Talk:Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/Archive 1

monarchial vs monarchical
Shouldn't "monarchial institution" be: "monarchical institution"? I'm not 100% sure on this so please check. -- Alexf(talk) 15:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Monarchial" would be used to describe something related to a monarchy (the government). "Monarchical" would be used to describe something related to a monarch (the person or office). In many uses, there is greater or lesser overlap (especially in absolutist cases where the government is conflated with the monarch) and they can become synonymous. In the case of the use of the term in this article's lead, I believe "monarchial institution" is more correct of the situation, as Brazil was not an absolutist state, and what is being described is not the person or office. I've seen both used in U.S. and British English, but if there is something that I'm missing in the usage, I've no objection to a change. &bull; Astynax talk 17:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to you on that as it is not a word I would use everyday so i wasn't sure. -- Alexf(talk) 17:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Italics
User:Dank and User:Malleus Fatuorum both said at Featured article candidates/Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive2 that "Dona" should not be in italics. I've just seen that we could move Teresa Cristina to the first section and exclude her from the lead. This would make sense because Afonso's position and notability derives from his father not his mother. It would also prevent readers assuming from the first sentence ("he was the eldest child of ... Dona Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies, and thus a member of the Brazilian branch of the House of Braganza") that membership of the House of Braganza is somehow related to the Two Sicilies. And prevent the sentence reading "he was the eldest child of Emperor Dom Pedro II ... of the Two Sicilies". DrKiernan (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I don`t like you and I can`t remember a single moment you`ve been useful at all in any of the articles related to Brazilian history which I have worked so hard and since you insist on bothering me although you were told to leave me in peace I`ll keep this one quite simple:
 * 1) He was a member of the House of Braganza because his father also was, as well as his paternal grandfather and on and on. There is no way someone would made any mistake about it just because his mother`s name is in the same sentence. Since you do plenty of work on articles related to British royals I know quite well that you are aware of that and you`re simply complaining about it because you enjoy giving me trouble.
 * 2) The title Dona is in italics because it is a foreign word and the MoS says we should put any foreign word in italics. Simple like that. The "dom" is not in italics because Dom (title) exists in English.
 * That`s all. --Lecen (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Dona", like "Dom", is used in english. I've looked in three dictionaries; they all have it. DrKiernan (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which dictionaries and what do they say? A dictionary that it's a Portuguese title doesn't mean that its an English word. --Lecen (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The New English Dictionary (Odhams Press, 1932) says "n. Lady; madam; (slang) a woman; a sweetheart."
 * Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary (International Edition, 1966) says "n. The Portuguese form of Doña." The definition of Doña is "n. Lady; madam; the feminine title corresponding to Don."
 * The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 2nd edition 1989; online edition, September 2011) says "1. A (Spanish or Portuguese) lady. Also prefixed to the name as a title of courtesy. 2. slang. (in form dona, also vulgarly donah, doner.) A woman; a sweetheart." DrKiernan (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite surprised to learn that there are Americans, British and Australians walking around and saying "Hi, Dona Margareth" and "Goodbye, Dona Elizabeth". It still doesn't mean that the Portuguese title is an English word. The MoS is clear: "Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not common in everyday English". --Lecen (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been in use for centuries. John Dryden, for example, wrote "Was there never a Dona in all Spain worthy your kindness?" Anyway, you don't need to take my word for it: just do an english-language google book search. DrKiernan (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As you notified Astynax, I've notified Dan and Malleus of this discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The title "Dona" is not the same thing as the word "dona" used as synoynm of woman. You don't even speak Portuguese. I'm wasting my time. I didn't asked Astynax to come here. He doesn't like to discuss on talk pages. And you can call whoever you want. --Lecen (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not changed my view from what I stated at the FAC, which is that "Dona" should not be in italics. It's a word that appears in every English dictionary, and in none of them is it italicised. Sure it's word absorbed from Portuguese, but English has absorbed a great many words from other languages, and they're not italicised either. Bottom line: if the word appears in the OED and is not in italics there, which it isn't, then it ought not to be in italics here. Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI. The OED's definition of "Dona" (not "dona") is "A (Spanish or Portuguese) lady. Also prefixed to the name as a title of courtesy." Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was alerted to this discussion, although I'm sure the participants won't mind. Anyway, I'm agreed with Malleus and DrKiernan. - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would eventually seen the discussion, but I disagree with the contention that simply because a word is "used in English" or appears in English dictionaries (which contain a huge number of foreign terms not commonly used or understood by a general, English-speaking audience), that it should go sans italics. Foreign words, even foreign words which are frequently used in English but "that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialised English" should be italicized. Dona is a word which is patently not in common English usage, as required by the MOS; it is not a familiar foreign term to the majority of English readers. Equally, and much more familiar words (such as ipso facto, per se, sic, sotto voce) are always italicized, and you'd be hard-pressed to find an English dictionary that does not include these as well. &bull; Astynax talk 17:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be worth your while to actually consult an English dictionary, as none of the examples you quoted (ipso facto, per se, sic, sotto voce) are italicised, as they're fairly common expressions absorbed into the language, as is "Dona". As contrasted with expressions such as ipse dixit, for instance, which have not and are consequently italicised. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I find your implication that I did not consult English dictionaries offensive. You are obviously aware that English dictionaries contain many foreign terms that are not anywhere near to being absorbed into everyday English usage. Yes, those terms include ipse dixit, but depending on your dictionary, this also includes ipso facto, sic, etc. (see Merriam-Webster where they are italicized in the same way). The subject of "battling dictionaries" to settle when a foreign word should be italicized was dismissed when the MOS guidelines were created. It would be nice to have an MOS guideline list of foreign words generally accepted as having come into "everyday use in non-specialised English", but we do not. A great many English readers assume that "Dona" is a woman's name, unless alerted otherwise; there is no reason to leave that mistaken impression. There are certainly authors who leave out the italics in dona (particularly in works dealing with Italian and Portuguese topics where the term is very frequently repeated and the repeated italicization becomes implied through constant repetition, or if using style guides which do not italicize foreign words at all). In this article, however, the italics serve a useful purpose. &bull; Astynax talk 19:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. I'm implying nothing, I'm stating quite categorically that you cannot have consulted any English dictionary, else you would know you are talking cack. The word "Dona" is not italicised in English. Period. And the Christian name is spelled "Donna". Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With regard to "guideline list of foreign words", the guideline suggests checking Merriam Webster Online as a useful guide to see whether a particular loan word should be in italics or not. DrKiernan (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't see how it can be useful, it seems to put any word it defines in italics. I've just looked up "cat". DrKiernan (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Ah, I see the guideline says if a word appears in that dictionary, do not italicise it, which supports the view that these loan words should not be in italics. DrKiernan (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the MOS guideline is explicitly that words "that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialised English" should be italicized. You can find many, many non-English words not even close to being in common usage in various English dictionaries. One clue is that the word is specifically flagged as in another language (not merely "derived from"). "Battling dictionaries" does not address this, especially an overly simplistic claim that a foreign term is a common English usage simply by inclusion in an English dictionary. &bull; Astynax talk 18:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * English dictionaries reflect English usage. If a word is not italicised in a standard English dictionary – and "Dona" isn't – then it ought not to be italicised here. It's really quite simple; you are utterly, absolutely, and completely wrong. Malleus Fatuorum


 * This is not ultimately worth fighting over but for what it is worth I agree with Malleus, Dank and DrKiernan. --John (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ipso facto is a latin expression, not English words. --Lecen (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ipso facto" is a Latin expression that has been absorbed into English, just as "sputnik" is a Russian word absorbed into English, and in neither case are they italicised because of the origin. The authority for whether or not a particular word or expression is italicised in English is the OED, and it does not italicise either "ipso facto" or "Dona". Really, you don't have a leg to stand on. Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet, ipso facto is widely italicized (as is ipse dixit which you note should be italicized, but which also appears in English dictionaries). Obviously, neither has "been absorbed" into everyday English. &bull; Astynax talk 18:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * People widely make mistakes. As you are doing here. Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I made no mistake as to ipso facto being commonly italicized, I made no mistake in agreeing with you that ipse dixit should both be italicized and in stating that it appears in English dictionaries, and I made no mistake in stating that Dona does "not yet have everyday use in non-specialised English" per the MOS and despite that it appears (flagged as an Italian or Portuguese word) in English dictionaries. &bull; Astynax talk 19:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you've misunderstood the way English dictionaries work? The word aardvark is flagged as a Dutch word, but that doesn't mean that it should be in italics. Zorro, cowboy culture, and Italian restaurants all use "Dona". It is "non-specialised English". DrKiernan (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm certain that we are all quite aware of how "dictionaries work". I'm not sure which dictionary you are using that says that aardvark is a Dutch word, but others make a distinction between specifying something as an English word's origin/derivation and specifying it as a foreign word. It is ridiculous to rest an argument on a usage in the movie "Zorro", in the title of an Italian restaurant (in both cases the vast majority of viewers/readers would have no clue that the term was an honorific meaning "lady", and it is not a concern of the authors in either case to make the distinction), or in "cowboy culture" (in which case foriegn terms adopted into specialized vocabularies are, by definition, not part of "everyday use in non-specialised English"). &bull; Astynax talk 18:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you know how Portuguese dictionaries work but what about how English dictionaries work? OK, strictly DrKiernan is wrong, in that "aardvark" is derived from Afrikaans, but that's derived from Dutch anyway. The point remains though that in no English dictionary is "ardvaark" italicised. Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus_Fatuorum shouldn't even be here. He is uncapable of being civilized and he will certainly stick against wherever I say or do. His opinion is not unbiased. --Lecen (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you just proved my point: the word is "incapable", not "uncapable". You also ought to check up on the meaning of "civilized", as I presume you mean "civil"? The two words are quite different. Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right about the "incapable" and wrong about "civilized". I remember I tried to reason with you during the entire FAC ordeal, and even later I tried to maitain good relations with you. But once you freaked out soley because I awarded Dank and called me a "dickhead" I lost my will to acchieve some understanding. I believe now you'll make an ironic remark. --Lecen (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't need to be taught anything about the English language by someone like yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Improper synthesis?
Unfortunately, this article no longer appears to meet featured article criterion 1c. The source placed next to the material in dispute does not support the claim that Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil, is known in English as Alphonso. A source that states that this particular Afonso is called Alphonso is needed.

Secondly, the material removed is supported by sources. There is no valid reason to remove fully-sourced material in order to replace it with poorly-sourced synthesized original research. It is clear that the fully-sourced material is superior. DrKiernan (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, the source is an English writer using "Alphonse". It does not matter that the book appeared in Portuguese (which uses entirely different spellings). The material removed was improperly placed in the lead, which is a summary of material appearing in the article body. If anything, the added material violated FAC criterion 2a. &bull; Astynax talk 19:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the first point, the source does not mention Prince Afonso at any point anywhere. On the second point, see Manual of Style/Lead section. DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not know if the objective of user Kiernan is to improve this article or to remove its featured status. It is not alleged in the text that the Prince is known as "Alphonso" in English; the reference is used just to indicate the correct version of his name in English, that's all. Maybe we need a little more conversation here. Tonyjeff (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do we have a reference about the 'correct' spelling of his name, is the way he spells it incorrect? This should not be an issue, this article should not have the english spelling version in it.Millertime246 (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "... the reference is used just to indicate the correct version of his name in English, that's all." You are indeed correct, Tonyjeff. --Lecen (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it is to improve the article. That is what I've been trying to do all along. His name is not translated as Alphonso. It is not "the correct version of his name in English". If an alternate version of his name is to be included in the article, although it need not be, it should be the version included in reliable sources: Alfonso. DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Article protected for a week

 * The article is protected for a week. You guys all seem to be experienced editors, so it shouldn't be too hard to come with something that everyone agrees on.  Just remember that Wikipedia is supposed to represent all significant points of view found in reliable sources, not just your preferred point of view. Betty Logan (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert
I've reverted back to the last stable revision before any of the edit-warring began, which is what should have happened in the first place. It will be less stressful and combative if edits that are likely to be contested are discussed on talk before they are made. DrKiernan (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I really think it is non-sense. We are disputing about an additional information which has been referenced by valid sources (those inserted by user Lecen). "Alphonso" is, indeed, a valid translation for "Afonso" (for sure, "Alfonso" is not), so why destroy the history of the article with a meaningless dispute? Tonyjeff (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See Manual of Style/Lead section. We only add archaic names (such as Affonso, which was the original spelling of his name) or relevant foreign-language names. We don't add English "translations". The point of adding alternative names to the lead is to present the reader with other terms for that specific individual that have been used by reliable sources talking about that specific individual. This presents relevant information to the reader and provides alternative names that can be used in searches. The addition of "Alphonso" is pointless and unnecessary because his name is Afonso (or Affonso) not Alphonso. "Alphonso" is never used. At best, it is trivia. At worst, it is misinformation because readers can be misled into thinking that it was a name used by him or in the literature. DrKiernan (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)