This is an archive of past discussions with User:Astynax. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello Astynax. Thank you for your response and for creating the infobox. I've copied it here, so I can try some other parameters. I added a simple mapping function, as you can see. I think it would be more than enough for our current needs. Maybe we can add a parameter for excavations? (date, archaeologist, etc.). Yazan (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
That's perfect. There's one little thing though, the infobox assumes that the site is an individual building, but most archaeological articles are about whole abandoned settlements, for example Ras Ibn Hani. We need a field to identify the cultures, or civilizations that the site was part of. What do you think? Yazan (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
That's great then. I would suggest adding the area field too. Many sources only mention the area without mentioning the actual length, width measurements. Is there a certain process for approval of an infobox btw? Yazan (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, with area and cultures parameters, the template would be good to go. I was thinking maybe we should group the parameters describing recent information together (condition, open to public, excavated, archaeologists, etc.) with a line break between the two sections? Also, having a different example about a large settlement seems like a good idea too. Thanks for all your work, I think it was a much needed infobox. Best, Yazan (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
(indent) Thanks for creating this infobox, Astynax. I think it looks just perfect! I've already added it here, Minet el-Beida. Will populate more articles with it later on. Cheers! Yazan (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I am going to work on the lead now. Do you have any suggestion regarding the article? Is it ok? Is it well explained? --Lecen (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I just ended the lead. Could you take a look int it? Improve it as you prefer, please. I will nominate it for GA now. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have forgotten to add the page. I already fixed the issue. Why did you ask a friend to review the marquis of Paraná's article? Do you believe that there are sentences that might be called POV?
Also, it does not matter how long it will take to someone review the article about Pedro II's downfall. I am already happy for simply finishing it. I will work on other articles meanwhile. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I tried to remove the caption above the Platine War article but that editor who reviewed it reverted it. Due to that I decided to add Argentine sources on Rosas's dictatorship, even though I believe they should be in an article about a war. Could you take a look at them? --Lecen (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Take a look in the history of later edits in the Platine War article. What that "Belgrano" user wants is to make the article focused on Rosas to show him in a positive light. I can't stand that. Not that trying to force everyone else to accept a ruthless and barbarian dictator as a hero is that bad (yes, I am being ironic), but destroying the article for the sake of a personal view is too much for me. --Lecen (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean. It is rude and unproductive to remove sourced statements from an article without consensus. Had "Belgrano" added better-sourced statements to give an alternative view, it might have been justifiable to try to rewrite, but this editor doesn't seem willing to do that. I think it best to go slowly. I see another editor has come into the discussion, and perhaps s/he will come up with something better. It is possible for an article can note that there are 2 opposing views, but they must both be equally well-sourced. If it looks like something useful will come out, I will jump in. If not, I will revert unsourced edits. • Astynaxtalk16:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Nah, ignore it. It isn't worth it. I've seen that before and I now how it is going to end. I had a similar issue in Brazil article over the history section. Although I brought countless sources to back my reasons and the other editor brought nothing except his personnal opinions (no kidding, that's what happened) we were both treated as "equal" parts with "opposing views". After several weeks of endless discussions where I showed the views of several historians and the other editor kept bringing nothing I managed to "convince" the other editors that were not part of the dispute. Several weeks. I am not going to lose my time on that, trust me. Anyway, I began working on "Legacy of Pedro II" article. Could you take a look in it, once you have some time? --Lecen (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for writing the lead. I was going to do that once you had finish the remaining sections, but you saved me time. I removed "leader" from a sentence that says that he was the greatest Brazilian leader. The sources do not says that (although that is quite well established among historians) but instead that he is regarded as the greatest Brazilian. Anyway, I am going to nominate it to GA. Let's see what is going to happen. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Platine War
I have, for the last week, worked in the Platine War article. I looked after books written in English so that the article would not have as a bibliography books written in Portuguese only. All week passed and that editor called Belgrano did not say a word. Then I nominated the article to GA once again and he reappeared. Take a look: Talk:Platine War#Second nomination
Tell me, how can I do anything with someone who falsely accuses me of calling him "Hitler" (what I did say was that if a historian wrote that Hitler ordered the death of 6 million Jews that historian would be called a "detractor"?). I added an information written by an American historian, not Brazilian, that Rosas murdered 20,000 Argentines. Whar Belgrano does? He talks about demographics and that is not true, although with no source to back his claims! --Lecen (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed this editor's long message defending his earlier review. As you already know, it is the article's job to summarize WP:Reliable sources, and not to make independent conclusions. If there are good reliable sources which support a better picture of Rosas or any other fact cited from other reliable sources, then an editor can add the opposing view, so long as it is done in a way that does not give undue weight to either side.
Your use of Hitler as an example is one that I have seen used in WP:NPOV illustrations, i.e., that if all the sources said that Hitler was a wonderful person who hated war and violence, then the Wiki article would have to reflect that. But if only a few revisionist historians pushed that view in opposition to the overwhelming body of sources, it would be WP:Undue to include the view supported by a fringe minority. Although the tag requesting more input had been on the article for some weeks, the only recent additions had no sources given to back them up, and well-sourced material was deleted. These points can be raised if a reviewer asks for input or puts the nomination on hold. I think the way the earlier review was handled speaks for itself. • Astynaxtalk16:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
He went so far as to claim a major conspiracy between the second French Empire, the British Empire and Argentina to ruin Rosas's public image. Can you believe that? Now he is making math with the demographics of Argentina to prove that 20,000 did not die. I care less on that. I bring sources and he just bring his personal thoughts on that. And that's what make me afraid of: if another reviewer appears he might take Belgrando's claims in account. Or worse, as you said yourself: he might bring books that gives a minority view on the subject. That's why I told him that he can do that on Rosas's article, but not in an article about a war. --Lecen (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Atynax, it's impossible. Belgrano has made recent edits that do not help at all. Look at this: "Rosas ran a first term as governor in the 1829-1832 period, declining to be reelected, and again in 1835, this time with the legislature granting him the "sum of public power" (Spanish: "Suma del poder público"). Which menas nothing more than "dictatorship". He does anything, anything, even if that means changing the wording of a sentence to present the dictator in positive light. It's ridiculous. He tries at all cost to discredit American, British, Brazilian and Argentine sources withou an reasonable claims and go as far as to add a figure of "80" people killed by Rosas. Like 80 people killed "isn't that bad". And what source he uses? This one: "Juan Manuel de Rosas, el maldito de la historia oficial" (Juan Manuel de Rosas, the bewitched of oficial history"). As you can see, he uses a book that the tile itself recognize that Argentine official history, that is, the mainstream, the one that every Argentine student learn is wrong. If that's not a minority view of the subject, what is it, then? Also, the "marzorca" was a poltical police force and was written as such in the text. he removed "political". With subtle ways, he makes editions to the text altering its original meaning to accord with his point of view. Can't you give your opinion in there? P.S.: Now he has called a friend to try to discredit me. Unbelievable! --Lecen (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I will be out intermittently for the next couple of days, and I cannot comment on the talk page right now. I have, however, raised the issue of the source Belgrano has used in his edit at RSN and NPoVN for guidance by uninvolved editors. If you comment over there, please leave a note on the Platine War talk page also as a courtesy. • Astynaxtalk03:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You should do it. I have know idea how to do that. I agree with the idea of having an unique image for each article, one for every epoch of Pedro II's life. Why not use the ones that can be found on the lead? About he links to it, I believe it should have one to the main article itself (Pedro II of Brazil) and the others should be something like: Early life (1825-31). --Lecen (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
It looks very, very nice! I made a few changes because I felt that with the addition of an image and also of a caption it looked awkward. I also changed the wording of the links: now it is far simpler. Instead of "consolidation", "conflict" and others, only the span for every section appears. I believe it will be better for anyone who does not know much about the emperor. However, the changes I made are only an example and if you do not like it, you can revert it. --Lecen (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I begun working at Pedro II of Brazil article. Could take a look into it? Also, could you, somehow, shorten the sections "Marriage" and "Establishment of the imperial authority"? Feel free to remove or shorten anything. Also, I've been very lazy this time and most of the text are quotations. But I also did that on purpose so that you could have more freedom to work on the text and make it smaller. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Astynax, there was a piece of the text where it was written:
"The parties served as a principal conduit between the national politicians and the dominant socioeconomic interests in the different pasts of Brazil. Patronage and the dispensing of favors enabled politicians, as Pedro II acknowledged, to build up a following, to consolidate support, and to advance their careers."[1] "The success of Pedro II's reign lay in this interaction between the monarch and the individuals and interests surrounding him."[2]
You changed it to:
The Emperor also learned to use patronage and special favors to advance his programs and to advance certain politicians.[3] This interdependence and interaction did much to influence the direction of Pedro II's reign.[4]
That is not what the text originally meant. On the contrary: Pedro II detested patronage. He knew that in politics he could not expect politicians to be "100% pure and virtuous" figures. The had their own interests, their own goals, etc... or as it was written: "dispensing of favors enabled politicians [...] to build up a following, to consolidate support, and to advance their careers". And it ends with: "success of Pedro II's reign lay in this interaction between the monarch and the individuals and interests surrounding him." The author was not talking about patronage in the meaning such as when someone supports arts or similar. He was talking about political patronage. As you can see on patronage article: "In some countries the term is used to describe political patronage, which is the use of state resources to reward individuals for their electoral support." That means that to rule, and in the ways he wanted, that is, with honesty, employing public funds to improve general welfare, and not on personal interests, he would have to be careful and to do that on a way that would not cause a rift between him and the politicians. In other words, he had to be careful all the times to not fall in a pit. That is why once he supported the end of slavery he ended up losing his throne. As long as he was careful and opposed the "patronage" and personal interests in subtle, but effective ways, no rift would appear. Once he entered in open confrontation, everything begun to fall apart. I don't know if I was quite clear, I am sorry if I was not. But everything else is just perfect! --Lecen (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: I added more text now. See if could do somekind of miracle and make it shorter, even by removing not so much important info! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that needs to be more clear. He did make use of patronage in the sense of granting such favors as were available to him (enoblement, advancing careers of specific politicians, etc.). But I wasn't careful of the negative connotations of the word, which you noted (paying off individuals for support, etc.). I will try to go over the new text tonight. • Astynaxtalk17:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Platine War
Did you see what Belgrano did now? The guy had simply disappeared and now he is back once again. He was editing meanwhile since anyone can see that on his history log. Why he does that? For more than a week he was gone and now he is back? He doesn't stick to the debate. Everytime I bring sources and more sources from several countries he ignores and vanishes. He did that once when I complained about his review and he did that again now. It is like he simply wants to do anything to prevent the article from moving foward. --Lecen (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Please, take a look in here. Although nowhere in the article about the Platine War says that, that is, that an international occurred because Urquiza wanted a constitution he added that. I don't know if you saw Talk:Platine War#Contemporary views on the war but if you haven't, you should. I brought the journal of an American Admiral who was in the area during the war and his thoughts about it each day that passed. You will notice that it follows closely to what is written in the article as said by modern historians.
Belgrano is one sneaky fellow. In Juan Manuel de Rosas#Criticism and historical perspective you will see written that "After the defeat of Rosas in Caseros and the return of his political adversaries, it was decided to portrait him under a negative light. The legislature of Buenos Aires charged him with High treason in 1857, Nicolás Arbarellos supported his vote with the following speech" Decided by who? By the international conspiracy that Belgrano says that existed? And according to whom? Because I took a look at the source and all it says is the speech of the politician that voted in favor of Rosas's being charged with high treason in in Spanish. And take a look at the name of the book used as source: "Juan Manuel de Rosas, el maldito de la historia oficial" (Juan Manuel de Rosas, the damned of the official history". Only by the title you can see that is clearly a revisionist book, since "official" means the history as it is widely known and taught at schools. Belgrano does not warn the reader about that. This is why I am 100% against his ideas. Anyone is free to write in the articles, it's obvious. But I can not stand to someone who wants to "cheat" and re-write history bey taking words out of its true context or changing the meaning of sentences. --Lecen (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have finally ended the section "Patron of arts and sciences". It is by far the hardest one; I believe that the remaining ones will be far easier. I also added a small, but important, sentence to "Popularity and clash with the British Empire". I don't believe I did right, however. Ow, I also improved the picture used on the infobox. This is how it was and now this is how it is. Is it better? --Lecen (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think that the new version looks better when it is reduced for the infobox. I did some cleanup of the Platine War article. The wording seems neutral to me. If the same sort of review is given again, I suggest appealing the review (Reassessment) rather than nominating again. I will try to go over the arts and sciences section tonight or tomorrow. • Astynaxtalk20:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. No matter what we do, it will be impossible to make the article about the Platine War "neutral". As anyone can see on the talk page, I brought books written by American, British, Brazilian and even Argentine historians that agree in every single point. That user called Belgrano insists in somekind of "conspiracy" to make his favorite dictator look bad on the the picture. He is the kind of person that if the article had more editors contributing to it, none of those problems would have happened, because Belgrano would have been kicked far away. So, forget it, let it go. I am planning to make the article about Pedro II a featured one. I believe it has everything to acchieve such grade. Since Brazil is going to be the seat for the next FIFA World Cup (2014) and next Olympics games, there will be quite probably a surge in interest on Brazilian topics in here. --Lecen (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Astynax, could you change the meaning of "The Emperor was oblivious to the inevitable political damage to his image and the monarchy which would result from support for abolition." I might be wrong, but the word oblivious would suggest that he did not notice the possible consequences of moving ahead on his abolitionism goal. On the contrary, as you can see in the quote taking from the source. He knew the risks, but he did not fear losing the throne. As you probably are tired of knowing now, he simply did not care if he lose it. --Lecen (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I meant "oblivious" in the sense that he was unaffected by and didn't care, which is the main meaning of the word. But "ignored" is probably clearer and I'll change it to that. • Astynaxtalk17:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I've finished the section "Trip to Europe and northern Africa". I am planing to all the way to the end with this article, that is, I would like to see it featured. Do you agree? If yes, do you have any suggestions or thoughts that you'd like to share? P.S.: I've finished the section "Quarrel with bishops". If possible, could you make it smaller, somehow? Remove whatever you believe it is not really necessary. --Lecen (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I will try to take a look tomorrow, as I was busy today. I agree that it can be a good FA candidate. As you probably know, the FA process is more difficult with the review done by a group of people who have different criteria. Some are very critical of articles which don't line up with their own ideas of how an article should be presented. Once the text looks OK, we should compare how the article is formated to other Featured articles, and then ask for a peer review specifically as it would relate to a Featured Article candidate. • Astynaxtalk06:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. I've been looking at that for the last couple of days. I am taking as a model the one about Augustus. That is why I always ask you to try to diminish somehow my usualy large text: it's 118,273 bytes wide. But I believe we are doing fine so far. By the way: do you still want to help me out on writing this article? I've kind of dragged you into this. If you don't want, I'd understand, really. You've helped me a lot, already. More than you should have, indeed. --Lecen (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It is large, but the size comes down when we don't count the Wikipedia markup, references, etc. It isn't a problem for me to continue to help out. Some days I am busy, but usually I can do something. • Astynaxtalk09:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I am all done with the article. Could you take a look once you got some time? I was looking at other "similar" articles and notices that the size might no be a problem. Many U.S. Presidents articles are larger than 150 KB and the featured article Augustus is over 118 KB. The only complain I have about Pedro II article is the section "decline and fall". Since I simply brought pieces from different section of another article, the way it is now, it doesn't make the text flow so well. --Lecen (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I will try and get to it tonight. It may take me a couple of days, as I would like to go over the whole thing a second time to make sure my own edits will flow with the rest. • Astynaxtalk20:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Take your time. There is no hurry at all. I does not matter if we take a day, weeks or even months to make an article look good. And don't push yourself too hard. Wikipedia is to have fun, not pain in the ass (life has enough of that, already!). I am taking a look at other articles meanwhile, although I am not editing any so far. --Lecen (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
There are many articles that are featured and have around 100 KB. But I trust in you, do as you belive it will be better for it. I wont be able to help you for the next days. Also, could you make the request for peer review? Since you write very, very well, a request coming from you you have far more chance of getting more attention than one written by me. --Lecen (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Teresa Cristina
Astynax, I believe you were way too fast back there. We can not please everyone according to their personal taste. Frederick III, German Emperor and Pedro II of Brazil have both the full name in bold and a translation to English of it. And both articles are featured. DrKiernan has passed many of his own articles about the British royal and that's great, but the British royalty isn't the Brazilian royalty. He wrote his articles following his own standard, which I'm not saying that is wrong, but does not mean that it's the rule.
To him, Pedro II can be themed "Emperor Dom Pedro II" but Francesco I can not be called "King Don Francesco I"? Now he can chose which monarch can be called that way? Isnt it arbitrary? And why we can not have a short explanation of what is "Dom" (Don or Lord)? Augustus, another featured article, explains in its lead the meaning of Augustus: "In 27 BC the Senate awarded him the honorific Augustus ('the revered one')". There is a wikilink to Augustus, nonetheless, the article tells the reader its meaning anyway. --Lecen (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
If I behaved wrong there, please, tell me. But I did according to other articles that aready exist and also because it's pointless and counterproductive to appease all editors in every single complaints they have. And in this case, I thought that doing it for the sake of approving his personal taste would only worsen the article. After all, the articles related to Imperial Brazil must follow a certain standard. Anyway, feel free to undo anything I did if you believe it was wrong. --Lecen (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
For a different reason, I think that it would be best to remove the honorifics from non-Brazilian royalty ("Don Carlos IV", "Doña Maria Isabella of Spain", "King Dom João VI" and "King Don Francesco I"). The reason is that it is confusing in English because "Dom", "Don", "Dona" and "Donna" are frequently used as given names or shortened names in the U.S.A. and Canada. I agree that we should explain Dom and Dona for Teresa Cristina, Pedro II and their children, but it is confusing to put notes for all the other people. The suggestion to put the explanations in an endnote is a good one, and it will make the lead both easier to read, and more in compliance with the policy which says that the lead should only summarize the material that occurs later in the body of the article. I will try to put the explanations into endnotes later today.
I removed Teresa's full name because it is given in the Infobox already, and because it was not mentioned in the body of the article. It was a very minor criticism, but still valid. We can do that for the article on Pedro II if someone complains about the full name, but no one has yet mentioned it. It is OK to discuss on the review page, so I don't think you did anything wrong. • Astynaxtalk21:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I made major changes to Teresa Cristina's article. I found a very recent scientific paper that portrays her very differently from the old books. It reveals a quite interesting person. And it makes far more sense than Barman's opinion of her. If she wasn't allowed to do anything as he says, how could Teresa Cristina was able exchange letters with archeologists, bring archeologist pieces, as well as Italian singers to play in operas, etc?? But I'm not surprised, since I was already using another recent source that gives a different view of her. Historiography is changing the way it sees the empress and not the article has both sides. Could you improve the text once you have time? P.S.: I forgot to change the lead, could you do it once you've finished with the main text?
"Ao recuperar a memória de D. Pedro II, colocando-o no panteão dos heróis nacionais, a historiografia republicana o representou como o 'Grande Pai' de barba branca, genitor afável e bondoso; Teresa Cristina, a 'Mãe dos Brasileiros', foi sendo colocada na sombra. numa atitude algo machista." Translation: "When it recovered the memory of D. Pedro II, placing him in the pantheon of the national heroes, the republican historiography represented him as the white bearded 'Great Father', an affable and kind father; while Teresa Cristina, the 'Mother of the Brazilians', was placed in the shadow, in a somewhat machista attitude." This is one great phrase that the scietific paper has. The historians shielded and glorified Pedro II to such a point that anyone around him lost anykind of own light that it could have. I plan to start working on those several "Pedro II" articles and I will certainly write more about the historiography's opinion toward him. --Lecen (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I have made a few adjustments. If there are to be any major changes, then it might be best to withdraw the FAC nomination until they are finished. At this point, I don't think it will affect the FAC. • Astynaxtalk08:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry. I'm finished with the article. I just thought we could add a little bit more about recent studies about her. --Lecen (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil FAC nomination
Astynax, i'd like to name Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil to a FAC candidacy. Could you improve it once you have some time? I made several improvements to the article and I believe I'm done with it. Instead of a simple biography, I opted to also add information regarding the impact of th child into his father's life as well as in Brazil. The three different crises mentioned in the last paragraph are the Praiera revolt, the conflict with the British Empire that led to the end of the Slave traffic and the Platine War. You don't have to mention them, you might simply change for "domestic and foreign crises" or something similar. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow. It looks wonderful. You did a brilliant job back there. Sauer was a book I used that had information explaining what were the Brazilian orders and which Princes were members of them. This one was published in 1889. I opted for using an edition of th book that was published around the time of the Prince's life (which was even published by the original creator of the book). Barman (2005) was the Portuguese-written eidtion of Princess Isabel's biography. I changed them for its original English-written 2002 edition but forget this one somehow. P.S.: I saw the Marquis of Paraná's hits. I'ts very impressive, taking in accout that it was not Today's Featured article, but merely a small note left at the corner of the page. --Lecen (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The João VI or John VI debate
The central debate, that is, what should be done with the Portuguese/Brazilian monarchs' names is being ignored. As an editor called EdJohnston correctly remarked, "Take a look at John VI of Portugal#Marriages and descendants. Notice that there is a 'John' and a 'Michael' in that list, mixed in with lot of other people with Portuguese names. Doesn't that look like a motley collection? In the 'succession' box at the bottom of that page, John VI is the only one whose name is in an English style. His predecessor and successor are in Portuguese style. The problem of the variation of name styles first started to bother me when I was trying to read about the descendants of João I. If you want a surreal experience, try to read the first paragraph of Isabella of Portugal (1397–1471). You will never be able to figure out that her real given name was 'Isabel' in Portuguese. The conflicting name styles completely fog the issue. (If your patience runs out, click the interwiki link for the Portuguese wikipedia and you can find out people's real names)."
One thing is to have all of them listed with their Anglicized names and another in their original, Portuguese, names. But seeing "John VI", son of "Maria I" and father of "Pedro I" is odd. What bothers me is that the editors who oppose the move are uncapable of talking, discussing, giving ideas, or anything similar. Rudeness, mockery, is all they can do. But why? Why this kind of behavior? This is something that I can not understand. Why this behavior for such an unimportant article? Couldn't they simply share their thoughts in a more appropriate way?
There is no discussion over what to do with the problem about the monarch's names. If it should be moved to one or another. They are against it and that's all. No ideas at all.
Ow, in case you don't remember, user MBelgrano is that same Argentine with whom we had a long a troubled relationship in the Platine War Good Article nomination. Obivously, he is not there to help or because he wants to share his opinion. And he wants revenge. Mostly because I requested the move of "Argentina-Brazil War" to "Cisplatine War" in Talk:Cisplatine War#Requested move. This is the kind of people we have to deal with. People who do not collaborate at all with any of the articles, do not care about the subject, but are there simply for the sake of causing trouble. MBelgrano, Cripipper, etc...
I really don't care if the name stays as John VI. It won't matter to me. Although it will certainly be odd the maintenance Portuguese/English fruit salad. --Lecen (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should change the name of Brazil's largest city to "Saint Paul" also. Where does it stop? Do we go back to using "Henry" for the last emperor of China (or similar badly anglicized names for other Asian rulers) just because there are many old references that use it? There are many people on Wikipedia who have doctrinaire outlooks and who are unwilling to give good reasons for their positions. It happens in every type of article, and often results in glaring inconsistencies. I have noticed that old British sources are much more insistent in using anglicized forms of names, and I wonder if that is an old colonialist attitude. History has come a long way since Queen Victoria's era, when most of the European royal houses were closely related to her and they anglicized everything.
I can better understand just using common English spellings (such as "Joao" instead of "João" or "Eugenie" instead of "Eugénie") because it make it easier to type on English keyboards, but the pronunciation is not so different. The person who responded to me that the Italian, French and German monarchs were all/mostly anglicized didn't bother to read the lists very carefully, and also doesn't seem to be aware that there are recent English-language sources that use original spellings for even the exceptions.
I am not worried about it. The articles which we have written are correct in using the Portuguese form of the names, because that is what our sources use and it is consistent within the article. • Astynaxtalk19:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
They are a both the same! Cintra is nowadays part of the Lisbon metropolitan area, but not in the 19th century. I might be mistaken, but there is no article about this palace neither on Portuguese Wikipedia nor in the English Wikipedia. Cheers! P.S.: You don't need to rush yourself with this article. Don't worry about it. --Lecen (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Cryptic was to further expand the lead. I have no idea how are we going to do that without leaving the track of the subject or making it overly large. The lead itself already has a brief mention of a "huge but sparsely populated and ethnically diverse empire"; also of a "freedom of speech, respect for civil rights, vibrant economic growth and especially for its form of government: a functional, representative parliamentary monarchy"; and that also "also victorious in three international conflicts (the Platine War, the Uruguayan War and the Paraguayan War) under Pedro II's rule, as well as prevailing in several other international disputes and domestic tensions". It has everything, I believe. The entire "government" section is there in the lead. The "economy" too. "Society" also. Perhaps we could add a brief mention of slavery and its end? And add somewhere about a rich culture? Don't know. But I strongly oppose removing text from the main body of the article as EdJohnston suggested. --Lecen (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should change it. Mentioning the issue of slavery might be good, because it does have more presence in the body of the article. Not every suggestion is an improvement, even suggestions we or other editors put into the article. Sometimes change is just a change—not necessarily better, not necessarily worse. Those kind of things make me wonder if the articles begin to read like a committee report from the European Union. I will try and look at their suggestions later tonight. • Astynaxtalk04:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Empire of Brazil FAC nomination
Astynax, Fifelfoo has raised concern over the sources. I'd like to ask you to take care of that, if possible. But I'll help you out here:
1) Barsa 1987, p. 270 (v.4) and Barsa 1987, p. 355 (v.10) are part of "Barsa (1987). Enciclopédia Barsa. Rio de Janeiro: Encyclopædia Britannica do Brasil". I have no idea why he confused it with Lyra v.1 1977, p. 200 (Lyra, Heitor (1977). História de Dom Pedro II (1825–1891): Ascenção (1825–1870). 1. Belo Horizonte: Itatiaia.).
2) "Please supply article authors, article titles, article page spans." I don't believe I understand exactly what he meant here. However, if he wants to know if Enciclopédia Barsa gives the name of wrote the specific article, well, it doesn't. If he wants to know from what article inside the encyclopedia I got the information, its is from "Brasil" (Brazil) on volume 4 and "Maranhão" on volume 10.
3) "Why does "Graça_Filho 2004, p. 21..." I'll leave this one with you.
4) The missing references are:
Munro 1942, p. 279: Munro, Dana Gardner. The Latin American Republics; A History. New York: D. Appleton, 1942. (English)
Carvalho 1987, p. 84–85 is in fact Carvalho (2002), I already corrected that.
Vasquez 2007, p. 38.: Vasquez, Pedro Karp. Nos trilhos do progresso: A ferrovia no Brasil imperial vista pela fotografia. São Paulo: Metalivros, 2007 ISBN978-85-85371-70-8 (Portuguese)
Ermakoff 2006, p. 189: Ermakoff, George. Rio de Janeiro – 1840–1900 – Uma crônica fotográfica. Rio de Janeiro: G. Ermakoff Casa Editorial, 2006. ISBN85-98815-05-5 (Portuguese)
Calmon 1975, p. 1611: Calmon, Pedro. História de D. Pedro II. 5 v. Rio de Janeiro: J. Olympio, 1975. (Portuguese)
Parkinson 2008, p. 128: Parkinson, Roger. The Late Victorian Navy: The Pre-Dreadnought Era and the Origins of the First World War. Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 2008. ISBN978-1-8438-3372-7 (English)
Sodré 2004, p. 201: Sodré, Nelson Werneck. Panorama do Segundo Império. 2. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Graphia, 2004. ISBN85-85277-21-1 (Portuguese)
Levine 1999, pp. 63–64: Levine, Robert M. The History of Brazil. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1999. ISBN978-0-313-30390-6 (English)
5) "why is único bolded?". Good question. The book is a compilation of volume 1 and 2 of "Um Estadista do Império" (A Statesman of the Empire) into a single volume (volume único).
6) "as English language when no other English language citation is?" Don't know what he is talking about. Books by Barman and Bethel are English-written sources and are identified as such.
7) "I am broadly concerned with the use of textbooks (Vianna, Hélio (1994). História do Brasil: período colonial, monarquia e república (15 ed.)." Why?
When he said "textbook" did he mean "schoolbook"? Is that what he said? That's a 720-page book, not a schoolbook. Also, you called national revenue as "GDP" which is incorrect. What the text means is how much tax was collected by the government. --Lecen (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: His demands are ridiculous. He wants to see the picture with the ethnic groups also representing "classes". Not only that, his demands for articles taken from journals makes no sense at all. --Lecen (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more worried I become with the bad quality of the nomination process of FACs. I noticed that every time we nominated an article, we always ended up becoming hostages of an editor who uses the rules of Wikipedia in accordance with his narrow interpretation. I know that I lost my head with Fifelfoo, but it bothered me (and a lot) the insinuation of racism. Not only of racism, but as well as of bad faith, bad use of sources, partiality and even of plagiarism in other nominations. But I believe that what causes me the most trouble is that those same editors do not bother to read the article at all. They complain about some aspects that little matter in the general context. Well, but that's life and all is left to do is keep moving forward. Nonetheless, I prefer to let you and the others answer back. I'll talk if it's something related to the content of the text itself. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes editors bring up objections which are just their personal preferences, style or viewpoints, and not anything to do with FAC requirements. It is impossible to satisfy everyone, and especially if the article is to reflect the the consensus of sources. At some point we just stop restating the same things and let the FAC director and 4 delegates decide whether there is any merit in the objection. I wish the whole process were easier, and that people would be more specific about to what they are objecting—some do, but as many don't. • Astynaxtalk23:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting more and more worried as time passes. Not a single review of the article so far. With the excepetion, of course, of one editor who seems to have forgotten about the article (not the first time it happens with us). I tried to invite editors who had somehow a connection with the article or with the subject but SandyGeorgia complained. She was right, indeed. I failed to notice that I invited way too much people. Nonetheless, I removed almost all invitations but nothing has happened so far. What should we do? --Lecen (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I also have noticed that several articles are stuck without much input. SandyGeorgia inserted the {{backlog}} template on the FAC page earlier this week to attract more reviewers, but it has now been removed. So it seems that reviews have been very slow. They should get Teresa Cristina finished soonest, but we may need to wait until Empire of Brazil gets toward the bottom of the second section of the Nominations list before it gets more attention. • Astynaxtalk07:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
There isn't. I mean, there are, but there is no information regarding the source, not the exact date nor the author. --Lecen (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm having a small trouble back at Empire of Brazil. I tried to reason with the user, who already got in trouble before with edit warring. Looking at his talk page, it seems that he is the kind of user who enjoys looking at articles' names and moving or "correcting" as it goes. --Lecen (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Cryptic C62's argument that the lead has to be in the exact same proportion as the main text makes little sense to me. Perhaps we should stick with his oppose? I also considered the idea of improving Pedro II's remainign articles so that we could have a featured topic. I'll work on them as soon as I'm finished with isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil's article. --Lecen (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Moses with the tablets of the Ten Commandments
WP:MOSLEAD does not say anything about balance or proportion except to say that the lead section should reflect the "relative emphasis" of material in the article. All the lead must do is summarize the article. This article is about a historical entity (the Empire of Brazil) and it is ALL history. Some of the items, such as giving the statistics for various census figures and similar sections, only serve to explain that changes took place over the history of the Empire.
The MOS says, "in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text". There is no requirement to cover 100% of the article in the lead. That even s/he says that the existing lead covered 70% of the body seems to be a relatively high percentage. I disagree with her/his method of calculating a percentage, as it is hardly exact and relies on personal opinion and things like counting headings (which do not tell the whole story). Even if the calculation produced unimpeachable statistics, s/he is ignoring that WP:MOSLEAD is a guideline, not policy, and not written on stones and given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. If the reviewer wishes to oppose, that is fine. We do not have to agree with every suggestion or please every editor. The FAC Delegates will make a decision after looking through the article and review comments. • Astynaxtalk08:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe Empire of Brazil will be raised to featured in the next days. There is no reason to why it shouldn't. I'm right now trying to find some time to start working on Princess Isabel's article. After I'm done, I'll move to all those Pedro II's sub-articles. Let's make them all featured, why not?! Anyway, I'd like to request you to make a small change in Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. The last paragraph is mostlycorrect, but it's missing a vital point made by historian Roderick J. Barman: that Pedro II would concentrate "all my forces and all my devotion to assuring the progress and the prosperity of my people", regardless of what impact or consequence, whether good or bad, his actions, choices and policies would have to the monarchy's future. Everything he did later, like openly positioning himself against slavery, was done in a way tha he did not care if it could bring the monarchy's downfall. The way it's written in the article now sounds simply like a chart of good intentions of an idealist person. P.S.: I nominated Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil. The nomination page is here. Since we are allowed to have 2 nominations at the same time, I saw no problem doing it. However, if you have or is planning to make another nomination, I'll remove it and wait the Empire of Brazil's end. I also noticed that you did not review Maria Amélia's lead. Perhaps you should do it once you have some time. But don't worry for now. I 'dont believe we're going have reviewers so soon. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
