User talk:Astynax/Archive 3

More $%$# Dispute Tagging

I'm very sorry, but I've got to sit this one out. Maybe John Carter can look in, or one of the GAR reviewers. They seemed fairly neutral and level-headed. Time to review WP:DRR(?). --Nemonoman (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, truly. Nothing more wearing or grating than this sort of garbage, and oh do I understand the need for stepping back. I may not know the ins and outs, but at least it has resulted in coming across more, unimpeachable references to back up things that are challenged as weak (though they don't really seem controversial or unusual to me). I guess I'm not supposed to say things like "defacing" or "vandalism" but the unreferenced blanking and tagging seem to be nothing more than more of the same behavior from last June. I'll see what tomorrow brings. John Carter may still be on break (hope he's OK), but I can post to the project page if need be. Thanks, and remember:

• Jack: "I have also in my possession, you will be pleased to hear, certificates of Miss Cardew's birth, baptism, whooping cough, registration, vaccination, confirmation, and the measles; both the German and the English variety."
• Lady Bracknell: "Ah! A life crowded with incident, I see. Though perhaps somewhat too exciting for a young girl."

Guess it doesn't apply at all to the situation at hand, but I've been chuckling at that all day for some reason. Perhaps my sanity is getting a bit frayed around the edges. • Astynax ^talk 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability.--Nemonoman (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid ole Oscar was looking at someone just like me at the time. Seems easier to see man in God, than vice versa. • Astynax ^talk 04:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil's early life and accession

Hello, my friend. I began working on the article about Pedro II once again. I've removed the text of each section and created new articles. The first one is Pedro II of Brazil's early life and accession. I've added more text and nos all that it is left is to add ISBN of a few books and a couple of images. Could you take a look in it? Feel free to remove the quotations and rewrite them as you please. Thank you once more, --Lecen (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC) P.S.: I'd like to know your thoughs about the article, also!

I did a bit on the article lead, and will go over the remainder tomorrow. I will be interested in seeing how the Pedro II article will tie together all the smaller articles. Together, these will be a very good resource. • Astynax ^talk 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's 100% done. I've added a couple of images and it would be nice if you could add a alt text to it. Also, could you somehow change the following senteces: In "personal terms" his "sister's disappearence caused deep distress to the surviving children. Her death intensified their [Pedro II and his remaining two sisters] sense of insecurity" (in Guardianship section) and The most important of these occurred when the young emperor and his sisters learned in December of the early and unexpected death of his father and a few months later, on June 1835, of their grandfather Francis II's death (who had always kept a close eye on his grandchildren and looked for their well being). Their death strengthened the "three's siblings feeling of solidarity, of mutual support" and reinforced their "bonds of affection" (in education section). Once you've ended, I will request a peer review. --Lecen (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added new alt text for the 2 new images and also have made changes to the sentences which you mentioned. • Astynax ^talk 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've requested a peer review for it. Let's see what will happen. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Massimo Introvigne

[1] = query: What does page 470 of this source say about Massimo Introvigne? Cirt (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It refers to Massimo as one of the "leading new religious movements scholars in the world". Massimo Introvigne appears regularly as a lecturer at NRM-related conferences in the United States and Europe, as well as in print. He is the head of CESNUR. His entry on the list had been deleted along with quite a few others, so I was just restoring it with a citation. • Astynax ^talk 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I added it back, but with the field previously listed as "Sociology" missing. I do not think that Massimo has a PhD in Sociology, though I could be mistaken. Cirt (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I checked it, my bad. Cirt (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, thanks very much for the sourced additions! If you know of any other existing wiki articles that could be added as sourced entries that are not yet on the page, feel free to contact me and/or do the research for the citations yourself. ;) Cirt (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil

Astynax, I'm needing some help, please. There is an editor called Fernandoe who insist on adding "Bragança e Habsburgo" to Pedro II's name although there is several sources that says otherwise. No matter how many times I tell him, he insists by saying that his father was a Braganza and his mother a Habsburg. He gives no source or anything like that. Indeed his parents were Braganza and Habsburg, but that's the name of their Royal Houses, not last names. Also, he is now changing direct quotation taken from a book that I added! One thing is to change a piece of the text, but you can not change a quotation or else it will ruin the article's credibility. Could you aks him to stop? --Lecen (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

He simply changed the meaning of a quotation! Instead of "Bob went to the park" he wrote "Bob has gone to disneyland". Also, in one of Pedro II's biographies tells the story of an old British widow who was awarded the right to use "Dona" by the emperor himself. But it doesn't matter. Notice that Fernandoe simply changes anything he wants without using sources. I asked for an administrator to help but he ignored me, I aksed for arbitration but all of the member turned it down. What can we do? --Lecen (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor was repeatedly reverting information, rather than providing alternative sources as required. I reluctantly reported this. I hope the temporary block will remind him/her to provide alternative references and seek consensus when changing sourced material in the future. • Astynax ^talk 07:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Improving CC article

I'm so impressed with your scholarly approach to this article. It really is quite amazing how many sources you were able to find in the end. I really doubt any of the above statements are controversial, except possibly "Names began to be adopted with WWI" note 64. You may have noticed it's a serious sticking point for many in the church that it "has no name" except "Christian(s)"/"Christianity" because it is the "one true way", etc, etc. No one wants to believe that official names were ever adopted even though they were, specifically to obtain conscientious objector status for men called upon to fight in the wars. Anyway, there do exist government records (in Australia for one) of these names so I hope that would quell any emotive challenge of that particular point. Oh also, any statement that even references Irvine (being the founder and all) would be seen as controversial because the church is supposed to have been continuous from sometime in the first century and "have no earthly founder". Not sure I've completely address your comments here, but I have limited time and not quite as much motivation/dedication as yourself. Thanks for all your work on this. Cheers Donama (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll note I was the person guilty of originally suggesting it (see key point in archive). My rationale was that since it has no name we had to come up with a title in Wikipedia which would be an invention so a neutral one (to the interests of readers and editors) would be best. I reasoned that a name that is not insulting to the church and that has been used in both the USA and Australia would be suitable. You will see at that same point in the archive I link to a PDF showing the name was used in Western Australia. Unfortunately the link no longer works and I didn't save a backup of the PDF. I have no problem with the article being moved to a new name given a sensible rationale -- it's relatively trivial to redirect things. Donama (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No it wasn't similar to that PDF as far as I can recall. It was more like a specific declaration/certificate for a single organisation. Anyway, it leaves me with a feeling of confidence that the official name 'Christian Conventions' was taken in Western Australia at some point and a record of that would be able to be dug up if it was truly necessary. Sorry, not very encyclopaedic I know! Donama (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Platine War

I was caught on surprise on that. I didn't see that he was reviewing the article and he didn't bother to give us any chance of improving the article before turning it down. It doesn't matter what we do. The reviewer is an Argentine and he clearly did not like the despiction of Rosas as a dictator. Someone who rulesa country for more than 20 years while murdering more than 10,000 political opponents and exiling other 15,000 can not be considered simply a "governor". No historian considers him nothing more than a dictator. It's useless. If that administrator is the reviewer, I prefer to leave the article as it is. He is clearly acting according to his personal opinion and not as an impartial reviewer. Anyway, thank you very much for all your help. I am truly greatful. --Lecen (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I wrote about it on the review about the article. Take a look. I might have been rude but the way he acted was wrong. Just wrong. --Lecen (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I went to my local library and found quite a few books written in Spanish about the subject. Or to be more precise, books written in Argentina. What did I found out? That Rosas obliged by decret every male Argentine to have a mustache (or to put a fake one or paint one) and all citizens to wear red and only red or else they would face death. Rosas also enjoyed mounting on an Afro-Argentine (yeap, you got it right) on public ceremonies to humiliate him like he was a horse. His daughter collected human ears taken from her father's political enemies. That editor that voted against the nomination said that I revealed only the Brazilian view of the whole matter. What else do I have to do? To show every aspect of Rosas' brutal dictatorship? That should be in his article, not in the article about a war. I can't write positive views about him as that editor wants to because it would be the same as to write in Hitler's article that "although he murdered millions he was quite a nice guy". What?! I am not against aditions or changes into the articles. In fact, I welcome them. However, that one I can not support. I will leave the article alone for now as I am taking a "vacation" from Wikipedia. Anyway, thank you very much for everything. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

War editions

Astynax, I'd like to ask your help. User Fernandoe is trying to impose his point of view in many WP:EN articles, specially his understanding that nobles -- including the ones who lived during XIX century -- had surnames. He is moving a mass of articles, editing its contents, even knowing that many users do not agree with it. He acts without discuss, not accepting critics and not inserting references. Please, it cannot become a mass edit war.

In WP:PT he already caused many problems for the same reasons. I do not know very well how things works here. If you could help me, it would be great. Thank you. --Tonyjeff (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi; could you check if I've done well here? Thanks! --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Very good. The comments will show that there is a consensus among the editors. It also shows that you have again given Fernandoe a chance to give his explanation and sources for his statements. If he again inserts his views without any references, it will be reasonable for you to take the next steps. • Astynax ^talk 17:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, even though the "debate" about the matter reached a consensus and Fernadnoe simply opted to ignore it he returned to edit the articles once again without bothering about anything: [2] [3] [4] He doesn't care about sources or other editors's input. Isn't there anyway that we can block this guy? --Lecen (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I sent several messages to him explaining to him what was wrong and why was wrong and he kept pushing his point of view. Next, another editors requested for the opinion of other editors (as you saw) and all agreed that Fernandoe's behavior is inapropriate. I asked for an administrator to do something but he ignored. I went to the "request for arbitration" and nothing happened. The truth is that Wikipedia is awfully burocratic to deal with that kind of situation. Sorry, my friend, but I won't lose my time writing trying to deal with him. I'll let him do whatever he wants. Anyway, thank you very much for your attention. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, thank you very much for your participation at the discussion I've created. As Lecen told you, Fernandoe ignored it and kept on his bad mood. Please, tell me when you think it is appropriate to take another step. I'd like to emphasize that this effort is not against his person or to legitimate one's point of view about some historical matters – it is just a way to avoid someone known for his disruptive behaviour at WP:PT to act in the same way here; for sure, he may edit anywhere, but not instigate war editions. Cheers. --Tonyjeff (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, take a look at my talk page. In there you will find all the guide necessary to deal with Fernandoe as Astynax himself explained (very well, by the way). --Lecen (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To repeat what I said there: the first step would be to post a list of Fernandoe's edits at WP:NORN. Tell them that his editing is only putting his opinions into these articles, and that his opinions do not seem to be supported by sources. They may tell you if there is something else to be done, or they may tell you to go to the next steps. • Astynax ^talk 23:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Acra rewritten

Hi Astynax, I went ahead and rewrote the Acra article. I'd love to hear what you think. Poliocretes (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Great! I've taken a look and responded on your talk page. • Astynax ^talk 18:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Astynax, both for going through the article and your kind words. I'm sure there's plenty more to be written about the various arguements for one location or another but I thought an overview of the debate is sufficient. Poliocretes (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, great, I've never participated in a GA process. Would be nice to see the article promoted. Thank you. On the other hand, I noticed you changed the caption of the top photo in the article. You know, he photo doesn't just show the area south of the mount where excavations took place. The building between the two flight of steps is the one mentioned in the article, the one Ben-Dov refers to as a possible remnant of the Acra. I think this needs to be mentioned. Poliocretes (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice WP:Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks ever so much, Astynax. Poliocretes (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil

Well, hello! I am back! How have you been? I returned to write more text in Emperor Pedro II's article. I've finished Military indiscipline section. Could you take a look in it? It's awfully written, I know. However, if there is someone who can improve it that person is you. As usual, feel free to re-write it as it pleases you. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. I changed the section title to Military deterioration which I think is more common than "indiscipline" in American English. Be sure and correct any mistakes I have made. • Astynax ^talk 09:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, all perfect, as usual! All there is left to do now is to expand the lead and the "last year" section and write the text of the "heirless" section. However, there a few points in the military deterioration section that I'd like you to make a few changes:

1. "However, most did so as members of the Conservative Party and Liberal Party. This meant that their political careers were apt to come into conflict with their duty as officers to act in subordination to the civilian government, which could be in the hands of their political opponents." Well, that's is quite correct. For example, in the War of the Triple Alliance, the Duke of Caxias, who held the commander in chief of the allied forces suffered heavy critics in the newspapers from the liberal, who also were in power at that point, only because Caxias was a conservative. However, perhaps you could expand that sentence by adding that that "mix" of military and politician carrer did not harm the Brazilian political stability. What I mean is that in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Colombia, Venezuela and other Spanish-American countries when the military got involved in politics they did it with threats to democracy: they conspired to take power, to lauch coups, to stabilish dictatorships, etc... In Brazil, on the other hand, a military who was also a politician did not truly blend his both careers. When he went to the senate, he acted as a politician, not as a military. He did not threaten the government nor democracy. Ow, I just remembered some good examples: George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower were all military officers but none of them ever threatened using troops to take power or to use against political enemies. One thing was their political career and another one was their military career. Got it? So, you could you somehow explain that in the text a little better?
2. "Until this point Brazilians, both civilians and military, shared a sense of pride in the nation's political stability and for having avoided the caudillos, coups, military dictatorships and rebellions that characterized other Hispanic-American countries." You put an "other" word when you wrote "other hispanic-american countries". You should remove it because someone who reads it will believe that Brazil is an hispanic-american country when it is in fact a Portuguese-American country. Its neighboors are hispanic-american countries.
3. "They were completely unprepared for the military life and saw their superiors as their owners or foremen." Could you somehow expand this one? The historian from where I got this information meant that the non-officers, that is, the soldiers were mainly poor Brazilian with little education and little capability of understanding civics. A poor Brazilian from the northeast would see his harsh superior and officer as nothing more than a henchman of the political boss from the region he came from. An ex-slave would see his harsh superior and officer as nothing more than a man who acted as his former owner or as a foreman (a henchman from slave owners who kept an eye on slaves). That is, they were man who weren't capable of understanding that they would be part of a coup, nor that they would act against the emperor, nor that they would create a dictatorship. They just blindly followed orders and hoped that they wouldn't be punished for any mistake.

That's it! I hope someone who never read about th subject could be capable of understaning it. Neither the emperor nor the politicians were capable of perceiving that things were changing. From inside a kind of virus was undermining from the foundation to the top of the military. Insubordinate military became more and more audacious while the politicians refused to see it as a true issue believing that they were isolated problems. An old emperor who did not care to rule anymore, a weak and careless heir who did not care for her own future reign and politicians that were too busy focusing on the slavery or anti-slavery campaging were too late to notice that the military had became a threat for democracy. The young cadets that learned from Benjamin Constant the positivism ideals of a republican dictatorship were the same who later as generals would lauch the 1930 coup who would make Getúlio Vargas a dictator for 15 years. And the cadets of 1930 who followed their generals would later be the generals who would lauch the 1964 coup that would create a dictatorship that would last for 21 years. It is all connected, as you can see. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to write about the history of Brazil as a republic. But if you are curious, it was Ernesto Geisel, son of German immigrants and fourth president of the 1964 military dictatorship who ended military anarchy in Brazil.But that is going to be the work of someone else to write about it! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have made the correction to "Hispanic". I confuse that with "Latin American" because I think of the Roman province of Hispania. I know it now has the context of "Spanish" so I changed it to "neighboring countries". I want to discuss the other 2 interesting points you raised, so I will be moving those to the article's talk/discussion page and responding there later. • Astynax ^talk 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I added more text into the article. Coudl you take a look? Also, could you tell me if someone could understand that the emperor as he behaved more and more as a simple man he was at the same time raising his popularity but also destroying the monarchy? I haven't finished the section yet. There is another half to go. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's amazing how you manage to improve the wording of the text by 100%. It's absolutely amazing! There are, however, two phrases that you should make a few changes:

These caused Pedro II to be viewed as "a great citizen" in the popular imagination, and his image as an aloof monarch diminished.

That's not what the author from the source meant. What he wanted to say was that as Pedro II became more and more an ordinary person, he became more popular for his simplicity but at the same time his image as a monarchy, as an emperor was damaged. You see, monarchy rely on simbolism. A monarch is not simply a Head of State, he is the "father of the nation", he is supposed to be the best of his nation's citizens. The monarch is a greater than life figure. He is the ultimate leader, the ultimate person, the ultimate father, the ultimate hero, etc... Of course in reality no person can be all that. But it is the simbol, you see? When Brazilians saw Pedro II, they saw the monarch that made their country unique in Americas: a constitutional monarchy, a democracy, politicaly stable, a growing economy, powerful in military terms, etc... Pedro II was always close to his people. Even when he was a young man twice per week he opened the doors of his palace to receive ordinary folks. Humble citizens, ex-slaves, anything you can image you go to see him and talk to him, asking for help, or similar. Once, an old woman who had been a slave came crying with documets asking for the emperor to help her get back a house she had bought but that the former owner did not want to giver to her. She let her papers fall into the ground and the emperor rose from his throne crouched to get the papers and delivered in her hands. That was powerful, you know? An Emperor, descendant of Charlemagne, doing that to an ex-slave meant a lot.

He was not an ordinary person. Not to their eyes. To Brazilians, he was like a greater being who looked after them. It's obvious that I am not talking about somekind of foolish superstition. It's not that Brazilians were a backward people that believed that he was a god or something. It's not that. It's the simbolism. He was still beloved, he was still admired. But to Brazilians it seemed that they were not leaving in a monarchy but instead in a republic. Politicians did not accept Isabel as an heir because she was a woman. They looked around and thought: "We don't want a woman on the throne. There is no one else who could sit in it. But what throne? That's not a throne, it's a chair! We don't have a monarch, he have a president. If that's the case, why monarchy? Why not republic? Nothing would change, after all." I will expand that thought on the remaining text. But, on that particular phrase, the author meant that his image as a monarch, as a living simbol was diminishing. It does not mean that anyone respected him less, but he wasn't The Emperor anymore, but just an old President type whose term was over.

It might be weird, but to 19th Century Brazilians, they did not want an Emperor who acted like a president. They wanted an emperor who walked around in uniform mounting on a horse and who showed that he had authority. --Lecen (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Thank you for changing the wording to remove the idea that the Emperor was not approachable. • Astynax ^talk 06:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, well!! The article about prince Afonso was raised to good article! Congratulations! Our partnership is going pretty well! Let's see if we can do the same with the others! Regards! --Lecen (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That is great! I see that someone also has opened a GA discussion for the Marquis of Paraná article. I hope that we again get some good suggestions, and not unhelpful as we did for the Platine War article. • Astynax ^talk 19:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, isn't?! Our hard work is finnaly being recognized. Out of curiosity, how did you guess that the U.S. consul mentioned was Christopher Columbus Andrews? --Lecen (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The book that Andrews wrote, and which contains the quote Barman used, is now viewable on Google Books here. • Astynax ^talk 17:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to add the books once the article was finished. But I will do that now. Also, I've finished writing the "Heirless" section. Could you improve it? Read it and tell me if it is easy to anyone to understand what the information gathered in the text, please. --Lecen (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I just saw the barnstar! Great! Thank you very much, it's an honor!

Here it is the information about the books you requested:

• Carvalho (1990) - Carvalho, José Murilo de. A formação das almas: o imaginário da República do Brasil. São Paulo: Cia. das Letras, 1990. (in Portuguese)
• Carvalho (1993) - Carvalho, José Murilo de. A Monarquia brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Ao Livro Técnico, 1993. (in Portuguese)
• Carvalho (1999) - There is none, it was a spelling mistake. The correct is "1990". I've fixed that already.
• Doratioto (2008) - Doratioto, Francisco. General Osorio: A Espada Liberal do Império. São Paulo: Cia. das Letras, 2008. (in Portuguese)
• Silva - Silva, Hélio. 1889: A República não esperou o amanhecer. Porto Alegre: L&PM, 2005. (in Portuguese)
• Vasquez (2003) - Vasquez, Pedro Karp. O Brasil na fotografia oitocentista. São Paulo: Metalivros, 2003. (in Portuguese)

Thank you for the info. I will look at the Heirless section later. • Astynax ^talk 21:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a little bit more of text to the heirless section. Could you take a look? Now only one section is unfinished ("The last year") as also the lead. The we'll be able to nominate it for good article status. --Lecen (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I missed this one: Rodrigues, José Carlos. Constituição política do Império do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: [s.n], 1863. (in Portuguese) --Lecen (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I can hardly believe, but I have finished it! All its is missing is the lead. --Lecen (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I cannot look at it immediately, but hope to enjoy reading the new section later today. Do you know a good picture that would work at the top of the article? • Astynax ^talk 06:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a CD with hundreds of pictures of the Brazilian Imperial family that I bought when I visited the Imperial Museum in Petrópolis in 2005. However, I lend it to a friend who lives in another state. I will ask him to send me back so that I can choose a good photo of Pedro II to use in the lead section. --Lecen (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on December 2, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II (1825–1891) was the second and last ruler of the Empire of Brazil, reigning for over 58 years. Born in Rio de Janeiro, he was the seventh child of Emperor Dom Pedro I of Brazil and Empress Maria Leopoldina and thus a member of the Brazilian branch of the House of Braganza. His father's abrupt abdication and flight to Europe in 1831 left a five-year-old Pedro as Emperor and led to a grim and lonely childhood and adolescence. Obliged to spend his time studying in preparation for rule, he knew only brief moments of happiness and encountered few friends of his age. His experiences with court intrigues and political disputes during this period greatly affected his later character. Pedro II grew into a man with a strong sense of duty and devotion toward his country and his people. On the other hand, he increasingly resented his role as monarch. Inheriting an empire on the verge of disintegration, Pedro II turned Brazil into an emerging power. The nation grew to be distinguished from its Hispanic neighbors on account of its political stability, zealously-guarded freedom of speech, respect for civil rights, vibrant economic growth and especially for its form of government: a functional, representative parliamentary monarchy. (more...)

Thank you for alerting us! • Astynax ^talk 07:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I made a small edit in Pedro II's article about him not being a Freemason. Could you see it if the wording is correct? --Lecen (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Your addition is fine, but I changed the first word in the sentence just to keep from repeating the word "although". It is a good thing that there are others helping with the vandalism! • Astynax ^talk 19:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Pedro II of Brazil got 53,000 hits [5]. It is usually around 350-450. Clemuel Ricketts Mansion got 33,000 hits [6], Brill Tramway had 4,000 [7], Caesium 51,000 [8], Manchester Mark 1 20,000 [9], Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel 14,000 [10], Minnie Pwerle, 26,000 [11], Edwin Taylor Pollock 27,000 [12] and Pilot (House), 48,000 [13]. All of them recent Today's featured articles. Our article beat them all! Even House!! Wonderful! --Lecen (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I was also looking at other articles related to Pedro II's. The ones about politicians had just a little dozen more hits. Brazilian Independence a few hundred. Teresa Cristina had 2,000, Isabel had 6,000 and Pedro I, 9,000. The one who caught the attention was Empire of Brazil, with 22,000. People like Empires and royals, not politicians. Quite a shame. We were focusing on the wrong material, unfortunately. What was quite clear is the skepticism over Pedro II's popularity. Is hard to people understand how could someone so "amazing" - notice the quotes - be overthrown. The idea of going after criticism against him would be a little hard. As Roderick J. Barman said in his biograph of Pedro II, the three papers published during Pedro II's life which were the most critical of him, most destructive of his image, were written by men who later became staunch supporters of him. I thought I had been clear in the text that Pedro II, nor his daughter wanted the monarchy to keep on. After finishing the article about the Empire, I will try to work with Isabel's. Once it is done, it will be far easier to understand why the monarchy was doomed no matter what any of them could try to do to prevent it. Anyway, now I have a direction on where to go. --Lecen (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You can erased the Olivieri reference. The book is listed in Pedro II of Brazil's references but there is no need for so many references, anyway. Good to see you back, --Lecen (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, could you remove remove the quotes and change the sentences: She "asked several times that a priest be sent for, but her condition did not seem sufficiently grave to warrant such a step."[70] Pedro II went out on tour of the town. With no family to attend her and with little company, Teresa Cristina's asthma worsened, and a 2:00 pm "she suffered respiratory failure, leading to cardiac arrest." in Death section? I was reading it and noticed that just before that is a direct quotation of Pedro II's words: Pedro II wrote in his journal on 28 December 1889: "Hearing the Empress complain I went to see what it was. She is cold with a pain in her sides; but she does not have any fever." Those earlier sentences with quotes (She "asked several times that a priest..." and "she suffered respiratory failure...") might lead readers to believe that they are still Pedro II's words, when in fact they aren't. They are Roderick J. Barman's words. --Lecen (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I should be able to get it done tonight. • Astynax ^talk 00:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. You shouldn't even had bothered to ask! I trust your judgement. In fact, it is my fault. I confess that I'm very lazy to learn wikipedia's gadgets... ha ha ha P.S.: But ignore the entire history section, it still one big mess. --Lecen (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting input

I have recently restored a tag to the Ebionites article, which had earlier been removed when the article became eligible for formal mediation by another party. The formal mediation has been accepted for some time, but there has been no mediator and, thus, no mediation. One of the other parties to the mediation has apparently challenged the placement of the tag. I personally believe the records at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding the "fringey" as per WP:FT nature of Robert Eisenman's theory and the content at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor which indicates that his book The Jesus Dynasty received relatively weak reviews is sufficient for the tag to remain in place pending resolution of mediation. However, I would very much welcome input by any other editor, positive or negative. You have recently been among the more active editors at the Religion WikiProject, and on that basis I would request your input on the article's talk page regarding this matter. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy holiday!

I'd like to wish a merry Christmas, my friend. I don't know if you celebrate it, but I'd like to wish you a happy holliday nonetheless. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil

When you have some free time, could you review some of the sections in Empire of Brazil? They are: Provincial and local government, Armed Forces and European immigration.And if you're capable of, please you may shorten the text in any way you believe it is possible. This article, my friend, is going to be our masterpiece! ha ha ha --Lecen (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have finished putting the reference citations into the new format. I will put those sections on my list of things to do during the next few days. • Astynax ^talk 23:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Take your time. Next article I'll nominate will be Teresa Cristina's. I didn't like the way the history section has been done. It's still large. I will rewrite it and make it more simple. One day I'll make a larger and improved version in History of the Empire of Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Teresa Cristina: yes, it does. I will request its removal later. --Lecen (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Done with "Foreign relations", "Independence and early years", "Anarchy" and "Consolidation" subsections. If you are able to, feel free to make it shorter. All that is left now is the history section and the lead. --Lecen (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I can hardly believe it, but I've finished the entire text. Wow! If possible, make it smaller, please. I'm pretty sure that this article has everything to be raised to Featured status. --Lecen (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I will try to continue to go through it in small sections, as I am expecting visitors and time will be limited. That is great that you have completed! • Astynax ^talk 10:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No hurry. Meanwhile, could you add another alternative text to a picture in section "President of the Council of Ministers and downfall" of Carneiro Leão's article? I changed the litograph used because I found out that the artist made it following his looks in the 1850s, not in 1843. --Lecen (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, there is a mistake in "Independence and eearly years". The text was written "Brazil should have "a constitutional order endowed with an elected legislature and independent judiciary but directed by a supreme ruler" with 'uncontested authority'." You changed into "specify that the legislative and judicial branches should be popularly elected, but presided over by a head of state (the emperor) who held broad executive powers and prerogatives." It's almost completely correct with the excepetion that the Judiciary members were not elected. What the historian meant was that Pedro I and part of the politicians believed that there should be a Parliament elected by the people to represent them as well as a Judiciary independent of the Legislative, Executive and even the Moderating branches. So far, as in any democracy. What differed was that unlike in Parliamentary countries where the Head of State should chose a prime minister and the cabinet from members of the majority in the Parliament, Pedro I and those politicians believed that the Emperor should be free to name as he pleased. That is, no matter what parties held the control of the Parliament. In other words, effectively, a kind of "presidential and constitutional monarchy". Brazil would slowly evolve from a "presidential and constitutional monarchy" into a parliamentary and constitutional monarchy during the minority of Pedro II and in his early years in power. Perhaps the text should be changed to something like "specify that the legislative branch should be popularly elected and the judicial branch independente from all other branches, but presided over by a head of state (the emperor) who held broad executive powers and prerogatives."

Also, you changed "Another parliamentary faction "accepted the people—or, more precisely, that section of the population who qualified as 'civilized' [that is, the ruling circles only]—to be the source of authority, with their elected representatives controlling power." to "Others in parliament wished to set up a dominant legislature and to restrict the right to vote in parliamentary elections to only those belonging to the nation's economic and social elites." That is incorrect. Both groups (Pedro I and a aprt of the politicians and the opposition) held the belief that only a minority of the population, that is, the educated ones, and not the illiterate masses, was supposed to vote. What differed Pedro I and part of the politicians' vision of government with these politicians was that the latter wanted a full parliamentary monarchy. That is, the Emperor was supposed to name members taken from the party or political coalition that held the majority of seats in the Parliament and govern according to their will. A typical parliamentary and constitutional monarchy. --Lecen (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

--Lecen (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the mistake about the wording about the judiciary. I didn't think that the judges were elected, but was trying to be brief and it ended by being incorrect. In the second part, I was trying to summarize the quotes from Barman, who seemed to be indicating that the opponents of Pedro I wanted to restrict who could elect the legislature so that a parliament dominated by the upper class would be ensured. That is what I understood from Barman's words: "Another parliamentary faction "accepted the people—or, more precisely, that section of the population who qualified as 'civilized' [that is, the ruling circles only]—to be the source of authority, with their elected representatives controlling power." I can change it, but Barman seems to be indicating that a major difference between Pedro I's coalition and the opponents was that the latter desired to further restrict who could participate in elections so that they were assured of dominating the legislature. • Astynax ^talk 18:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I added "[that is, the ruling circles only]", because the readers wouldn't understand what Barman meant with population qualified as 'civilized'" unless they had read the book themselves. Also, Barman wanted to make sure that readers would understand that the opposition, although claiming to speak on behalf of the "people", it did not mean the entire Brazilian population, but only that small minority who could read and write, etc... The politicians who sided with Pedro I held the same belief as them in what they considered a "representative government". The major difference between them, as I said before, is that one group wanted a presidential type of government, and the other, a parliamentary type. Pedro I wanted to name ministers, chose the policies and govern according to his will. The opposition wanted him to chose ministers, follow a determined policy or govern according to the will of the Parliament. For more info, see Chapter 5 ("Competing conceptions of Nationhood") in here: [14]. --Lecen (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will try to make it clearer. • Astynax ^talk 21:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks perfect! --Lecen (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion required for query about Empire of Brazil article

Hi Astynax,

I have a query about a particular passage in the Empire of Brazil article. Lecen has tried to explain it to me but I still have issues with it. Could you possibly have a look and see if my concerns are valid or not? You can find it here in the articles talk page.

Thanks in advance Arthur Holland (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I may be able to have a look tonight. Available time for Wikipedia has tended to come in fits and starts the last few weeks, though that should be calming down the remainder of the week. • Astynax ^talk 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi - just wanted to say thanks for having a look at this. Much appreciated. Arthur Holland (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)