User talk:Astynax/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

You've done an outstanding work there. Congratulations! --Lecen (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, I've noticed that somwhere along the line I forgot to talk about the hispanic-countries around Brazil. What I would suggest was that you could simply add references to the sentence in the lead ("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"). I would suggest two (one by Brazilian historian Pedro Calmon and the other by the American Thomas Skidmore: [1] and [2]. --Lecen (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, if you have some spare time left, could you improve the text of the section Empire of Brazil#Slavery and Empire of Brazil#Nobility? --Lecen (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I will try and take a look this evening. • Astynax ^talk 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Astynax,

The Jerusalem article is rather awful. I took it on mainly as an exercise in translation, I would never have written anything so bloated myself. Neither did I wish, at the time, to delve into the numerous sources and references that would have been required to bring it up to standard. Feel free to do whatever you wish to it. It is, after all, an important subject. I'll add my contributions if I find anything lacking.

Regarding the Acra, I'm all for it. Once nominated, I'll do all I can to bring it up to FA status.

Good luck with both! Poliocretes (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Around 2 years and a half, Pedro II was the cover of the largest (in sales) magazine in Brazil, and fourth in the world: Veja (magazine). Here is its the link to the cover: [3]. It is a picture of Pedro II with the official sash of the Brazilian Presidents of the Republic and the text says: "Heart of President - D. Pedro II, the emperor who incarnated the best republican values" (Coração de Presidente - D. Pedro II, o imperador que encarnava os melhores valores republicanos). It represents clearly the view held by Brazilians toward the former emperor. Unfortunately, it appears that in Brazil we can not use pictures under the fair use. But I am not 100% sure yet, if I manage to find that it is allowed, do you believe it would be a good picture in the legacy section?

Here is the link to the online text of the story about him published in VEJA magazine [4]. It is interesting what the last sentence says: "Neste feriadão, se por acaso alguém pensar nos personagens históricos que lhe deram origem, a imagem evocada provavelmente será a de Pedro II, e não a do protegido que o derrubou. Se essa imagem não fosse apenas a do velho barbudo..." ("In this holiday [that magazine edition was published a little before the anniversay of the proclamation of the Republic], if by any chance someone remember the historical characters who brought its origin, the image recalled will probably be the one of Pedro II, and not of the protegé [ Deodoro da Fonseca ] who overthrew him. If that image was not only of an old bearded man..." I believe you are an American, and might think it is quite odd that we Brazilians are republicans who has as national hero an Emperor who was overthrown to bring birth to a Republic. All I can say is that we Brazilian think it is fashionable to be unique. Hah, hah, hah... Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a wonderful cover! I don't think we can use it except for brief quotes. It would be good to put some quotes from the magazine, perhaps in the Legacy of Pedro II of Brazil article. It certainly shows that he remains an important topic.

People in the United States closely identified with Pedro II and Brazil during his lifetime. It was a big nation with similar values and government, which had become independent from Europe, and which was developing rapidly—just like the United States. Americans don't like dictators, even if they sometimes support them for strategic reasons, and no tears are shed when they fall. But Pedro II wasn't a dictator disguised in royal robes, which is big reason he was so warmly received when he visited the U.S. It also showed that Brazil was stable because its head of state could go on a trip and showed that the U.S., after its own recent Civil War, had recovered enough that a head of state would come on a visit. Even the "Emperor of the United States" claimed to have visited with Pedro II, but that guy was very strange so it may just be a legend. But the more I read about Pedro II, it seems a possibility.

The overthrow of the Empire destroyed the good feelings of Americans and Europeans about Brazil. It seemed as if Brazil's government had become just another series of juntas like its Spanish-American neighbors. That was tragic, and the damage still continues. I wish the leaders of the restored democracies in Brazil and elsewhere in South America would give more attention to repairing those damaged international perceptions, and less to making statements which seem to align themselves with positions that seem to the U.S. (and much of the rest of the world) as not so very different than the old totalitarian era. It doesn't help to sound like Castro or Chavez, which are carry-overs from the old days, not democrats. If Pedro II were around today, I think he would know how to do it the correct way. • Astynax ^talk 18:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You said some truths now. In 1890, Brazil's GDP was almost the double of Argentina's GDP. After a decade of politic and economic chaos, Argentina had almost the double as Brazil's GDP. In fact, at the beginning of the 20th Century, Argentina had the fourth greatest economy in the world. It shows clearly how much Brazil lost and why only now, at the beginning of the 21th Century, its is becoming once again a rising power (P.S.: You must be wondering why Argentina did not keep that position and now is yet another Latin-American republic, the answer is pretty simple: Juan Perón).

Brazil is an interesting country, because if in the 19th Century we were known as a stable monarchy (which with the exception of Canada, that was then pretty much still part of the British Empire) with a prosperous economy and a powerful navy (that what it truly matter back then) in the next century all changed. Since the country went through most of the 20th Century with economic and politic stability issues, for unknown (but probably very stupid) reasons the government tried to show to the rest of the world the good things that we had. What it decided to present abroad? Carnival, soccer, Amazon Forest and hot women. Try to imagine U.S. being seen only, and pretty much only, as a country that is one huge Mojave Desert, with an all-year and everywhere Mardi Gras, Playboy bunnies and baseball and you'll get the picture. Until 15 years a go the official Government publicities about Brazil showed almost naked women in a beach. You can't get much respect from that, right?

Now, the government wants the world to know that we are more than that, that we are in fact a huge country that has very, very different regions, places and people. But at the same time, as you said yourself (and trust me, we know that), the government is making some pretty dumb decisions in its foreign policy. Chavez and the Castro brothers (a ridiculous duo who is to be blamed to have perpetuated the absurd view of Latin-America with bearded military dictators dressed in green so common until the 80s in U.S. movies but at the same time so far from reality) are the perfect example how much a country can go in the wrong direction. But we could accept that, if they were not a threat. And they are. The Castros and Chávez has financed coups across some Hispanic American countries and also finance the terrorist organization known as Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Not only that, but is a fact that Chávez has close ties with the Iranian government. Hear my words: soon Chavez will fall or we will see the Iranian atomic issue being carried over to Venezuela. And speaking of that, the Brazilian government's beahvior in the matter is an absurd by itself. It is desperate to deal with it with our usual peaceful foreign diplomacy, that is, "guys, let's talk, there is no reason to be angry for that". The problem is that Iran is not a France, or Japan, or Canada. It is a North Korea-type. Countries like that can not be reasonable and are never, ever, reliable. In other words, Brazil is getting involved in something too big, too complicated for its own sake. It is trying to help, but on the wrong way. So far the U.S. government has been able to see that Brazil has good intentions and is, at most, being a useful dumb to Iranian interests. I can't predict the future, however. Since there will be elections in my country this year, all seems like the government will back down a little bit since President Lula is desperate to elect his candidate. --Lecen (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, I noticed that you added GA tags to articles written in other languages. However, they are not GA. --Lecen (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the GA template only to articles which contain WP:IL tags for those languages. Since interwiki tags are supposed to only link to articles which are equivalent or nearly equivalent, this would normally not be a problem. But because some of the languages do indeed seem to be not for equivalent articles, they should also not have interwiki links to those languages. Go ahead and remove the GA template for other languages if you wish, but please also remove the corresponding interwiki link(s). I will remove them later if you do not. • Astynax ^talk 02:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But there were already link to those articles. What you did was to make them look like they are GA, when in fact they are not. It's not that serious. All you have to do is to remove it. --Lecen (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look, once you got some time, in the Early years section of José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco's article? --Lecen (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am traveling today, and so can only check in briefly. I will try to look at it tomorrow evening. • Astynax ^talk 16:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a little mistake (which was my fault, in fact) in the passage "Of his childhood in Bahia, José recalled many decades later: "my native land, to which I always dedicated much love" was simple and without luxury." Bahia was then the second richest province in the country. One thing is how Paranhos remembered its native land ( "my native land, to which I always dedicated much love"), another one was his own upbringing that was simple and without luxury. I know that the way I wrote seemed like Bahia province was "simple and without luxury". Sorry. Could correct that? --Lecen (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded the first part of the paragraph which should no longer give that impression. • Astynax ^talk 18:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've finished another section: José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco#Courtier Faction. Could you take a look in it?

P.S.: I'm waiting for editor PericlesofAthens's review of Pedro II's article. If he does not do that in a couple of days, we should move on and nominate it to featured class. I believe the article is very, very good and far better then many other featured articles about royals around. --Lecen (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is done. I hope that the editor can finish his review, but if he cannot then it won't hurt to go ahead to the next step. • Astynax ^talk 08:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am done with the section "Platine War". --Lecen (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It took some time, but I've ended "The Conciliation" section! Wow! --Lecen (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Over with "Rise of the Progressist League" section. Soon shall have another Good article! P.S.: I was reading the FA rules and noticed that we need to wait until Pedro II of Brazil's peer review is closed before nominating it. --Lecen (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at the new section tonight or tomorrow. Whenever you want to close the peer review, just leave a suggestion on the review page and I'll close it in the biography project, etc. • Astynax ^talk 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Astynax, feel free to take all the time you need. I'm certainly in no rush, I'm quite busy myself.

Regarding the Jerusalem article. As I see it, the purpose of the article is to tell the story of the city of Jerusalem, first and foremost from the social and physical perspective. The politics are necessary as background, but they're not what the article is about. There are (or should be) articles that cover the history and politics of each era separately. Right now the article needs serious attention, it is bloated and, as you said, confusing. Frankly, I think it should be broken up into smaller articles, one for each historical era. You should not have any fear of offending any original editor, there's no such thing. Whoever created this page simply took the Hebrew wiki article, passed it through some automatic translation tool and pasted it here. The result was incomprehensible. I went through it and tried to translate it properly, adding refs along the way. As I said, I wouldn't have created such a cumbersome article myself. Poliocretes (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Could you take a look at "National politics", "Elections" and "Ethnic groups" sections at Empire of Brazil once you have some free time? Thanks! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. I will try to take a look Monday night or Tuesday morning. I noticed that someone tried to change João VI to "John VI" in the article. Do you think that we should propose moving the "John VI" article back to "João VI"? I personally do not like anglicizing names, especially when those people are well-known to English-speaking historians under their original names. • Astynax ^talk 07:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A good question. All Portuguese monarchs (with the exception of Emperor Pedro I, or Pedro IV to the Portuguese) have articles under an anglicized name. What I've noticed is that none of them have been seriously edited for a long time. I don't know if we should change João VI only, or all. We would need to ask at the Portugal portal for opinion. There a lot of books written by British or American historians about the Imperial era in Brazil and all of them call the monarchs in their Portuguese name. Well, in sum, I do not have a good idea on what to do.

P.S.: I have been waiting for editor PericlesofAthens to review the article about Pedro II but time has passed and he has not done anything so far. At most, he appears from time to time to say that he will do it, but at the mean time he continues editing other articles. Should we wait or move on? Also, I've noticed that in the lead of the article there is no mention at all of Pedro II and the abolition of slavery in Brazil during his reign. That's one vital point that should be in there and I forgot to add. It is like not to mention in Lincoln's article about the end of slavery in the U.S. during his tenure and his role in it. Could you add a sentence about it? --Lecen (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that the Portugal project isn't very active. I will ask there, however. I have added a sentence to refer to the abolition of slavery. I think that we can wait a bit longer for PericlesofAthens. From now until 10 July is a popular time for some people in N. America and Europe to take vacations and do other seasonal activities, so s/he may be busy. Finding editors to do the FA review during this period may also be difficult, so waiting a couple of weeks before closing the peer review may be best. I have had the same problem getting review comments and improvements on another article. • Astynax ^talk 17:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then! I'm not in a hurry, since to me the most important thing about the article was to see it done, which it is. Let's wait! Cheers! --Lecen (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Only Senators were named by the Emperor and, as you know already, through a list with the three candidates with most popular votes. --Lecen (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: You made a mistake in there: you wrote that married men of 21 years or more "were exempted from the income qualification". No one was exempted. What happened was that the minimum age to vote was 25 years but if a man was married and he has 21 or above he could vote. That's the exception. --Lecen (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

From 1822 until 1881, Voters would chose Electors and these would vote in their candidates for senators, national deputies, provincial deputies and councilmen. That's it. The only difference was that in the case of senators, instead of the most voted candidate become senator, the emperor would pick a name out of the three most voted candidates. In 1881, the reform abolished the "Voter" and elections became direct. However, Senators would still be named by the Emperor. There were no elections for President of Provinces (Governors) or town Mayors. The Emperor named directly the presidents and these named the mayors. I will write about it in another section. P.S.: To make things more simple: election until 1881 were exactly as the elections nowadays in the United States for President. As it is written in the Electoral College (United States): "The election for President and Vice President is not a direct election by United States citizens. Citizens vote for electors, representing a state, who are the authorized constitutional participants in a presidential election." --Lecen (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, men could only vote if they were 25 years old and had an income of at least R$ 100$000 per year. If they had R$ 100$000 per year and were 21, or 22, 23, and 24 years old they could not vote. However, if they were 21, 22, 23 or 24 years old and were married and had at least R$ 100$000 per year they could vote. Is not the income that is the exception, but the fact that they are married. They still need the minimum income to vote.

Also, you wrote that deputies (national and provincial) and councilmen were directly elected. No, they weren't. All three, as well as senators were elected just like the U.S. presidents of the 21th century: voters would vote in their candidates for electors. Whoever win, would become an elector and would vote for deputies, councilmen and senators. Those were two-step elections, that is, indirect elections. However, elections for senators had a 3rd step: the emperor would choose, select, name one candidate between three that had won most popular votes to become the new senator. In 1881 the elections became direct. That is, people did not have to vote for electors and these would vote on the candidates for political offices. The people would from then and on vote directly on the candidates for political officers. However, the Emperor would still name the senator from a list with the three most voted candidates. --Lecen (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, it took some patient explaining, but I think I finally am getting a clearer picture. Thanks. • Astynax ^talk 21:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Relax, it's a boring subject, I know! heh heh --Lecen (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a map with the distribution of the ethnic groups in the country. I think it will help a lot readers to understand where each was located. --Lecen (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this will be very useful to readers! • Astynax ^talk 17:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm done with "religion" and "Demographics" sections... at last. --Lecen (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an unidentified editor who is starting to bother me in Pedro II article. Take a look in the history log. Is there something we can do? --Lecen (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Astynax. You have new messages at WP:RFPP.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 10:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What happened could hardly be considered your fault. Not for a moment I thought that. But that was not the first time I bumped into Wikipedia's administrators and/or bureocracy with undesirable (read: unfair) results. All I can remember was that long and unnecessary debate in Platine War article. But I had "suffered" before: some months ago I reworked the history section in Brazil article. Instead of an absurd text, there was now a section written with sources, pages, notes, etc... Everyone enjoyed the results, with the exception of one editor. In the ensuing "debate", I presented several different books (even followed by links to online editions so that everyone else could check by themselves) as sources and the that one editor did not bring a single book. Not one. Zero. All he said came from his personal opinions. What happened? Do you think the administrators who got involved said something like "ok, editor B, you should bring at least one source to back your claims or else this discussion is pointless"? Nope. They didn't. They kept treating as as "equals", as there was just a simple different view between editors on one same subject. Next we had to make a poll to choose what "opinion" should be kept and mine was the only one that got votes (he voted on his, of course, but no one else did). All that took me a month of daily and hard discussions and in the end I was thinking: "What am I doing in here? I don't get nothing for waisting my time. This should be fun, but it's not.".

I do like the idea that a newcome can edit an article even though several other veteran editors already contributed. The main reason is because is fair: everyone should have a chance to help. What I can't understand is that is quite common to some hotheaded newcomers to start rewriting an article as everything else written before was crap and not bothering to say why. I could accept that in an article that has few to no text or its text has no sources at all - something I did, but I warned everyone on the talk page or at least in the edit itself -, but not in an article that is clearly and carefuly well written and well sourced. The some administrator - who never read the article before, nor had any idea of who contributes to it - appears and go on in the automatic mode like a robot following the policy guides as it was the bible. I am pretty sure that I am no better than anyone just because I made contributions to the article. But one thing would be a newcome arguing that according to source X, or sources X, Y and W that happened in a different way, antoher is someone to come and change the meaning of a text and leaving the old reference in there - even though the old reference does not support the new verson of the text - without giving a reason.

The truth is that I am tired. What was supposed to be a free time activity became a troublesome work. Nonetheless, I admit that it really bother me seeing those articles unfinished and I know that no one will finish them (at least not so soon). I'll take a break now and cool down and in a couple of days I will return, I think.

But I would like to thank you once more for all you've done. Abslutely perfect in everything. Cheers.

P.S.: The sound of "ç" is not the same as "z". You should speak "Bragança" as the "ç" had the sound of an "s" as in "savior" or in "sand". --Lecen (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S.2: Take a look in the last edit made in Empire of Brazil article and you will understand exactly what I meant. --Lecen (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your work on articles related to the Empire of Brazil, Thank you. Paulista01 (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement! • Astynax ^talk 05:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, it is well deserved, excellent work. B. Regards Paulista01 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"What were the principle exports? What were the dominant art forms and literary styles? Who were the notable artists from the time period? What races, ethnic groups, and religions were represented by the Empire's citizenry? How many people inhabited the Empire at its peak? What were the different branches of government? How powerful were the armed forces? There's plenty of good stuff in there".

Are any of those really important or I'm imagining stuff and it looks like he clearly have no idea of what to say and just randomly picked examples? --Lecen (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been off-line since last night due to a power outage from a big storm. I think your changes are fine, and I like it much better than the idea of cutting a paragraph out of the lead and putting a bunch of new stuff into a new paragraph. I do not agree with putting details like those that were proposed into the Lead section. The reviewer never did respond to my comments either on the article talk page, or when I repeated on the FAC page, so I share your feeling that the reviewer was demanding to "do it my way". • Astynax ^talk 03:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you answer the last reviewer in the FAC nomination? I'm sick of that. The guy says that he didn't read beyond the lead and says that there is the need for a source tag. I'm tired of these lazy reviewers. --Lecen (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you believe your last change to the lead was needed? After all, there is a note that explains what differed the Empire from present-day Brazil. Are we supposed to feed in the mouth all those lazy reviewers?

If you're going to stick with it, you should make some change to the later paragrahs. Now it reads: "...was a 19th-century nation that broadly comprised the territories which form modern Brazil. Its government was a constitutional monarchy under the rule of Emperors..." and soon after there is "The new country was a huge but sparsely populated and ethnically diverse representative parliamentary monarchy". It would be better to have the constitutional monarchy description only once in the text. --Lecen (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I am now replying to his comments. I did not add any new wikilinks, they were already there and I just split it into 2 sentences. I've removed the second link to "Constitutional monarchy". Yes, I am tired of the petty comments, too. When there are so many editors commenting, they each have their preferences and style, and it can be more of a hinderance than making improvements. I really do not like the vague comments, such as those regarding MOS:LEAD where they don't tell us what they want added, except to give a long list of disconnected facts that don't belong there. You rearranged the material, which was an improvement, but the only thing new was a sentence that made an additional reference to the culture. Your previous point, that this degree of so-called "balance" hasn't been demanded of other FA's was valid. Even articles by some of the complainers could be criticized for the same thing. In any event, their comments were very much presented as vague and petty demands and not helpful. I'm done changing the lead per the latest comments, some were minor improvements, some I think do not require changes. • Astynax ^talk 19:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one with the impression that they do not want the article to pass? --Lecen (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have had that impression with every article we have submitted. This "process" seems to be very flawed to me—akin to having a committee cook a soup—and very irritating and frustrating for both editors and reviewers. Unfortunately, it is the way things currently work on Wikipedia. • Astynax ^talk 07:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

He took our time there at the nomination and in the end, he won't support or oppose. Wonderful. I love this type of "reviewer". And it wasn't promoted even when it has 8 people supporting it? How can we know the reason? It's more than clear that they don't want the article to be promoted. It's that simple. They will look after any stupid reason. Firt, it was the lead. Now that they can not complain about the lead, they will complain about the size. And the best of all, is that other articles can be taken as comparison when it fits their needs. I'm telling you this: our articles are far, far better than the other royal or former countries' featured articles. Just take a look at the British royal articles. Almost all have several, I repeat, several entire paragraphs without a single source. And what about the Chinese dynasties? Just see Ming Dynasty's Economy section. There is nothing written it in, there is only a link! A link! And the that's a featured article. But our article isn't good enough? P.S.: I shortened the article from 134 KB to 128 KB. John McCain is 156 KB long. Barack Obama is 184 KB long. And they are featured articles. I'm sick of this arbitrary people at FAC nomination. --Lecen (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it helps to reduce the text much. Removing footnotes, captions, wikilinks, images, templates or references do not reduce the size. There is a script at User_talk:Dr_pda/prosesize.js that you can use to calculate the "Readable Prose Size", which is what they are talking about. The readable prose size is currently 78k. WP:LENGTH says that an article over 60k "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". So I do think the article was already a good size based upon that. If an article goes over 100k, then WP:LENGTH says it almost always should be broken into smaller articles—and Empire of Brazil is not near that limit. • Astynax ^talk 18:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem: what you or I think doesn't matter. Not to them, at least. --Lecen (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The nightmare is over at last. Congratulations! We made it again! --Lecen (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That is good news—I was beginning to think the FAC would take more time than the Empire existed. • Astynax ^talk 08:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for that! --Lecen (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, well, it seems we're back on the road. Quite funny to seen two different reviewers showing up almost at the same time. Let's go by pieces:

1) You removed "Archduke Maximilian never forgot his deceased fiancée". You shouldn't have done it. Perhaps rephrase it? Maximilian, even though he married Charlotte, kept loving Maria Amélia. According to the English-written book The Crown of Mexico [5] (Haslip, Joan. The Crown of Mexico: Maximilian and His Empress Carlota. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971 (531 pages). ISBN: 0-03-086572-7 ):

"The mild climate of Madeira from which the girl's mother had hoped so much had proved detrimental to her health. Galloping consumption had set in and Maria Amalia [Maria Amélia] was dead within weeks of her arrival. Her young lover was heartbroken. In some strange fashion, this twenty-year-old girl he had known for little more than a week was to haunt him al his life. Fragile and unattainable, she remained present in his dreams. Seven years later, when revisiting Madeira with a young and pretty wife, we find Maximilian paying a solitary visit to Maria Amalia's grave, 'lingering in grief and sadness by the house from which this lovely angel winged her flight to Heaven'." (pp.54-55)

Also:

"From Gibraltar, the Elizabeth proceeded to Madeira and Maximilian had no sooner sighted the island than he realized it was a mistake to revisit a place where he had been so happy in the past. 'It was with a feeling of sadness that I again beheld the valley of Machico and lovely Santa Cruz, where we spent such happy hours seven years ago. On board our large ship, so filled with people, I was the solitary pilgrim of former days... Since those times, seven years full of pain and joy, full of fortune's storms with a few of its blessings, have passed over my head, and a sadness comes over me when I compare that time with the present.' Where was Charlotte when he wrote those lines? Where was Charlotte when he went off with his physician to visit the hospital built by the widowed Empress of Brazil? A slab of black marble inscribed in gold lettering, recorded that the hospital was dedicated to the memory of the Empress's only daughter, Maria Amalia, who died of consumption on the house next door, where Maximilian now went in pilgrimage, 'to linger in grief and sadness in the shade of an Indian fig tree and pick a bunch of flowers to place on her grave'. A loving and devoted wife, in all the bloom of her nineteen years, had not succeeded in making him forget the blonde and fragile Braganza Princess he had courted under a summer moon seven years before." (pp.128-129)

2) About last sentence on Note I, the English-written book Isabel Orleans-Bragança (Longo, James McMurtry (2008). Isabel Orleans-Bragança: The Brazilian Princess Who Freed the Slaves. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc. ISBN 978-0-7864-3201-1 ) might help:

"Maximilian privately admitted what attracted him most to Charlotte was her dowry. His own attitude toward women was revealed in a letter he wrote shortly after their meeting. 'She is short; I am tall, which is as it should be. She is dark-haired; I am blond, which is also good. She is very intelligent, which is a little tiresome; but I'm sure I'll get overit.' [...] Their first stop was Madeira, where Maximilian's late fiancé had died. The visit triggered a glimpse into his thoughts and feelings since her death. He wrote in his diary, 'seven years filled with... pain and bitter desillusionment... I'm coming back to seek on the waves of the Atlantic the peace that tottering Europe can no longer give my worried soul.' The journey to Brazil represented to Maximilian more than a chance to play royal matchmaker. He seemed to be seeking a purpose for his unfullfilled life."

3) You wrote "Archduke Maximilian made a solitary pilgrimage to locations". He traveled along with his wife, Charlotte. But she became so upset by his behavior in Madeira that she refused to travel to Brazil and went to Morocco to visit her first cousin Prince Gaston, Count of Eu, who was then serving the Spanish Army in the Spanish–Moroccan War (1859). The Count of Eu would later marry in 1864 Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, the eldest daughter of Emperor Pedro II.

4) The Laemmert Amalnac is a fantastic book that has complete details about everything in 19th century Rio de Janeiro. This website has all editions available online (it's from there where I used them as sources, I don't have an actual copy of this 19th century books with me). According to the Portuguese-written Dicionário do Brasil Imperial (Imperial Brazil Dictionary; Vainfas, Ronaldo. Dicionário do Brasil Imperial. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 2002 (749 pages). ISBN 85-7302-441-0 ) under Livreiros (Booksellers) entry:

"[...] The main competitor of Garnier brothers were the Laemmerts, Edward and Heinrich [Eduardo and Henrique]. Edward arrived in Brazil as a representative of the Boussange booksellers, in Paris. He partnered with a Portuguese called Souza, who represented another French bookseller, J. P. Aillaud, thus creating the Souza Laemmert firm. Later, Heinrich also came to Rio [de Janeiro] and together formed a new firm, E. & H. Laemmert, announcing themselves as book and music merchants. They became very successful editors, having as main characteristics the publication of annual calendars, pocket guides, books authored by Brazilians and translations of the English, French and German, beyond the famous Laemmert Almanac. The bookstore of the Laemmerts - Universal Bookstore - existed in Ouvidor street." (pp.486-487)

As you can see in the 1853 edition [6], Edward Laemmet was a Knight of the Brazilian Order of the Rose and of the Portuguese Order of Christ (Portugal) as well as a member of the Brazilian Historic and Geographic Institute.

5) The Brazilian government refused to recognized her as a Brazilian Princess because she was born after her father abdicated. They were certainly wrong, since Amélie was already pregnant before Pedro I abdicated and by Brazilian law (an I believe in any other country) the fetus rights are aknowledged even before his/her birth. What cetainly made no sense was Amélie's desire to be recognized as "Empress dowager" since her husband abdicated the crown. Nonetheless, Pedro II demanded that both should be accepted as part of the Brazilian Imperial House.

Is this enough? --Lecen (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the reviewer was correct in objecting to the original sentence being redundant. But the Haslip reference uses the word "haunted" which implies an obsession. So I have restored the sentence using the better word "haunted", instead of "remember". I have also done some other minor rewording to make things easier. Laemmert is OK as a source, and the reviewer just didn't bother to look to see if it was widely used. If they want to challenge again, the additional information will be useful. If you want to put in your added explanation #5 into the article, that would be fine. I personally think that the Regency and Courtier Faction did not want any more potential influences (real or imagined and including Maria Amélia and Amélie) on Pedro II, and they would have objected for that reason most of all. But I don't recall a source that directly says that. • Astynax ^talk 20:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You got it right. The regency was afraid that Amélie could be used by another rival political faction and went as far as to tell her that if she attempted to return to Brazil to serve as guardian of her step-children, the government would not allow her to disembark. The source is our old reliable "Lyra, Heitor (1977) (in Portuguese). História de Dom Pedro II (1825–1891): Ascenção (1825–1870). 1. Belo Horizonte: Itatiaia" (pp.42-43). Quite ironic, the man who wrote that her return was unacceptable because she was not the children's mother, but step-mother, and also because she was a foreigner, not Brazilian, was Aureliano Coutinho (Viscount of Sepetiba), who was then starting to form his Courtier Faction. --Lecen (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I've used the information you provided to address the comments that the reviewer made. Perhaps the information about Maria Amélia should also be added to Maximilian I of Mexico? • Astynax ^talk 10:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We should, but maybe not now. That's one article that deserves to be improved. I opened a discussion in Mexico Wikiproject about Maria Amélia's article, but no one replied. Unfortunately, there isn't a very active community of Wikipedians interested in Mexican history. I was wondering if you could help me out with Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil? --Lecen (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some Mexicans still look at Maximillian as almost a monster. I will look at Isabel, but I probably won't have time to do much before the end of this week. I see you have done a lot of work there since I last looked at the article. • Astynax ^talk 08:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Gyrobo asked if there is a link to the Republican faction that fought against Maximilian. There isn't. They were led by Benito Juárez. I don't believe it would be a good idea to add his name since he is not mentioned before or after. --Lecen (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I made tweaks that Gyrobo suggested and some others. I also didn't find a satisfactory article that explained the republicans. They evolved during the period, and what were originally just a group dissident Liberals were eventually joined by almost all Mexicans and became more of a nationalist resistance and then a full-fledged government in opposition. I agree that saying too much to explain it is beyond the current article. I did not forget about Isabel's article, but I wasn't well enough to sit very long at the computer last weekend. I will try again this week. • Astynax ^talk 07:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Take your time to rest. There is no hurry. Astynax, in the English language, does the word "Patron" is used to chose a person to represent something? For example, let's say that a present-day U.S. military batallion wants to chose an American general who died 150 years ago as its representative, symbol, protector, etc... What would be the correct name? Could "Patron" be used? --Lecen (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Patron is generally used in English to mean an active "protector", "supporter" or "sponsor". So that wouldn't usually be used to describe a battalion honoring a general. The word used to describe it would be something more abstract, such as "symbol" or "emblem". If the person is upheld as an example, then "paragon", "archetype" or "exemplar" would be used. If the battalion took the general's name, then it would be the general's "eponymous"/"eponymic" battalion, his "namesake battalion", or just "named in honor of". I hope that helps. I cannot think of an equivalent for the idea of a patron or guardian figure in English that would be used by the military. • Astynax ^talk 18:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a new photo to José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco. Could you add an alternative description to it? --Lecen (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Done • Astynax ^talk 07:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you done dealing with the issues raised by Nikkimaria? --Lecen (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I made changes, but I'm not sure that they will be accepted by him/her. • Astynax ^talk 22:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please consider participating in the Gospel of the Ebionites peer review to prepare the article for GAC. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to structure your comments at User:John Carter/Religion meeting to either be comments on specific ideas and/or add some other sections if the comments don't relate to any of the existing proposals. I do think that we might have to subpage in time (I hope so, actually) and it would be easier if the page were structured in a way to accomodate that. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That is fine with me. I'll post a response on the meeting's talk page so it will be there for others who participate. • Astynax ^talk 17:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Have applied. Donama (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to apply soon. Sorry for taking so long to answer, I'm without free time for the moment to devote to Wikipedia. But don't worry, I still want to finish all these articles! --Lecen (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg has said on his user talk page that he can see no objections to the participation of anybody in the Ebionites mediation. That being the case, I guess you should feel free to make any comments you deem appropriate. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already left a few comments. I wasn't certain whether I should, but since I had already responded to a couple of Rfc on the article's talk page, and because the problems that I noted there have not been addressed (misapplication of references and editor synthesis), I did so. You have brought up some other issues, and I don't mean to sidetrack the discussion off of those, which also need to be corrected. • Astynax ^talk 02:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)