Talk:Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil

Removed section
This is far more appropriate in the article regarding Pedro II, not the Prince himseld. I'm going to use this text on Consolidation of Pedro II of Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Impact of his birth on Pedro II
Emperor at the age of 5 and declared of age and fit to begin ruling at 14, Pedro II had been an awkward and shy adolescent, suspicious of everyone around him. He was thrust into a thankless and burdensome role as the national symbol for a country that had almost disintegrated during his childhood, wracked by a long series of widespread provincial rebellions. The death of his parents and his sister Paula during his childhood had created in Pedro II a fear of abandonment and a terror of becoming attached to anyone. The birth of his first son gave him a sense of purpose and belonging that had long been missing.

"Fatherhood", said historian Roderick J. Barman, "gave the emperor the emotional security and the self-confidence so conspicuously missing during his childhood and adolescence." Pedro II found it easier to break out of his social isolation, and he became more open, impartial, and polite. His new confidence and openness allowed him to establish his authority as monarch and take "full control of his life and of the government". Parenthood also produced a marked improvement in his relationship with his wife, Teresa Cristina, whom he had only married in the interests of the empire. The marriage thereafter became a happy one, aided by her faithful dedication, his development of a more stable and mature character, and their growing mutual domestic interests and affection.

TFAR
Today's featured article/requests/Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How in the merry hell did this get to be a Daily Featured Article?
From what I can see, this got to be a DFA with the support of just two editors, which doesn't speak well for the process. But leaving that aside, and that it's startlingly short for a FA, the article makes a number of unsourced assertions. Beyond that, the highly speculative "Legacy" section -- pinning the downfall of the Brazilian Empire solely on this child's death -- comes from just a single source, and I'd rather want more sources backing up assertions of that magnitude ... at least in a FA. Respecting that this is a Daily FA is the only reason I don't slap a few tags on the article, but it needs a good bit of work for FA status, or else ought to be promptly downgraded to a "B" or "C" article.   Ravenswing   10:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I came here with the same reaction. The lead, for instance, is not a summary of the body and makes several claims without any references/attribution like "With the birth of his child, the insecure and shy 19-year-old Emperor Pedro II became more mature and outgoing. Afonso's arrival also fostered a closer and happier relationship between his parents, who had not married for love". In general, the article says far too much about the psychological impact of this child in Wikipedia's voice; and it's doubtful whether some of these claims are relevant for an encyclopedia even with attribution. Iselilja (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Those claims were sourced in the article at its promotion. The relevant section was later removed (you can see it pasted into a talk page section above this one). DrKiernan (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. A section was removed in December 2011, three months after it was promoted to FA. But then the claims of course should have been taken out of the lead, as well. And they shouldn't have been in the blurb on the front page today. Iselilja (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, DrKiernan, but I'm looking at the article version on the edit just before the FA star was added -- interestingly enough, that version was yours. There is no inline citation for any of the assertions in the lead, which were substantively unchanged between then and the one I trimmed a couple hours ago.  The "Impact of his birth on Pedro II" and "Legacy" sections, each with several similarly highly subjective claims, were both sources solely from the Barman book.  It's not acceptable for so many such assertions to come from just a single source, however unimpeachable ... yet quite a few articles relating to Brazil in the imperial period (including several FA articles) rely quite heavily on this one book, and with all due respect, I want rather more than Roderick J. Barman's say-so where FA articles are concerned.   Ravenswing   15:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Raven, do you have any evidence someone aside from Barman has discussed Afonso in any detail? One takes what one can get. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Has anyone asked Lecen about that issue? I personally don't mind the contextual information (i.e. the way things were when this was promoted). @Ravenswing: Length is not a criterion for featured status. Comprehensiveness is. 6k for someone whose biography is essentially "He was born, he died" is not unthinkable. Please familiarize yourself with the featured article criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the info in the lead should hav been removed when the additional information was taken out, but someone didn't: simple as that. The blurb reflects the lead, which is common practice, which is why it was repeated. To answer other points, "the support of just two editors" means nothing: no-one opposed and articles are continually put on the front page with one or two (or none, if selected by one of the TFA co-ords). If you don't like that TFA is selected on such a thin consensus, please do join in the selection and consensus building process for future TFAs at WP:TFAR, which does not get enough people joining in the process. - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm quite familiar with the FA criteria, thank you, and I want rather more in a FA than "He was born, he died," which is why stubs aren't elevated to FA status. While you have those criteria in mind, perhaps you could review the bits which say "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate" and "It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of ... consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes ... or Harvard referencing ..."  Such claims ought to have had inline citations, they ought to have come from multiple sources, and this never should've been promoted without them.   Ravenswing   15:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They were provided, in the version promoted. There was a minor mishap in that the lead sentences were not removed when the contextual information in the body was removed. If you think this is not comprehensive (i.e. that there is more about Afonso that has been written and could be included) then please give solid examples (say, has someone other than Barman discussed Afonso in detail, perhaps offering opinions which differ from Barman's), rather than simply " I want ... more". "I want more" is not evidence of a lack of comprehensiveness, but rather another way of saying "I don't like it". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Crisco 1492, for letting me know of this discussion/ Nowhere does the article claims that the monarchy in Brazil fell because of the death of a child. Many are the reasons: military insubordination, growing desire for a republican dictatorship among military, opposition to a woman reigning among politicians, etc... The article Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil is a good choice to learn more about it. The deaths of Afonso and his brother Pedro explain why the Emperor Pedro II saw no reason to perpetuate the monarchy. About the source provided, Dr Roderick J Barman is regarded as the authoritative scholar on all matters regarding Pedro II and the Brazilian monarchy. If anyone here has sources that have different views, please show them so we discuss the matter. --Lecen (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean that nowhere did the article claim that the monarchy fell because of the death of a child after I edited that out of the lead.  That was, however, what the article claimed just a few hours ago, and it's the exact same bit as has been in the article for at least the three-plus years since the point where it was promoted to FA ... a period of time in which you yourself made 23 edits to the article, so you seem to be just a bit disingenuous about it.  As far as your implication that Dr. Barman is such an unimpeachable authority on the Brazilian monarchy that anything he says about it should be accepted as fact, terrific: what other authorities say that he is, that being one of the explicit measures of a reliable source? As far as Crisco 1492's claim that the article was promoted with those claims having inline citations, it's plain he didn't check before he made it.  The version that was promoted is linked above, and the lead has no inline citations at all.  The two paragraphs of the "Legacy" section has but a single citation at the end of each one.   Ravenswing   05:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, read the relevant policies and guidelines. WP:LEAD notes that text is often cited in the body and not the lead (and this is acceptable, except in extraordinary cases), and there is no requirement in WP:CITE that more than one citation be used for one paragraph (technically, even a citation a paragraph isn't required, but FA standards are higher than that). You have shown a distinct lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and an unwillingness to show how this is not comprehensive by providing evidence that verifiable and pertinent information is lacking. If you feel strongly about this, feel free to bring the article through WP:FAR, but don't be surprised if nobody agrees with you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ravenswing, do you realize that you're being overly aggressive? Why don't you lower you tone? This is a just an article. It's not a life or death situation. --Lecen (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in my last edit summary and above, the material in the lead section is later referenced. has again blanked the last 2 sentences of the lead on the rationale that the material is "not backed up in body". Actually the information is indeed in the Legacy section and relevant. I would appreciate a more detailed reason, based in references, as to why the blanked sentences should be left out of the lead.  &bull; Astynax talk 18:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the two last sentences in the lead, but two other sentences. Those two sentences are based on a section that was later removed, see the section named "Removed section" just above here. Also, see previous discussing in this section where there is consensus that those two sentences should have been removed from the lead at the same time the section they summarize were removed. Iselilja (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my confusion of your edit with the previous reversion. &bull; Astynax talk 19:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Order of the Southern Cross
The lead image claims to show subject with sash of the Order of the Southern Cross, yet this is not mentioned in the Honors section. Explanation? user:davidships — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.162 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)  Davidships (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a fine question. Afonso was not included among the members of the order. There is also a painting of his mother from the same period where she is also using a sash of the order, even though she was not a member. Pedro II's sister Francisca also has a painting wearing the sash, although she wasn't a member as well. The Southern Cross is used in Brazil as a synonym for the country itself. Perhaps the Imperial Family used the sash with some similar purpose. This is merely a guessing, though. --Lecen (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lecen. So, unless a RS actually claims this is the sash of the Order itself, perhaps the caption(s) should describe it as "a Southern Cross sash" or similar? Davidships (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry section
I'm not sure why this wasn't noted at FAR (maybe the standards were more lax back in 2011), but there are no references here. Even a single reference, such as in Henry I of England, would be good. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 17:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)