User talk:Lecen/Archive 7

Brazilian infantas (again)

Hey, man! I've just read a very interesting small book, published in Portugal at about ~1850. It describes how was confusing the status of Peter I's three daughters – Januaria, Paula and Francisca. Until 1825, they were indeed considered infantas – at least for John VI. He ordered celebrations at the court when the news of their births arrived, as well as celebrations at each birthday of them, in the same scheme which used to be done for other infantes. Januaria, specially, was considered so, as she was born before the Independence day (but after the "Fico", what caused some doubts) . However, after the Constitution and the treaty of Rio de Janeiro, everything changed, and since so no doubt remained about their status as Brazilians.

Anyway, it seems that they three were, at least for some time, considered in the line of the Portuguese succession by the king. Cheers. Tonyjeff (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not one, but two: Ceara and Goias!! =) And it was against not only the Constitution, but Iberian traditions! (that's why people reject the supposed daughter of Carlos I – Maria Pia)

But I am going to be the "lawyer of the devil": his father has much responsibility for all of this. It was John VI who considered Pedro I, Maria II, Januaria, Paula and Francisca as his successors – even after the "Fico". In my opinion, at the end, everything was John's strategy to keep both realms altogether – that's why he demanded to be the first Brazilian emperor de jure. Not surprisingly coming from the only man who "deceased Napoleon" (and even so he's taken as a retard by most Brazilians…).

Dude, thanks for the tip about the book!! Indeed, I was wondering why Luiz Maria is so much forgotten by historians… Do you know where he is sepulted?? In France, maybe?

Here, take a look at the one I was talking about: [1]. Cheers! Tonyjeff (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That is really something new to me, and could be an excellent thesis for Master's or Doctorate's degree (eventually a book)! About the "special status" of some Brazilian princes, I've written what I consider some good appointments here. Tonyjeff (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

W o w . I know it is an "accessory concern", but I think we should think how we could inform such "momentary royal titles" of all these princesses in their respective infoboxes. I am going to research about Maria II.

I've just read the synopsis of the book about Luiz Maria. Definitely, he was THE person who SHOULD NOT have died so early… An amazing character.Tonyjeff (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Pathetic (LOL), totally agreed.

For sure: the Loulé line, which was originated by a daughter of John VI and have always respected all the rules stated at Lamengo and the XIX Constitutions (the princess married a national noble). About Cadaval, do you consider them extinct because the only legitimated descendants are women who married foreigners? I think their rights can be transmitted, and so this House (the most noble, according to a writer) would not be extinct. I suppose this will happen with the descendants of the duchess of Cadaval-Hermès, and not with the ones of the duchess of Cadaval. Tonyjeff (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? I think that Iberic royalty has never respected the Salic Laws, and so they do not have problems with female heads of dynastic Houses and the maintenance of their dynastic rights. I've always considered the Orleans-Braganza a branch of the Braganza… Tonyjeff (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Iturbide royals

Do you know if you are going to work on any of the Iturbide princes and princesses?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I was kind of thinking more on the line of the lessly known children and grandchildren of Agustin Iturbide.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 22:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Qwiki

Hey Lecen, Question: Have you seen some of your articles on Qwiki alpha? The program is in testing phase, it promises to be an amazing new tool based on Wikipedia info. I watched some of the videos based on articles that I worked on. I also checked some of the articles you worked on, the majority worked very well. You may want to check that out. Cheers, Paulista01 (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Brazilian Empire" or "Empire of Brazil"

hi Lecen,

thank you for your message. I have no particular hangups about the name of the template or category, however if you would like feel free to move them. Gryffindor (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Honório Carneiro Leão

I don't know if you remembered, but Honório Carneiro Leão was featured on the Wikipedia front page on 20 January. The article received 7.6k hits that day—not the most, but still much better than the usual traffic to the article. • Astynax ^talk 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almirante Latorre-class battleship/archive1

Lecen, thanks for the review here. You made some very insightful comments which greatly contributed to the overall readability of the article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Article about Teresa Cristina

Hi ! I just found this article about Teresa Cristina. It's written in portuguese and I don't understand everything but it seems a serious work. Perhaps it will interest you ? Have a good week-end, Konstantinos 82.237.218.242 (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll read the things you changed but for the moment I think I am going to work on the dead links of the French version. Did you see this and this. I really think she was not so stupid at all... 82.237.218.242 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulation for your work on this beautiful article and for the Featured article mention ! Konstantinos 82.237.218.242 (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

John VI of Portugal

If you are going to threaten people with the rules and conventions of wikipedia, it would be advisable to understand them first. The 3RR rule says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Cripipper (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Afonso references

There is one citation to Barman (2005) which doesn't have an entry in the References section. The References section also shows the Sauer book, but there are no notes which cite that book. Other than these questions, I have finished summarizing the quotations and making small changes to the text for clarity. • Astynax ^talk 11:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Marquis of Parana

Hi Lecen,

I have a quick question: Do you know anything regarding a connection between the family of the Marquis of Parana and the family of the Duke of Caxias? I know that the conservative families used to marry among themselves as did the descendants of Caxias that married into the family of Carneiro da Silva and later into the family of Eusebio de Queiros which was also connected to the family of the Baron of Tiete. The only thing I remember reading about the descendants of Parana was that his daughters converted to protestantism and caused a lot of controversy. If you know anything please let me know. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate the help. By the way, do you know what is happening with the article Empire of Brazil? I added my review, should I do anything else? I have not done a lot of reviews so I am a little confused. Cheers! Paulista01 (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate — very unfortunate indeed. I agree with you, the articles about the Empire of Brazil were horrible before. I would recommend you keep working on them if you can, you have done excellent work so far. I believe that the problem here is that many editors will defend their believes and will sometimes even attack the character of others that disagree. I have seen some of the attacks directed at you, it is very bad I agree, as long as you are sticking to sources, they can do nothing against you. I will see if any other editors would be interested in doing the review for the article. Have you asked TonyJeff? He is usually busy but very reliable. Paulista01 (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I see, this is very difficult. I do understand the reasons why they would do that, however, with time things will become extremely difficult since we have very few people interested in the subject. Paulista01 (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes Lecen, it is very frustrating. It is unfortunate that most editors did not understand it had nothing to do with google or how many hits we can find there. It had everything to do with how Dom Joao VI is known by modern historians, they could not see it. The funny thing is that none of them realize that all the sources used in the articles about the Empire of Brazil refer to him as Dom Joao VI. The attitude of some editors in the discussion are truly frustrating and revolting, all the uncalled attacks against you and against me by Cripipper. It is also frustrating that we can not complain, since we know that administrators will do nothing. I also have no doubt that the Argentinian editor voted to upset us. I remember him well, I also remember that his articles are beyond bad. It is better to let this one go, don’t give them anything else, sometimes silence works better than arguments, remember the old saying: 'Never argue with a fool because people may not be able to tell the difference'. In the future we can propose a change again, forget about these editors, you are building your articles on solid rock, they are not. I can see that you are passionate about your work, this is very good, my recommendation is to try to hide it, others may use it against you. Don’t give them the satisfaction. Cheers! Paulista01 (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: List of Portuguese Kings according to Google books

Lecen, what is the problem of some Portuguese kings being popular in English via a translated or by their Portuguese names? Are you ruling the way English speakers should choose a name to become more popular?

This is exhausting, mainly to you - who have proved to be a serious and commited editor-and have better to do. I have learned, at my own expense, that one can became so passionate about an issue stops hearing anyone but oneself: You have not read the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), so here it is:

“ The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. Often this will be the local version, as with Madrid. Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form (Aragon, Venice, Normandy; Franz Josef Strauss, Victor Emmanuel III, Christopher Columbus). Rarely, as with Germany or Mount Everest, it will be completely different.

The references for the article should themselves be reliable sources. If one name is clearly most commonly used in the English-language references for the article, we should probably use it. If (as will happen occasionally) something else is demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole, and this is not a question of national varieties of English, use that instead.

Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Established systematic transliterations (e.g. Hanyu Pinyin and IAST) are preferred. Nonetheless, do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one; thus, use Tchaikovsky or Chiang Kai-shek even though those are unsystematic.

The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical. Redirects from non-English names are encouraged. Where there is an English word, or exonym, for the subject but a native version is more common in English-language usage, the English name should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title.

”

João IV de Portugal is named Xoán IV de Portugal (Galician wikipedia); Jean IV de Portugal (French); Juan IV de Portugal (Spanish); Johann IV Portugal (German); Giovanni IV del Portogallo (Italian), etc. Why only English should make room for this? There is a possibility that one sees the English version as a kind of global "esperanto", who knows the future: for now it is in English, and it should respect the rules as such.

If you want to make a detailed search on written sources use Google advanced search - for books in english at any given time or limited to history field such as:

• "João IV of Portugal" subject:"History"

Jan 1, 1980–Dec 31, 2010› Search English pages About 85 results (0.22 seconds)

• "John IV of Portugal" subject:"History"

Jan 1, 1980–Dec 31, 2010› Search English pages About 209 results (0.19 seconds)

Saudações--Uxbona (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Luso-Brazilian History

Lecen, Why don’t we gather all editors interested in Portuguese and Brazilian history and form a WikiProject? We could call it Luso-Brazilian History (like the academic journal Luso-Brazilian Review) or we could choose another name. I believe it would make our work easier and provide a forum for all other editors interested in the subject, it would be cool. What do you think? If you prefer, you can answer by e-mail. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We can start one and see if it will work. I would certainly be more interested in the Imperial and Colonial Era also. The reason I mentioned that Luso-Brazilian History would be a good title is that both countries had a lot of their history interconnected, when we are talking about one normally we would also see repercussions in the other. We also would have access to a larger pool of editors since we have very few editors interested in reviewing Portuguese sources, be it from Goa, Macau, Africa, Brazil or Portugal. What do you think? Paulista01 (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I can't read Portuguese, I'd join a project like this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe it would be a bad idea. I mean, in theory, it would be amazing, but in practice, it would be yet another dead wikiproject. There was not a single moment when I've nominated an article at the FAC nominations, that a member of the Brazil and Portugal wikiprojects appeared. See our ongoing discussion at Talk:John VI of Portugal#Requested move. No one from both wikiprojects appeared. The people who showed up and are against the move never, ever, worked on the article before or have any kind of interest in the subject. They are only there to be... I don't know, to be unreasonable and rude, perhaps? --Lecen (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Still, it's nice to have the categories of all the articles in your scope in one place. Your choice though! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, you are correct, we do need at least 10 editors to have a wikiproject that will really work. I like the idea proposed by Spongie555 below, maybe a taskforce would be a better idea. I only proposed this, so we, editors like Ed, Spongie555, and others can have a support group to help with opinions regarding a subject like American or Latin American monarchies (This I believe would cover Brazilian history up to 1889). This would especially benefit editors like you, since you have been working very hard in articles related to the Empire of Brazil. Unfortunately I did not have the time in the last two years to work as much as I would like here. I am trying to fit more time of my schedule to Wikipedia and I am willing to help. We normally don’t realize how important Wikipedia has become, it is unbelievable but probably more people have read the articles about the Empire of Brazil here than Barman’s books. I have worked in a large library in the US, I know that the volume of readers that check out books about a subject like the Empire of Brazil are almost zero. This is just the new reality, as a result the work done here is very important. As the events in the last few days have demonstrated we need editors in good faith to help improve articles and participate with votes. Maybe in the future more people will come and we may be able to form a group. Cheers! Paulista01 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said: the idea, in theory, is great. Everytime I nominate an article to FAC I send invitations to around 10 editors who are well known in here for having successfully promoted history articles to featured level. Do you know how many review the article? One. Do you known how many of the nine who did not read bother at least to say "Sorry, not interested"? One, at most. No one whom I invited from Former Countries Wikiproject bothered to answer me back. To me, it is amazing to see that there is now, besides me, you, Astynax, Ed and Spongie interested in the the subject. That's five and trust me, it's great. But too few. The John VI request, as you saw, was almost a war. All that for a simple move request. But I am all for it for creating a taskforce. --Lecen (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I know im not in this conversation but maybe you should propose it at WikiProject Council to see if anyone else is interested. Spongie555 (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Spongie, we wouldn't have even five people interested in joining. --Lecen (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 21:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another talkback Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:What's the deal?

Hi Lecen. I do like History, but I just enjoy translating them. The only articles I can write are those about The Simpsons, LOL. As you might know, we don't have a great amount of featured and/or good articles in the Portuguese Wikipedia, especially when it come to History of Brazil. And since you have worked extensively on that subject, I just decided to translate and adapt some of them into Portuguese. Anyway, it's great to know that there are editors engaged in making better articles about Brazilian History. Most of them have a terrible quality in both languages (such as 1964 Brazilian coup d'état and Brazilian military government). --Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, editing wars is not something comfortable to deal with. I, myself, had to ask for the protection of two articles I was editing (Plínio Salgado in the Lusophone Wikipedia, and Dilma Rousseff here). It's amazing how people just won't use the discussion page to make their arguments. But anyway, enjoy yourself with articles on 16th – 19th centuries :-) Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If it interests you, I just helped editing an article about History at the Portuguese Wikipedia which has received a majority of votes to become a featured article. --Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion ?

Hi Lecen ! As you told me you can read French, I would like to have your opinion about this article. I suppose you know very well this prince and I would like you to tell me if there are events or other things which could be added to the present article. Thanks for your help, Konstantinos 82.237.218.242 (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and references. To be honnest, I was thinking you were a bit angry with me and you were not interesting in reading the article... but I am happy to see it was not true! I know prince August was not a perfect man and he was not very interested about Brazil. In fact, he had to go to Brazil because of his family and he never wanted to stay there... I also know that when an historian says he was chosen by princess Leopoldina, it is not totally true. In XIXth century, a prince or a princess did'nt chose his/her own spouse and specially whe he/she was the hereditary prince(ss)... However, I think prince August had a quite interesting life. I have got the book about his mother (princess Clementine) and Olivier Defrance gives a lot of details obout his life. I believe another book of Olivier Defrance could help me to improve the actual article. Unfortunately, I can't find it... All the same, I am happy to have your opinion because you shew with your work that you are a serious contributor. Regards, 82.237.218.242 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas

I've been forced to change my user name due to harassment off-wiki.

If I remember the conversation, the description of Juan Manuel de Rosas was changed from dictator to leader. Dictator is a fairly literal translation from the Spanish Caudillo. That was a clear violation of WP:NPOV in that the majority view in the literature describes him as a Caudillo or dicatator. A minority view of certain extreme nationalist groups label him national hero. If I remember MBelgrano claimed that was a violation of WP:NPOV by using words that label. Clearly it isn't as that is how the majority of the literature describes him. I agreed that changing the description with a wikilink to Caudillo would be suitable as a compromise. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It was nothing to do with MBelgrano, I used to edit under my real name and as its fairly well known I'm from Glasgow it wasn't too difficult for someone to find my home address and phone number. I got some fairly nasty phone calls and unfortunately it was my mother and wife who bore the brunt of it. They're related to the Falklands and Gibraltar, I have a fair idea who it is and the police are investigating. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

PS in English Caudillo is often translated as dictator, not because of a pejorative use, rather it was a title used by the fascist dicatator General Franco. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter V of Portugal

You should try requesting Peter V of Portugal to be moved to Pedro V of Portugal. All kings and queens of portugal after Pedro IV (Peddro I of Brazil) seems to be at their Portuguese names except him.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha. I like the way you said it. That's too bad. I'll do it myself, but you should try helping me support it.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Did it. Can't come up with any other reasons.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Content of Pedro II

Hello, I left a comment in the Pedro II talk page that may be of interest to you. Regards, Missionary (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil

Hey Lecen, I will take a look at the article soon. Question: Have you read the books by Laurentino Gomes? If yes, what did you think? I am asking because I read some interviews, he seems to portray history with a little bit of sarcasm. I tried to order it on Amazon, but could not get it, I am wondering if it is worth the trouble. Take a look at this here. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Lecen. I read the first chapter on his website. I watched his interview in the Veja website, the things he said were absurd. He also told the reporter he is not a historian but a journalist. I agree that Barman is among the best, I have read some of his work, especially published papers. I have a strong respect for historians that go after primary sources and only use good secondary sources. Most Brazilian historians, unfortunately, normally copy the nonsense said by the previous “historian” and when they do analyse anything they do it wrong. I wonder if it has anything to do with the influence of Marxist historians, the majority in the last fifty years in Brazil. Paulista01 (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lecen. You have new messages at Kingpin13's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Empire FAC

There are a couple of sentences at the end of paragraphs which were noted in the review as not not having citations. I think they are covered by the citations already there, but you might want to place a copy of existing citations at the end of those sentences. The sentences which were pointed out by the reviewer are:

• Decline (2nd paragraph), "The means to achieve the overthrow of the Imperial system would soon appear within the Army ranks."
• Demographics (2nd paragraph), "The small number of people and small number of towns reported by the census reveal Brazil's enormous territory to have been sparsely populated."

I think I have fixed or commented the other items in the list of suggestions and corrections. • Astynax ^talk 09:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Moar reviewers plz

Hey mate, I saw your cry for help on Laser Brain's talk page. Do you still want another pair of eyes on Empire of Brazil? I don't know anything about history articles, but I'd be happy to help out however I can. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Solid. At the moment I'm a busy clam both on- and off-wiki, so I can't promise it'll get done quickly, but I'll try to get you some feedback to sink your teeth into in the next day or two. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies

Congratulations on the FA. Sorry I couldn't review it, but I was away from Wikipedia for two months and have only just seen your message. Abraços, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dom Pedro II

Lecen, check this out. The Museu Imperial uses the last name de Habsburg e Bragança for Dom Pedro II. Unusual, huh? Most sources that I know don't use a last name for him. Paulista01 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, however this appears to be a mistake. I checked the source, Arquivo Nobiliárquico by Barão de Smith Vasconcellos and could not find it, here. This is embarrassing for the Museum. Paulista01 (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Isabel, nice. I worked on Rodrigo Silva and Antonio Prado a few years ago, this is the period of the empire that I am most familiar with. I still have to go back and finish the articles. I did most of my work on the Portuguese Wikipedia, however we had trouble with an editor there, check the talk page here and Lei Aurea in Portuguese. It will be interesting to see the article improved here. Paulista01 (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Maria Amélia

The article mentions that she lived in the Palace of Ramalhão. I see a reference to a Ramalhão Palace being somewhere around Sintra and another in Lisbon. I am wondering which of them is the same place? I do not see it listed at Monuments of Portugal, and I wonder if the palace has an article, or if it has been renamed or destroyed? If it was in Sintra, perhaps we should include a wikilink to the article on the town. I hope to finish going through the article tonight or tomorrow. • Astynax ^talk 03:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that a good goal for the Pedro II articles would be to get them all to WP:GA or WP:FA level so that they can qualify for Featured Topic. Once that is done, it will make it easier to also get Empire of Brazil to the same level. • Astynax ^talk 07:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Pedro II

I wanted to tell you that Pedro II Image File:Pedro II of Brazil - Brady-Handy.jpg has passed FP. I saw your FP nomination and let's see if it passes. Spongie555 (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)