at least a neutral stance from them). (Martins Filho, p.164)

8) According to the same plan, as a last resort, Argentina would occupy Rio de Janeiro, as Zeballos believed that the Brazilian capital was an easy and unprotected target. (Martins Filho, p.164)

9) The Argentine newspaper La Nación found out Zeballos' mad and stupid plan and published about it, forcing the Argentine president to dismiss Zeballos. (Martins Filho, p.164)

10) A new Argentine minister of foreign relations replaced Zeballos. Friendlier to Brazil, he soon normalized the relation between both nations. (Martins Filho, p.164)

That's it. I hope it helps. --Lecen (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Internet Archive is working again, and they are the same article... just different dates and different titles. Weird. This is much more detailed though, so thank you! Is there anything in there about telegram #9? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Telegram #9 was a fake document created by Zeballos with the purpose of framing Brazil. Things didn't go well to him. As I told you, he was very incompetent. Later today I'll give your further info about it. I own a biography of the Baron of Rio Branco that talks about it. --Lecen (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I haven't read that it was fake – looking forward to the information. And no, it really didn't end well for him, didn't it. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Pedro I and the Greek kingdom

Hi Lecen! As you know, I am translating your work about emperor Pedro I but on the French wikipedia I am mostly working on Greek royal family. So I was very interested when I read in your work that Pedro was proposed Greek kingship on the late 1820's. In fact, I began an article about the Greek royal election of 1822-1832 (you can read it here) and I never heard about such proposition (although it does not surprise me). So I wanted to know if it would be possible for you to scan and send me by email the part of Sérgio Corrêa da Costa's book As quatro coroas de D. Pedro I which deals with the Greek throne (I suppose that is not a big part of the book ?). If you can't do it, i'll understand but it would be kind. Muito obrigado! fr:user:Konstantinos 31.39.53.205 (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"On December 1821, a national assembly with 67 deputies was gathered in Argos, which transferred itself soon after to Epidaurus. It was proclaimed, solemnly, the independence and a provisory Constitution was elaborated (1 January 1822), which was called Organic Law of Epidaurus. The Phanariot Prince Alexander Mavrocordato was elected president, or proedro, aided by a secretaty of state, Theodorus Negris. Greece was constituted as an independent federal state, after that was decreed the blockade of the cities still under the rule of the Ottomans. In the West, despite the positive popular sentiment in favor of the Greeks, the governments remained uncommitted, even hostile to the movement. Metternich, leading the European politics, saw, more than anything else, the Greek independence as a rebellion against the legitimate authority of the Sultan. Due to that, he ordered that the Greek envoys in Laybach not be welcomed ... On April 1822, the great punitive expedition sent by the Sultan disembarked in Chios and laid waste to the island with an astonishing ferocity. of the 90,000 inhabitants, 23,000 were massacred and almost 50,000 women and children were sold as slaves. Andre Miaulis, however, reorganized the Greek navy, and with great audacity, managed to defeat the Turkish fleet, killing its chief and more than 3,000 men of its crew. (p.168)"

"On 16 April, ignoring what had happened in Chios, a Greek envoy, Captain Nicola Chiefala Greco, asked for an audience with the king of Portugal, D. João VI, to offer his son the crown of sovereign of Greece." (page 171)

"The offer of the Greek throne to D. Pedro ... Thus, when the Greek envoy, captain Chiefala, arrived in Lisbon, the deputies in the cortes had a lifesaving idea. It fell from the sky as a safe way of avoiding the forthcoming catastrophe. The offer of the rown of Greece to D. Pedro would resolve everything. The prince, profoundly flattered, would accept the high distinction and embark ... (PAGE 172) ... to Europe in the first ship. Naturally, between both nations, there could be no hesitation. Brazil was nothing more by a far away colony, populated by people of several skin tones, without comfort, no civilization. If they managed to do that, the game would be won. The expedition to Brazil would be sent without delay and the desired recolonization would begin with all probabilities of acchieving easy success. Thus, two letters from the Greek emissary were immediately sent to D. Pedro and an extensive list with the names of the most noteworthy people in the General Senate of Megara and in service of the Greek navy. The prince-regent, however, did not betray the confidence the Brazilian nation had on him, which had acclaimed him its Perpetual Defender ... And, this, the Prince D. Pedro, first emperor of Brazil, declined the crown of this immortal Greece, greater birth of human culture." (page 173) --Lecen (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks a lot! Moreover you translated it into english! I'm very grateful! I expect I can help you like that in the future! fr:user:Konstantinos 31.39.53.205 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WP Brazil in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Brazil for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Rosas

Hey Lacen. I'm sorry about before, I guess I was getting a little too into the argument. Thank you for sending me that message, I forgot that you could do that. I too love wikipedia and am glad to see avid contributors like yourself keeping it such a great place to learn about almost anything. I just want to help in making this article as accurate as possible.

I am currently studying Rosas and recently, my professor made it abundantly clear that although similar, dictators and caudillos are not the same. For example, caudillos are typically populist leaders that make themselves seem like one of the people. Rosas lived with the gauchos to gain their trust and respect. Another example is that caudillos have to be charismatic to gain popular support. Kim Jung-Il was a dictator however he was not very charismatic. What I am getting at here, is that although the term dictator would seem to fit Rosas, the term caudillo would more accurately define his reign. The definition of a Caudillo is narrower than a Dictator and Rosas' actions would be a perfect fit of what a Caudillo is.

Looking at sources, the first source it titled, "Argentine caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas". Here are a list of other sources calling him a caudillo:

• http://books.google.com/books/about/Argentine_Caudillo.html?id=JJRZL1JM7iIC
• http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2004.00113.x/asset/j.1478-0542.2004.00113.x.pdf;jsessionid=1495FB193D0413F684D5A0A9FCB770E3.d03t04?v=1&t=h86bqii7&s=dc3fdf0d787f3a38eaf1b220e01682e02dddd0f3
• http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas.aspx
• http://www.library.nd.edu/rarebooks/exhibits/riverplate/04-rise/index.shtml

Those in spanish:

• http://www.elortiba.org/pdf/Fanlo_Rosas.pdf
• http://html.rincondelvago.com/el-caudillo-juan-manuel-de-rosas.html
• http://www.educ.ar/recursos/ver?rec_id=14735

The spanish translation of dictator is 'dictador'. None of these sources, even the ones in spanish, refer to him as such.

Let me know what you think

-- Koko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokothegorilla3 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not say in the beginning that he was a 'caudillo dictator'? I've seen that said in several sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokothegorilla3 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)