Talk:Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias/Archive 1

Birth
This article is self-contradictory: The infobox gives a different birth palce. Duque of Caxias and Sao Paulo are not even in the same state. Circeus 14:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know. The information was snagged of the Portuguese article and said that:


 * "Luís Alves de Lima e Silva nasceu em 25 de agosto de 1803 na fazenda São Paulo, situada na vila de Porto da Estrela, hoje Parque Histórico Duque de Caxias, no município fluminense de Duque de Caxias."


 * Perhaps there was an error to the Duque de Caxias article, I will check it out. So if there is a contradiction here, it passed from the article there. Also, note that the name "São Paulo" doesn't necessarily have to mean that city - several places have identical names.  However, to avoid confusion I will erase the area of contradiction.  Thank you for pointing this error out. NOVO-REI 16:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I found the problem, the translation states:in the plantation of Sao Paulo, situated in the vila of Porto da Estrela, today, the Historic park of the Duke of Caxias, in the fluminense municipality of Duke de Caxias.  Fluminense refers to someone from Rio, and I must have overlooked it - or simply did not add this disambiguuation to the article. However, this is what I did to add clarity.  And also, I guess my hypothesis was correct, in that Sao Paulo doesn't just refer to one place.  :-) NOVO-REI 16:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DCaxias.png
Image:DCaxias.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Improving the article
I've began improving the article. As you might have noticed, it will be as large as Pedro II of Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can barely believe it, but I'm done with the entire period between 1857 and 1880. Now I have to work on the period between 1818 and 1857. --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done with several sections. Going to focus now on the period between 1846 and 1880. --Lecen (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit
As explained by Lecen on my talkpage, I was reverted having performed an edit consisting of two trimmings (IMHO one of factual vaguarity and one of a useless quotation). Finally, I removed a stray comma and clarified the tense of a sentence. Lecen presents this as changing the meaning of the passage (quite clearly not what I was intending!). In the spirit of WP:BRD, I am open to ideas about what needs to be reintroduced along with my trimmings to retain the original sense (which I didn't and still don't think I have), and hence I am opening this thread. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 18:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so now we're specifically discussing the highlighted words in the paragraph "... It was impossible for Caxias to remain aloof from partisanship. He had cast his lot with the Reactionaries from the moment he accepted the appointment to put down the rebellion in Maranhão, even if his move toward the Reactionary camp was not clear at the time. His victory over the Liberal rebels in 1842 only further solidified his fidelity to the Reactionary Party. He increasingly identified himself with the Reactionary ideology: ..."
 * Now, this is a long article and brevity is important. IMHO most the highlighted words contribute nothing. I could understand "He had cast his lot with the Reactionaries from the moment he accepted the appointment to put down the rebellion in Maranhão", but the 'even if' sentence is really just a hypothesis here; and "only further solidified" is superfluous to the next sentence about increasingly identifying with the Reactionaries. I welcome disagreement :) - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am closely following the author's text. The Duke of Caxias did not become a Conservative in one simple step. It was a slow process and the text must make it clear since his entire family was composed of Liberals. This information is highly important. The article is huge, as it is the one that I wrote about Pedro II of Brazil. This is about the life a man who was not only a highly accomplished military officer, who fought from the national war for Independence to the Paraguayan War, but who was also a great politician, who became prime minister in three different occasions. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I opened peer review process for this article. Shouldn't this discussion occur there since I believe you got here because of the peer review. --Lecen (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It could occur there. I see little point in moving it now though (I agree: my original oversight). If you think moving it there would get more input, then please do.
 * My point was that that slow transition is entirely encapsulated in the words "He increasingly identified himself with the Reactionary ideoalogy".
 * I understand that it is long; I had the same problem myself with Klemens von Metternich. It just means that you don't have the room for overly verbose statements of things: every word has to count, and I'm not ure that is the case here. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 13:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed content about removed content
My apologies for accidentally deleting all that 'removed content' stuff when updating the MilHist ACR info -- no idea how that happened... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I want to keep it as resource for readers. I'l wait the bot to archive it so it won't occupy space. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Scant information before age 36
Hello, Lecen. I noticed we say that there is scant information about Luís Alves before the age of 36. Then we follow it with 15 paragraphs about his life before the age of 36. Maybe "scant" is not the best word to use here? Good work on the article! Very interesting! --  Kenatipo   speak! 19:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Kenatipo. Thank you for your kind words. Good to know you enjoyed the article. In case you're interested, you may review it and share your thoughts on its FAC nomination. There is sufficient information to fill an encyclopedic article such as this one, but not enough to fill an entire chapter of a book. Authors usually spend around 90% of their biographs about Caxias talking about everything that happened after he was sent to quell the Balaiada. Everything that happened before is just told so fast that you would believe he was born an adult. Weird, I know. Even more weird when we're talking about a man who fought in his country's independence war, fought in another international war, was a teacher to the young emperor and son of the regent. Do you want an example? To this day I never saw a single historian say when he became Pedro II's teacher. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to the FAC nomination page. I'm glad to see other editors helping get the article up to that high standard.  I'll finish looking at the article and let you know if I find anything else.  --  Kenatipo    speak! 20:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed content
It was a tough decision, but I opted to remove pieces of the text to keep it smaller. As it is right now, although it explains quite well the world around Caxias, it is simply too large, even though it's under 100kb. Since I don't want to simply erase the removed text, I moved here, so that anyone might see in the future.

Family background
The earliest known patrilineal ancestor of the Duke of Caxias is his great-grandfather, João da Silva da Fonseca. He was a sergeant major (equivalent to a major in today's army) assigned to an artillery regiment in Lagos, a town in the Algarve of southern Portugal. He may have been a wealthy merchant and his position as an officer in his regiment may explain why his eldest son began his career with the rank of alferes (the modern equivalent of Second Lieutenant), a privilege open to few in Portugal's highly hierarchical society. João da Silva was married to Isabel Josefa Brandão Ivo, daughter of a Frenchman who lived in Lisbon. The couple had two sons and two daughters. Both male children embarked upon a military career. The brothers had neither noble rank nor noble ancestry and lacked patrons in an environment in which advancement depended upon exchanges of favors and family connections. Rather than pursuing a career in the Portuguese homeland, far better opportunities for rising through the ranks were available in defending the far-flung Portuguese colonies.

The eldest son, Francisco de Lima da Silva, brought his younger brother José Joaquim de Lima da Silva to Brazil, then a Portuguese colony, in 1767. The two settled in Rio de Janeiro, capital of both the Rio de Janeiro captaincy (later province) and of the Viceroyalty of Brazil. They lived for several years in the South American colony and fought against the Spaniards on its southern frontiers. Francisco de Lima was retired and returned to Portugal in 1777, where he died—unmarried—two years later.

His younger brother, José Joaquim, opted to stay in Brazil. He slowly advanced through the ranks and in 1785 managed to enter into an advantageous marriage to Joana Maria da Fonseca Costa, a member of an influential family who had resided in Rio de Janeiro since the 17th century. Joaquim named his first-born son, Francisco de Lima da Silva (later Lima e Silva), after his older brother. In 1801, Francisco de Lima was married to Mariana Cândido de Oliveira Belo, whose prominent family was originally from the captaincy of Minas Gerais. The eldest male child of Francisco de Lima and Mariana Cândido was the future Duke of Caxias.

Independence of Brazil
On 18 January 1823, Pedro I created the "Emperor's Battalion", an elite infantry unit composed of men handpicked by himself. One of those selected for the new battalion was Luís Alves.

Luís Alves' uncle Joaquim (the commander of the Emperor's Battalion) was almost certainly part of the conspiracy and was chosen by the officers to replace Labatut. It is unknown if Luís Alves was also involved. It is probable that he did not participate since, unlike his uncle and other relatives in the army, he was not rewarded with any commission by the conspirators.

Cisplatine War and father's betrayal
The dates are unknown for two other actions in which Luís Alves participated. The first of these was a raid in which he led a few soldiers against a docked corsair and its crew of 50 men. The Brazilian forces passed through enemy lines unnoticed and captured both the ship and its crew. The second action was a night attack against a rebel position in which he managed to capture more than 30 enemy soldiers.

During his stay in Montevideo, he met María Ángela Furriol González Luna. How far their relationship progressed is unknown but they may have been in a failed engagement.

Although forgiven by the Emperor, and even advanced by him despite their role in the plot against Labatut in 1823, Luís Alves's father and uncles betrayed Pedro I and joined the rebellion.

Luís Alves also volunteered to lead the militia against the rebel troops.

Pedro I preferred abdication to civil war, and a few hours later, during the early hours of 7 April, he renounced the throne.

Balaiada
Maranhão was one of several Brazilian provinces which had fallen into turmoil following the abdication of Pedro I and the promulgation of the constitutional amendment known as the Ato Adicional (Additional Act) in 1834. The Additional Act was the brainchild of Luís Alves' father, uncles and theirs allies—all members of what would later, in the early 1840s, become known as the Liberal Party. The Additional Act decentralizatized the country and gave considerable powers to provinces. Broader local self-government opened new avenues of conflict between political parties. Whichever party could dominate the provinces could now also gain control over the national electoral and political system. Unwilling to be shut out, parties that lost by ballot rebelled and tried to take power by force.

Liberal rebellions of 1842
Pedro II formed a cabinet with members taken from the Liberal Party-Courtier Faction coalition that soon collapsed, putting the Reactionaries once again at the head of the government.

He held as a clear principle that politics should be limited to parliament, and not circumvented through armed insurrection.

With the uprisings suppressed, the Party of Order and its ideals were validated. According to historian Jeffrey D. Needell, the "revolts clarified still more the process of political ideological identification, party discipline and partisan organization".

The Party of Order also passed the Interpretação do Ato Adicional (Interpretation of the Additional Act) and the reform of the Código de Processo Criminal (Code of Criminal Procedure). Both laws were built upon the 1834 Additional Act and allowed the national government to reassert control over provincial police and courts. These reforms provided more effective means to deal with provincial rebellions. Inevitably, these same reforms also granted the national government greater sway over the provincial government, and in turn the party in power gained greater ascendancy in national politics through patronage and office appointments.

War of the Ragamuffins
Twelve provincial presidents had failed where Caxias was ordered to succeed.

Caxias' nomination resulted in enmity with Aureliano de Sousa Oliveira Coutinho (later Viscount of Sepetiba). The main chieftain of the Facção Áulica (Courtier Faction), Aureliano Coutinho wanted Saturnino de Sousa e Oliveira Coutinho, his younger brother, as president of Rio Grande do Sul. Caxias refused to serve under Saturnino Coutinho. Powerful, and with strong influence over the young and inexperienced Pedro II, Aureliano Coutinho joined with Liberals in the parliament to undermine Caxias' reputation.

A year later, Honório and the saquaremas resigned after he quarreled with Pedro II because the Emperor refused to dismiss Saturnino Coutinho from an administrative office.

Platine War
Caxias and the Party of Order stood for years in opposition to the Courtier-Liberal coalition in parliament. By 1847, however, a mature Pedro II had removed members of the Courtier Faction from key positions without causing any disruption. Aureliano Coutinho's influence was destroyed after the Emperor implicitly banned him from participation in political decision making. The monarch then moved against the Liberals. From 1844 through 1848, the Empire saw several Liberal cabinets appointed in succession, all plagued by internal divisions.

The years of chaos came to a close. With the exception of the short Praieira rebellion in 1848–1849, Brazil would enjoy internal peace and stability until the end of the Empire.

Conciliation cabinet
The Liberal Party of which he was a member had fallen into discredit for its role in countless rebellions.

The latter attempted to advance the Emperor's ambitious program of conciliação (conciliation) and melhoramentos (material developments). Pedro II's reforms aimed to restrain the deleterious partisan political climate and to push forward infrastructure and economic development.

The Interpretation of the Additional Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure legislative measures had allowed cabinets considerable powers to meddle in elections through coercion and patronage.

Siege of Uruguaiana
The trip was an uneasy experience for Caxias. The Emperor's entourage also included the war minister, Ângelo Ferraz (later the Baron of Uruguaiana). A member of the Progressive League still in power, Ferraz was a personal enemy of Caxias. They loathed each other and, now forced to keep company, argued. Used to being the preeminent person in the war front, Caxias was undermined by his vanity and soon barely able to hide his displeasure at being overshadowed by Pedro II, who predictably caught all attention. A delighted Ferraz noticed: "Caxias is very sullen. In part he is right, but he has only himself to blame. One should never play the role of subordinate or valet in a place where one once was king."

Commander-in-Chief
A fort at Curuzú was taken initially, but an attempt on 22 September against Curupayty was repulsed. The failure to take Curupayty caused the morale of the troops to reach its lowest point, and the Brazilian generals quarreled and could not agree on further action.

With the Brazilian army ready for combat, Caxias began the operation to encircle Humaitá and force its capitulation by siege. The first move was made against the abandoned Paraguayan village of Tuyú Cué, which was occupied on 29 July 1867. The combined Brazilian-Argentine-Uruguayan army advanced through hostile territory in the effort to surround Humaitá. When the Paraguayan position at Tahí was taken on 2 November, Humaitá was completely cut off from overland reinforcement by Paraguayan forces. On 19 February 1868, Brazilian ironclads successfully made a passage up the Paraguay river under heavy fire, assuming full control of the river and thus isolating Humaitá from resupply by water. Caxias also used observation balloons to gather information on enemy lines.

Dezembrada
Soon after Caxias was chosen to lead the Brazilian forces in 1866, Ferraz was relieved of the War ministry portfolio to avoid complications arising from the friction between the two men. As time passed, Caxias became irritated by the constant criticisms directed at him by newspapers connected to the Progressives. He tendered his resignation, but the Progressive-led government refused to accept. Having lost credibility for prosecuting the war and plagued by party infighting, the Progressive cabinet resigned. The Emperor called Itaboraí, who led the Conservatives back into power on 16 July 1868.

By the last part of September, the Allied armies were facing the entrenched Paraguayan forces at the Pikysyry.

Aftermath
Many of the officers in Brazil's Paraguayan force had become casualties during the previous year, and it was thought that the presence of the Commander-in-Chief was necessary.

The Emperor was angered that the Marquis had left his post without permission, and especially that Caxias had declared the war to have been already won—even though López was still at large and regrouping his remaining military assets. With victory having been thus declared, Caxias's subordinates began preparing for what they assumed would be an imminent return to Brazil. The lack of will to follow-up on the Allied victories seriously endangered the hard-won achievements of the past months, even as the objective of eliminating López as a threat remained tantalizingly within reach.

He remained at home for a month, refusing to leave.

Historian Heitor Lyra said that "the title of Duke gave Caxias incalculable prestige. It overshadowed, to a certain extent, its own designation [Caxias], already by itself glorious. He became, from that point, the Duke. There was no necessity to say his name. The title was enough—the Duke. The Duke, in Brazil, was him, could be only him, as the Duke, in England of George IV, could only be Wellington."

Legacy
Nelson Werneck Sodré said that Caxias, as a historical character, suffers from the same shortcomings as Pedro II. Both have been always presented as irreproachable men. Not that the historian regards them as unworthy, but to him somewhere in the process the human face of each was lost, giving place to "this black and white figure, model of individual virtues".

Nonetheless, to Sodré Caxias was "not only the greatest military commander of his continent [South America], in his time, but [also] a great politician". Moreover, Caxias was "—more than D. Pedro II—the Empire." His respect to the law and his complete obedience to the civilian government were fundamental. "Caxias, who could have been the most powerful caudillo," says Sodré, "exempts the country of caudillism. While, in the Río de la Plata, the Urquizas, the Rosas, the Oribes, caused disaster to their nations and hindered their development, Caxias added to his prestige both his roles in the consolidation of the empire as well in its external victories without ever throwing his sword over the political balance nor taking [by force] political offices for himself."

Since the first well known biography published in 1878 he "has been the subject of several hagiographic biographies", according to historian Roderick J. Barman.

According to Francisco Doratioto, the Duke "was uncompromising in the defense of the established order, but, once obtained the military vantage over the rebels, he attempted to reach a conciliation, avoiding inhuman treatment toward the prisioners and granting them amnesty". Also, in "his conception the military power was subordinated to the civilian power, and the greatness of the country was associated with to the order and to the established authorities", something quite different from his Hispanic-American counterparts, as well of the Brazilian military of the late Empire and most of the republican era. The historian remarked as well that:

The official military historiography avoided making critical references to the command of Caxias in Paraguay, or, yet, in relation to other moments of his career. It tried to build a pure historical icon, without flaws, many times belittling his contemporaries (Mitre and Osório, for example), as it was necessary to diminish other military commanders to greaten the figure of the Duke, until turning him into the Patron of the Army. The artificiality of such creation results in the little empathy from the part of the ordinary citizen for the icon. Caxias in Paraguay had doubts, pride, resentment, and made mistakes; in short, he was a real character, just as the author or reader of this book. Caxias, however, was able to rise above his limitations, imposed on himself great personal sacrifices and incorporated the responsibility of accomplishing the objective... In this context, Caxias was, indeed, a hero; he carried with him, it is true, social and political prejudice of his time, but one can not demand from the past the observance of present-day values.

Ricardo Salles said that although his character "evidenced a conservative mind, typical of a dominant group of a socially hierarchical society divided by slavery, there is no reason to deduce based on that he conducted the army without regard to reduce to the maximum the human losses, in battle or by diseases". "On the contrary", affirmed the historian, "the military behavior of Caxias, as it was expected from a competent commander, was guided by an adequate preparation of his actions, always carefully planned and executed..." He concluded: "A man of his time, ... Caxias fulfilled his duty."

Pronunciation
(I have copied the first two entries from our respective User:Talk pages, as this dispute would be better discussed here)

You removed the pronunciation at Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias again, this time with no explanation. You were previously reverted with a note referring you to Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation. Is there some reason you oppose clueing in the English-speaking reader that the name isn't pronounced or somesuch? It's widely-established consensus that it's helpful to include the pronunciation of foreign-language names not immediately pronounceable by the native English speaker. Where there is a stable English pronunciation, it's perfectly acceptable to include it, but otherwise the foreign form will do. If you find this problem problematic, by all means raise a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You should take a look at Single-purpose account. Looking at your history log all I can see is that the sole thing you did in here is to add IPA to every single article. We are not supposed to teach readers how to pronounce every single foreign name. Even less when the name "Caxias" is easily pronounceable in English. I'm not going to force readers to pronounce it in Portuguese. This is not the Portuguese Wikipedia, but the English Wikipedia. I could understand an explanation of how we should pronounce it if it was written in an alphabet that is unreadable to the average English speaking reader. This is not the case. I'm going to ask you to stop your crusade to add IPA to every article you see. --Lecen (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You make a wildly inaccurate accusation that I am a new editor pushing some conflict of interest. While I have made many thousands of edits in the area of linguistics (as I find I can easily make small helpful contributions in this area), I have made plenty in other areas as well.  I would kindly request you assume good faith, and instead engage the issue: do you have a problem with the MoS on this issue, and if so why don't you raise it on the talk page I linked above?
 * Contrary to your comment, the name Caxias is not intuitive for an English-speaker naïve of Portuguese. Such a person would most likely think it .  If something like this is indeed used in English (I don't happen to have many friends who discuss 19th century Brazilian statesmen, so I wouldn't know), by all means add that alongside the native pronunciation.  The point of these transcriptions is not to "force readers to pronounce" things any way at all, it's simply to educate them how they are usually pronounced, because some readers will find this to be useful information.  If your argument is that we should be transcribing this with, the thinking is that if the name doesn't have a stable English pronunciation, it would be original research to invent one, and that it's better to just report how it's pronounced in the native language and let them anglicize it as they see fit.  — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion
I can see absolutely no reason not to follow Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation, which says that we should include the standard English pronunciation, if there is one, and the Portuguese pronunciation, both using the IPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Xyzzyva is a Single-purpose account as you can see on his history log. The only thing he does is add IPA. That's all he does. And we are talking about the pronunciation HE deems the correct one. Unsourced pronunciation. It's OR. It's unacceptable. The article is a FA. A guide to pronunciation could be considered appropriate if we were talking about a name hard to be pronounceable or unpronounceable in English, which is not the case here. --Lecen (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Fourth opinion
1. I similarly see no reason to not follow Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation and provide both the English and Portuguese pronunciations using the IPA. If User:Lecen has a problem with the Manual of Style, this isn't the place to raise the issue.

2. User:Lecen repeatedly claims that User:Xyzzyva is a single-purpose account. I followed User:Lecen's advice, reviewed User:Xyzzyva's history log, and it's simply not true. I can see many of his edits in his long history are related to IPA, but many are not. I don't see how it helps the discussion to have User:Lecen falsely state again and again that "the only thing User:Xyzzyva does is add IPA."--Drickfire (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with everyone-but-Lecen that an IPA pronunciation would be helpful. However, Lecen is correct in this edit summary that an audio clip is not quite a sufficient source, especially when we have better, more authoritative sources on the pronunciation of a given word.  The sourcing for the pronunciation in words in languages with transparent orthographies, such as that of Spanish, Russian, and Portuguese is much more lax because it doesn't take an expert in linguistics to figure out the normal pronunciation.  Source or no, adding pronunciation (either in Portuguese or in English) is line with the MOS.  If Lecen really disagrees with this MOS or in its applicability to this particular article, (s)he should take it up in the MOS talk page.
 * Also, just for the sake of sanity, let's stop the edit warring. Until we're sure Lecen is on board with the addition, further edits to add it won't strengthen the case and only act to make the situation antagonistic.  If Lecen persists in the untoward personal attacks on Xyzzyva, we can deal with that through the appropriate channels. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  02:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The point is that there is NO standard English language pronunciation for Caxias. In a very quick search of only a couple of minutes, I came across 3 different pronunciations given for Caxias on 3 different English language dictionary sites. Nor are the vast majority of readers at all familiar with IPA representations, which further complicates the chances for engendering erroneous pronunciations. Lecen's request for an iron-clad reference to support the proposed pronunciation before adding it is entirely appropriate, especially as Brazilian Portuguese is his native language. &bull; Astynax talk 02:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your point about there being no standard English pronunciation may be a good one. If that's the case, then we certainly shouldn't claim there is.  As with anything, if we can't ref something that's reasonably challenged, it doesn't belong.  (Though Lucen being a native Portuguese speaker makes him less relevant, not more, because he's less likely to be able to make native-level judgements in English.)  The Portuguese pronunciation, however, is reasonable.  Although obvious, not everyone is familiar enough with Portuguese to be able to read the name.  However, the objection to the IPA is silly:  We can't cater to the ignorance of the ill-educated.  That's like arguing that we should never use big words, like "monarchist" or "renounced" in this article, because some of our readers may be functionally illiterate, or that we should delete the population from the article on Brazil, because some readers can't count that high.  — kwami (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Astynax that there likely isn't a standard English pronunciation of the name, since he's so rarely discussed in English, which is why at no point have I added one. The actual Portuguese pronunciation being added is not under dispute here—Lecen opposes any inclusion of a pronunciation, and as several of us have stated above, that should be discussed at MoS because it would apply to tens of thousands of articles, at least.  — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If the English is included in a reputable dictionary, such as one of the OED's or MW's, then I'd add it too. (Dict.com looks like they're trying to give the Portuguese in English transcription, which is a mish-mash.)  And the city would be just fine, since that's what he named himself after.  Anyone know what MW Collegiate has?  It's not included in the OED.
 * For the Portuguese, of course, there's no reason not to include it, and anyone edit warring to delete it while it's under discussion could be blocked for disruption.
 * Looks like the MW geographic dict also approximates the Portuguese, since they use the otherwise rare English vowel a-dot. But I don't know if this means there is no assimilated pronunciation, or if that dict. always tries to approximate the native pronunciation.  — kwami (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've already noted, there are multiple English dictionaries showing multiple pronunciations. There is also no reason that an unsourced addition should be preserved while under discussion in a previously stable FA, especially when we have editors who have no idea of the correct pronunciation (even assuming that there are not regional Portuguese variations) insisting on adding one. &bull; Astynax talk 07:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is, since what you're saying has nothing to do with what you're edit warring over. — kwami (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that the MoS on foreign names is not the only thing that some users in this discussion are unfamiliar with. I would also like to direct attention to Help:IPA for Portuguese and Galician; for anyone unfamiliar with our policies on the use of IPA, there is typically one convention system used in-house for any given language.  Portuguese has some caveats to this, but it's pretty cut-and-dry how the Portuguese transcription should be. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  18:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, some of us are familiar with the MOS on foreign names. It is a guideline. The style guide itself notes that pronunciation need not always be supplied and that Wikipedia is not a dictionary where such notations are more usually given. There are multiple English and Portuguese pronunciations for this name in reliable sources (and even more in contemporary 19th century references). As has already been stated, even if consensus moves to support the inclusion of a phonetic transcription, pulling one off a television program is not a reliable citation to support that pronunciation. &bull; Astynax talk 09:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Xyzzyva does not know how to speak Portuguese. You can see that his user page. As far as I know, no one else here speaks Portuguese. I do. It's my native language. Xyzzyva shouldn't add IPA if he doesn't speak Portuguese. And adding a tv show does not make it a reliable source because it has nothing to do with IPA. --Lecen (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I returned the article to the last stable version per Wikipedia rules. Please discuss first before imposing unsourced additions. That's all I'm asking. --Lecen (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, Lecen. Is your argument that the pronunciation is incorrect (that is, that this is not how the name is said in Portuguese), or is your argument that you don't think the pronunciation information needs to be shared in that format in the article, whether it's right or wrong? Your point that Xyzzyva doesn't speak Portuguese only has anything to do with this conversation if you're saying that their pronunciation is wrong, but you haven't actually said it's wrong, you've only said that you don't want it in the article and that you think Xyzzyva shouldn't be putting IPA in articles. If the pronunciation is correct and you just don't want it in the article, I'm afraid you haven't done a good job of explaining so far why you think it shouldn't be there. Could you try again to explain to us why, if the pronunciation is correct, you don't think it should be there, especially as the Manual of Style seems to disagree with you? If you think the pronunciation is actually incorrect, it would also really help if you could explain how you think it's wrong, so the people here can look into fixing it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

CT Opinion
Firstly, I'd like to state that this entire discussion is ridiculous. The fact is that Caxias is not an English name of repute that has no historical cited pronunciation in English. Heck, in Portuguese, I can even assure you that a Portuguese and a Brazilian will pronounce it differently, so it is ridiculous that there would be a unified and reputable English pronunciation. I have to vote against the addition. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please stop with the edit war. Please top claiming things about this article or me that has never happened. I never accepted the inclusion of IPA. The IPA was added on 25 August and immediately removed. It was added back now through edit war by two users who do not bother to discuss. I will not support the inclusion, even less when forced, of pronunciation guide of a foreign language that edit warriors do not even speak. --Lecen (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Lecen, putting aside what I see as factual problems with how you've portrayed this "edit war," can you address User:Fluffernutter's specific points above? Thanks.--Drickfire (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm curious if the variation in Portuguese you're talking about is between, , , and . If so, by all means I'm open to any of those options, as they exhibit accent variations covered by the linked transcription guide. Generally I follow those guides' advice by choosing the broadest possible transcription, which for Portuguese usually means using [ʃ] for the merged sibilants in coda position, but as many (most?) Brazilians use [s] in this position, I would not oppose opting for it in any Brazil-related article.  The same pretty much goes for the choice of [a] vs. [ɐ] in non-final unstressed syllables.  If this variation is not what you're disputing, please let us know what you would prefer so we can discuss it. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Xyzzyva, do you speak Portuguese? --Lecen (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Lecen, I imagine you are frustrated, but it would greatly help resolve things and demonstrate your good faith if you would directly answer fluffernutter's questions or specifically reply to Xyzzyva's recent remarks. Please consider doing so. Thanks.Drickfire (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether Xyzzyva speaks Portuguese or not is not really relevant, as he has demonstrated sufficient linguistic skill in being able to provide phonetic transcriptions. As has been said, if there is something incorrect about the transcriptions, then it would be helpful to indicate what's wrong with them.  From what you said so far, it seems that you believe there to be reasons to keep such transcriptions out of this article, which makes their accuracy irrelevant and Xyzzyva's proficiency in speaking Portuguese especially irrelevant. Again, please stop with the personal approach and address the merits of people's arguments.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  21:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No Specific Lecen Objections to this Portuguese IPA
As Lecen has not responded to the 4 different editors who requested here (I also requested on his talk page) that he provide a specific objection to this Portuguese IPA (Is the IPA incorrect? If so, how? Are we misinterpreting Wiki's Manual of Style? If so, how?), I reverted back. If this phonetic transcription is correct, a rationale for not putting it in has to be provided; asking editors if they speak Portuguese is not a rationale. -- Drickfire (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the name Caxias have its pronunciation indicated?
Should the name Caxias have its pronunciation indicated? And is there something wrong with the pronunciation ? 23:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(Any new contributors should look through the "Pronunciation" section above.) — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No reason to add for the reasons I'll give below:
 * User — ˈzɪzɨvə does not speak Portuguese. How could he tell others how are they supposed to pronounce a name in Portuguese, then?
 * There are no sources. An youtube video with no relation to IPA is not a reliable source.
 * Why Caxias? Why not "Luis" or "Alves"? Is the name "Caxias" hard to pronounce in English? No, it isn't.
 * I oppose it. --Lecen (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I will add that Caxias is not his name, it is a title he was awarded later in his life. There is no reason or requirement to add this in the lead. A link to an entry in Wiktionary, to a footnote giving the several pronunciation variations, or to the article on the city name would be sufficient, assuming that it is needed at all. &bull; Astynax talk 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, to the intransigent demand for slapping this into article leads, just in case I was not already clear. There are alternatives that might garner support of regular editors on this article, but the insistence on plugging the IPA into the lead has been disruptive rather than constructive. &bull; Astynax talk 02:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The editor who wants to add the pronunciation doesn't speak Portuguese, which is quite serious. The further attempts to force the inclusion of a pronunciation is wrong and unacceptable. Edit warring and long-term attempt to re-add is nothing more but to game the rules. --FaelCruz-- 01:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As stated multiple times above, whether or not I speak Portuguese could only possibly matter if there was a dispute over what the pronunciation is, and no one so far has disputed —even then, native speaker intuition is not a reliable source. Lecen being a native speaker of Portuguese may not realize that the spelling of the name Caxias is quite unintuitive to the English speaker, as ‹x› never represents /ʃ/ in English. and the average English reader has essentially no knowledge of Portuguese.  And note that the subject of this article is referred to as Caxias throughout, not Lima e Silva or Luís Alves.  This is not the kind of subject usually covered by a dictionary, it's usually covered by an encyclopedia.


 * As for the aesthetic concern, Astynax, if a proposal was made to add a pronunciation parameter to infoboxes, especially for people and places, I would definitely prefer putting them there over the lead of articles. But that's not yet an option here.  By all means raise that proposal at the MoS or the various infobox pages, and let me know about it so I can argue for it.  Until then, this is the established way to include useful encyclopedic information.  — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I oppose it. There are no reliable sources for an English pronunciation. The editor who wants to add the pronunciation does not even speak the Portuguese language, let alone understand the complexities of its pronunciation system or variances in pronunciation. It's just too controversial. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I support it. The current edit war is not over an English IPA. Putting in the Portuguese IPA at the beginning of the article is consistent with the Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation--no one is putting forth a claim it is not. The argument against putting it in ("User:Xyzzyva doesn't speak Portuguese") is irrelevant, in the same way that the answer to a math problem may be right or wrong without regard to whether to person providing it is a mathematician. As User:Xyzzyva stated, whether he speaks Portuguese "could only possibly matter if there was a dispute over what the pronunciation is, and no one so far has disputed —even then, native speaker intuition is not a reliable source." -- Drickfire (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - the native pronunciation of the dukedom is very far from what an English reader would guess, and en.wp exists to inform and help readers. The rest of the name is guessable so the whole name does not need to be included. Thanks to whoever thought to propose this, and editors opposing, seriously, why? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support — Caxias is easy for an English speaker to pronounce, but not to figure out how to pronounce. X is not pronounced sh in English, and no English speaker without previous experience in Portuguese pronunciation would guess it was pronounced that way. "Difficult to pronounce" is not the only criterion for including pronunciations in articles; there is also the criterion "difficult to read for the first time". And it is not always necessary for someone to speak a language to be able to determine the pronunciation of a word in the language. Certain languages have very transparent orthographies, and the pronunciation of unknown words can be predicted by someone who has learned the rules. Since apparently Zyzzva knows the rules, it is appropriate for him or her to add pronunciations. — Eru·tuon 05:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I see Lecen has added an English language pronunciation. Lecen, is it your contention that the Portuguese IPA is incorrect (if so, how?) and that it is appropriate to provide an English language pronunciation, but not use IPA and follow the Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation? -- Drickfire (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per Eru: English-speakers are unlikely to have any idea how to pronounce this name, and guidance will be helpful and appreciated. Granted that alternative pronunciations exist in Portuguese, the "alternatives" likely to occur to English-speakers would be way off the mark, so that any guidance would be an improvement over English-speakers' guesswork. I also object to the (implicit) argument that contributors who tell us they are Portuguese speakers/natives/experts are, ipso facto the only ones qualified to participate in deciding such matters, contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Better to rely on an objective, standard pronunciation than to leave ourselves at the mercy of those whose message is, "We speak/are Portuguese/Brazilian, you don't/aren't, so you MUST accept our authority in deciding this matter." Their advice may be correct, but their grounds for why we should accept it is...unacceptable -- and yet is typical of arguments used to prevail in matters concerning articles on Portuguese/Brazilian royalty and nobility. This !vote is a better process than succumbing to that tyranny. FactStraight (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * RfCbot invitee - Conditional Support. One of two things needs to happen with the term "Caxias". Ideally, "Caxias" would link to the duchy that Silva was the titular duke of, and that article would contain the IPA pronunciation in its lede. If that is not possible - say, if the duchy were invented, and doesn't refer to an actual location - then the pronunciation needs to be in this article's lede. As a foreign term with - to English readers at least - unintuitive pronunciation, it is unacceptable that the pronunciation is not provided in some way. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 01:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Conditional support. Some assistance in pronunciation would seem to be helpful. Given the pronunciation is contentious (as seen from the above dialogue), I'd expect to see that pronunciation guide backed by a reliable cited source. If there are variations amongst reliable sources, then that should be footnoted. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: please feel free to skip the rest of my comments if you're only interested in the immediate issue as it affects the current topic 'Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias'. However, I feel they are relevant to Wikipedia's wider success as a place people love to go to read and learn about the world, its people and history. YMMV!
 * Support. As this is the English-language Wikipedia, it seeks to inform English speakers about its topics.  When such a topic has a foreign name, it is therefore necessary to provide some guidance to English speakers on at least one generally acceptable pronunciation.  This has the advantage of enabling the reader to talk intelligibly about the topic, especially with those people more likely to take an interest in it - speakers of the foreign language which originally named the topic.  To oppose providing such guidance smacks of cultural exclusivity, quite contrary to the inclusive spirit of the Wikipedia culture.
 * Support as per MOS. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There is another issue: What form should that pronunciation guidance take? I question whether using IPA is the most effective way to provide the necessary guidance to the majority of English-language Wikipedia readers. One might argue that an IPA transcription is, at best, too close, since it will prescribe vowel varieties which not all English speakers use. Certainly few of my friends or family - all of whom consult Wikipedia casually and often - have any understanding of IPA, and I believe its appearance in the lead paragraph may tend to put some readers off using Wikipedia at all, as it makes the writing too difficult for many. And let's face it, IPA is hard! Even though I've been using IPA seriously for decades, there are times I find myself confused as to the exact pronunciation it indicates, especially in language families I'm less familiar with. And another difficulty with IPA is that many of our editors lack the confidence, authority or technical skill to provide it. Those that can and do provide IPA pronunciations must also prepare to withstand sniping attacks from self-appointed experts; only the very brave can consistently implement the standard Wikipedia advice: "Be bold!"

I'd personally like to ask editors to consider whether we could serve our readers better by giving them a simple respelling and pronunciation guide, even placing it as an infobox on every page. This could supplement the IPA, which I'm sure many students of foreign languages treasure as I do. Among others, the Oxford and Webster dictionaries have used such guides very successfully over many successive editions. Of course, such a "plain English speaker's guide" to foreign pronunciations will not spring, like the legendary soldiers from the dragon's teeth, fully formed and ready to do battle. It would need some serious effort to produce something usable and acceptable to the speakers of all the major varieties of English; in short, a project. If you're interested in contributing to such a venture, talk to me. If there's enough support, I will mount a project. yoyo (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Such a project already exists at WP:Pronunciation respelling key, but the longstanding consensus is to use it only for words in English, not foreign terms. By all means suggest expanded use at the talkpage there.  It's going to be virtually impossible to meet the goal of intuitiveness while even coming close to the comprehensiveness of the IPA; for example, how do we intuitively transcribe the various front rounded vowels common in European languages—let alone the forty-odd click consonants of !Xóõ—when we can't even come up with a consistently intuitive transcription for the native vowel ?  As for the suggestion of moving pronunciations to an infobox, that's one that I would wholly support, especially on bio and place articles (the most common recipients of pronunciations) where all it would take is an added parameter for the infoboxes they almost always have already.  — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Since I apparently never actually put it in: Support. I would like to question the article as it stands since Lecen's Nov 2 edits.  Since we now have a source (s)he considers acceptable, can't we use it to support a transcription in our consensus transcription system?  As these transcription keys are specific products of Wikipedia consensus, essentially no outside sources ever match them exactly.  If you oppose using that key's advice here, you propose abolishing every one of the Help:IPA for XX keys and the tens of thousands of transcriptions based on them.  Secondary point: Hchc2009, I must point out that there doesn't seem to be any dispute of the actual Portuguese pronunciation above, though it of course there is dialectical variation which is covered by the transcription system.  — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Xyzzyva, my thinking was that some editors have argued that the pronunciation "is not intuitive for an English-speaker", that "are no reliable sources for an English pronunciation", that there are "variances in pronunciation. It's just too controversial", and that "native speaker intuition is not a reliable source". Against this background, while I think that a pronunciation guide is a good idea, applying WP:RS would seem a sensible move - let's simply cite a reliable source for the pronunciation and be done with it. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Remember: Polling is not a substitute for discussion. This RfC has serious flaws. What kind of pronunciation are we discussing in here? Is it about how should we pronounce the name in English? Because I never heard a book talking about it. Is it about how to pronounce in Portuguese? Well, the article already has a footnote doing exactly that. And with source. Thus, I'd like to remind you as well: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Lecen (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The source for the pronunciation you added is the Columbia Gazetteer of the World. Isn't that, as an book in English, intended to give the English pronunciation? The pronunciation is given in English spelling as well. In Portuguese one would not spell the sound as ee, or  as sh, or  as ah. As a way to determine this, does the pronunciation transcription system in this source include non-English sounds? — Eru·tuon 02:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The book explains how to pronounce the name in its native language, in this particular case, Brazilian Portuguese. --Lecen (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The book provides anglicized pronunciations. No non-English sounds included.  — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Then this source establishes an English pronunciation for the word, and the Portuguese pronunciation must still be determined. Anglicized pronunciation is not a reliable guide to the native pronunciation of a word, even if it happens to be similar to the native pronunciation in this case. We need a different source for the Portuguese pronunciation. Not sure if it makes sense to keep the English pronunciation; for a word that is not frequently used in English, it is not very notable, if that's the right word. — Eru·tuon 06:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I said? I said that the book tells how to pronounce the name in Portuguese, not in English. --Lecen (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did read what you said. But if what Zyzzyva says is true, what you said isn't true. If the book gives anglicized pronunciations, it does not reliably tell the Portuguese pronunciation. Anglicized pronunciation is not a reliable guide to Portuguese pronunciation because some sounds and combinations of sounds in Portuguese do not occur in English (nasalized vowels, for instance). When the pronunciation of a word is anglicized, these sounds will have to be replaced by the closest English equivalents. Anglicized pronunciations will vary in whether they're the same as or different from the Portuguese pronunciation. If the Portuguese pronunciation contains sounds that exist in English, the anglicized and Portuguese pronunciations will be the same; if the Portuguese contains sounds that do not exist in English, the anglicized pronunciation will be incorrect. Since the anglicized pronunciation will sometimes be correct and sometimes incorrect, we cannot use it as a guide to the Portuguese pronunciation. You may say that in this case the anglicized pronunciation is correct, but then we are just relying on your word as a Portuguese speaker, not on the source.
 * It may be that the book intends to give the Brazilian Portuguese pronunciation. I don't know. That could be verified by looking at the entry for Brazil: does it tell us to pronounce it brah-ZEEW, or bruh-ZILL? But still, since it's giving an anglicized pronunciation, it's not going to be correct in all cases, so it's not a reliable source. — Eru·tuon 03:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So that others may make their own judgement, here's a link. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no non-English sounds in that source. Furthermore, that the source gives three different Anglicized pronunciations for "Caxias" evidences that pronouncing the word is not intuitive for an English speaker. Drickfire (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Current tally: 7 in support, 2 in conditional support, 3 in opposition. Drickfire (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

What pronunciation should we use?
Now that the RfC has closed with consensus to indicate a pronunciation, what should we use? I would propose or, in keeping with the relevant transcription guide. Any objections? — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Provided the pronunciation is correctly cited to a reliable secondary source, I'm content. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Lecen had already provided a non-IPA scripted pronunciation with citation. If there are other pronunciation variants (IPA script or not), they could be added with an indication whether the pronunciation is an English variant (there are several) or Portuguese variant, and only if reliably sourced per Hchc2009's comment. &bull; Astynax talk 18:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't object to ˈzɪzɨvə's proposal. Drickfire (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say Lecen's source is reliable enough to support the Portuguese pronunciation that no one here is disputing. It's a reputable book giving English-y transcriptions of foreign words—note that the same word is given with either Brazilian or European Portuguese variants in relevant listings.  Unless anyone has any objections I'll put in  with Lecen's source in a more regular format.  — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Lecen has expressed his objection by reverting your change, rather than posting here as you requested.
 * For my part, I don't think a source is necessary. It is normal Wikipedia practice to write pronunciations without a source, using a pronunciation guide, when the language is one with a transparent orthography (a writing system corresponding closely to pronunciation). Portuguese has a relatively transparent orthography, so we simply have to choose a regional pronunciation and use the resources on that pronunciation here on Wikipedia (Portuguese phonology, Help:IPA for Portuguese, and others) to help us transcribe the word. There are many articles with pronunciations that lack sources (as examples Portugal and Brazil do not have footnotes giving a source for their pronunciations, though perhaps the list of reference has a source, but there are other clearer examples), and most pronunciations I have added have been based on pronunciation guides rather than sources. If we intend to follow Wikipedia practice, we don't need a source. — Eru·tuon 04:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

See Verifiability: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." If you are unhappy with the policy, you should request changes to it. Unless you find a reliable source that says that the IPA pronunciation of the name Caxias is like that, it won't be added to this article. --Lecen (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As an aside, if there was no disagreement about the pronunciation, then I wouldn't be requesting a cited source. Since there does seem to be a dispute about it, then the policy guidance seems to be clear that one should be given if it's to be inserted into the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The source Lecen provided seems reliable for a Brazilian Protguese pronunciation. There seems to be no dispute there. Furthermore, no one is claiming that the IPA pronunciation (which, as Eru pointed out, we can be transcribe via sources on Wikipedia) is incorrect. Additionally, no one is disputing that IPA pronunciations are consistent with Wikipedia standards and present in thousands of articles. I see no reason the IPA pronunciation should not be provided. -Drickfire (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lecen, do you consider the source you provided to not be reliable? Or do you object to translating the information it provides into the standard format described at WP:IPA for Portuguese?  If it's the latter, then I propose all words in the article that are not direct quotes be removed, not to mention anything only supported by sources written in Portuguese.  — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lecen, I understand that we must hold to the principle of verifiability. But in the case of pronunciations, I believe it would be accurate to say that verifiability applies primarily to the pronunciation guides rather than to the individual pronunciations in articles. This is not, I think, a written policy, but one that is held to in practice by those who place pronunciations in articles. Pronunciation of a language is a system, and pronunciations of individual words do not exist by themselves, but as a part of a system. This system is described by the pronunciation guides and articles on phonology. There are exceptions, when an individual word is pronounced in an anomalous way, but the name of this article's subject is not anomalous, I am pretty sure, so its pronunciation does not need special individual verification. If you assert that it does need individual verification, then I would ask why: is it anomalous? If not, there is no reason for requiring verification. Pronunciations of Portuguese words that are not anomalous can be predicted by using pronunciation guides and articles on phonology. — Eru·tuon 20:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my comments are something of a simplification, and I am speaking about the situation in Portuguese, which has a relatively transparent orthography, not in English, in which the correspondence between spelling and pronunciation is much more complex. — Eru·tuon 20:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a little late to this discussion, but as I'v read that the main reason for Lecen can't accept Ziziva transcription is that he is not a native Portuguese speaker, then, as a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker, I say that Ziziva transcription is correct, Caxias is pronounced and I support Ziziva edition. --Luizdl (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You have misread the reason. Lecen is a native Brazilian and speaks Portuguese. &bull; Astynax talk 00:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know he is, but he've said above that Ziziva could'n add IPA just because he isn't Portuguese speaker.--Luizdl (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Lecen and others have objected sourcing the pronunciation to non-reliable references such as a television show or to original research (i.e., personal experience). Dictionaries give several variations, and these may be added to the footnote along with appropriate citations. &bull; Astynax talk 08:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite the consensus, there is currently no IPA transcription. Why is this? I have not yet seen any controversy regarding the pronunciation, and I do not think an uncontroversial IPA transcription necessarily needs a source. (suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ) nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 23:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. See the footnote. --Lecen (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that. But I'm not sure why it has to be relegated to a footnote. This is fairly rare for a WP article. (suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ) nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 00:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just come across this article, and I have to agree with the comment above. It seems absurd that an agreed-upon pronunciation is relegated to a footnote just because one or two editors WP:DONTLIKE it. Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)