Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies/Archive 1

Orphaned references in Theresa Christina of the Two Sicilies
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Theresa Christina of the Two Sicilies's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Lyra v.1, p.116": From Theresa Christina of the Two Sicilies: Lyra (v.1, 1977), p. 116. From Pedro II of Brazil consolidation: Lyra (v.1), p.116 

Reference named "Barman 1999, p.97": From Pedro II of Brazil consolidation: Barman (1999), p.97 From Theresa Christina of the Two Sicilies: Barman (1999), p. 97. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposing move to a title in keeping with sources/references
Wikipedia naming conventions stress following the spelling used in the majority of English sources. As most of the references, including those used to cite this article, do not use "Theresa Christina", I propose moving the article to a title which reflects the references. In this case, most of the available reliable sources for her life concentrate on her role as Brazilian Empress and use a Portuguese spelling (i.e., "Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies"). The existing title would be redirected to the new name. Comments?
 * Support. Most of the sources do use Teresa Cristina. Limongi (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

She is the only notable Teresa Cristina so why not simply Teresa Cristina? After all, we have Maria Theresa. Surtsicna (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. If, and only if moved to "Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies". --Lecen (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies I've never liked Anglized names anyway.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As this is complicated by the existance of an existing redirect, I've put in a request for an admin to do the move. "Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies" already has articles and template links, so this will solve some dab problems as well. This is a somewhat short poll, but we are trying to get this article in shape quickly to upgrade its assessment. &bull; Astynax talk 23:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Article is done.
For the editors who have been following my and Astynax recent revamp in this article, I'd like to let you all know that I've finished its text. Astynax will, as soon as he has time, correct all spelling and grammar mistakes. After that's done, we'll nominate it as FAC. Regards to all, --Lecen (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Condensing the Footnotes
Does the Footnotes need a little bit of condensing? It seems a bit long. I notice on some article (can't remember which specifically) they have references in two collums or in a seperate box that you could scroll up and down.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style doesn't like the use of scrolling or collapsible boxes for footnotes and other information. I wish there were some better way. In some browsers (such as Firefox), the footnotes at least do break into multiple columns, though this doesn't happen in the current versions of IE (hopefully the final version of IE9 will fix that early next year). &bull; Astynax talk 20:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Links, spellings and other changes
This article has been written following U.S. English spellings (see WP:ENGVAR). Please also be careful when creating or changing wikilinks so as not to introduce inaccuracies, anachronisms for the time being discussed, or surprises. Finally, be sure that any changes are supported by sources (and cite the source where no citation is already given). &bull; Astynax talk 17:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Post-FAC comment
It seems that the article has already been promoted, so I'm adding my review comment here.


 * Comment: I've read the article and looked at some on-line sources. It generally seems well-written, though there might be some duplication that could be trimmed out. (If I go over it more times I might have a suggestion there). I added the Google Books URLs found by Lecen (listed in the FAC) to the citation templates in the reference list. I hope the change I made to the reference list won't be controversial. Here are some minor things:
 * The lead sentence. I like the title, 'Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies'. The phrase "English: Theresa Christina" might be overkill because the names are almost the same in the two languages, and most people can do without the help. (Different-sounding names like 'Duarte' and 'Edward' would be less obvious and could use the translation aid).
 * The endnote to explain 'Dona' seems excessive as part of the lead sentence, since lead sections should be light on the references. If 'Dona' needs an explanation, perhaps it could be provided lower down in the text. The fact that the word is unbolded should be the clue that it's an honorific.
 * 'Grieved and ill' -> 'Grieving and ill'
 * 'Teresa Cristina is well regarded by historians' -- Must be a better way to say that. The historians themselves should not be the final authority.
 * Roderick Barman's 'Princess Isabel of Brazil..' exists in both English and Portuguese, but only the Portuguese version is currently in the reference list.
 * The reference Avella (2010) starts out with a good line that might find a place in the article. "The case of Teresa Cristina Maria de Bourbon, wife of D. Pedro II, represents an enigma and a serious gap in the historiography." ("representa um enigma e uma grave lacuna na historiografia"). His bottom line is that there's a bunch of stuff waiting in the archives for some historian to write it up. He gives some hints about the specific cultural things that she did, excavations and donated artworks and so on. A wiki editor who had patience could go through the Avella paper and might find links to the museum collections where her stuff is currently held. Avella also gives details about the Italian immigration to Brazil she may have helped bring about.
 * Avella (2010) makes reference to Teresa Cristina's diaries ('Curiosamente, os diários de Teresa Cristina não contêm alguma referência a este campo..'). I wonder if the diaries were ever published? If so they could be mentioned in the reference list.
 * The paper cites Zerbini (2007). I don't have a copy of this, but wonder if it might contain some more recent thinking that could help document 'new thinking' among historians. It's not clear whether there is really a new view by historians that is different from the old view.
 * I hope to make more comments if I get the time to study the article further. Thanks to the authors for their work on this. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ed. It doesn't matter that the FAC nomination is closed. Improving the article is always something good, no matter when. And I'm very happy to see someone who can read Portuguese!
 * 1) I added the English version of Teresa Cristina so that readers could know that we are using the Portuguese spelling. Wikipedia has the Brazilian royals' articles with their name in its original form, that is, Portuguese. However, the articles about Spanish and Italian royals, for example, have their names translated to English (Phillip V of Spain, not Felipe V of Spain, for example).
 * 2) The Dona style has been discussed before. Books written about the Brazilian Imperial history always calls the royals as "Dom Pedro I", "Dona Carlota Joaquina", "Dona Isabel", etc... I wanted to prevent readers from believing that "Dom" or "Dona" are actually part of their names. That's why in the very beginning.
 * 3) The "stuff" are mentioned later in the article, in the legacy section. It tells where Teresa Cristina's (as well as her husband's) properties went. Her sponsorship of archaelogical studies as well as immigration is also mentioned in the article.
 * 4) Her diaries were never published. That's the greatest issue about her: ther are no biographies written about Teresa Cristina. Not a single one. If you want to write something about her, or read, you need to look on books about Pedro II or her daughter Isabel. And she is always briefly mentioned only.
 * 5) Zerbini (2007) is an article published in a Brazilian history magazine. I used it as a source in the article too. Yes, it's also part of the new historians' look toward the empress. It also complains about the lack of further research on Teresa Cristina and how little is known of what she really did.
 * The rest of your comments I'll leave to Astynax, if you don't mind. And please, continue with your review. We really appreaciate it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for revisiting the article.
 * I agree that "Grieving and ill" is more polished, and have changed it.
 * Re: "'Teresa Cristina is well regarded by historians' -- Must be a better way to say that. The historians themselves should not be the final authority." This sentence in the lead section only summarizes material in the "Legacy" section regarding how she is regarded by historians. It is meant to be a general statement as to how she is viewed by scholarship. If you have better wording, I'm fine with something more clear.
 * Re: Barman's Princess Isabel of Brazil, policy is to cite only the version consulted. The English version doesn't yet seem to be widely available (at least I haven't been able to locate a library copy). When we, or someone else, can get a copy to verify the page numbers and bibliographic information, then I agree that it would be best to replace the current Portuguese version with the English.
 * I agree with Lecen that there is no problem with continuing to improve the article, as long as all changes conform to FA standards. Thanks for being constructive! &bull; Astynax talk 05:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed Barman's Portuguese edition to the English edition. --Lecen (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Why Dr Kiernan's editions were reverted
On the use of senhor and senhora: The Golden Law, that is, the law that abolished slavery in Brazil has written in it in 19th century archaic Portuguese: "A Princeza Imperial Regente em Nome de Sua Majestade o Imperador Senhor D. Pedro II, faz saber a todos os subditos do Imperio..." Notice how Pedro II was called: "Sua Majestade o Imperador Senhor D. Pedro II", which is, "His Majesty the Emperor Senhor D. Pedro II". The word "Senhor" can be translated as "Lord", "Mister", "Sire", "Liege", etc... depending on the occasion. In this particular case, there is no "correct" choice, because it means something like "Lord" but the word "Dom" itself also means "Lord". The fact that a law used "Senhor" does not mean that was actually part of his title. The Constitution was clear: Art. 100: His titles are "Constitutional Emperor and Perpetual Defender of Brazil" and has the treatment of "Imperial Majesty". See here. Nonetheless, "senhor" and "senhora" were not part of Brazilian, nor Portuguese, Spanish and Italian royals. They are no more than simply a polite way of refering to someone. The name of Empress Teresa Cristina: In the early 20th century, both Brazil and Portugal made a huge ortographic revision and many Portuguese words changed. "Affonso" became "Afonso", "Izabel" became "Isabel", "Thereza Christina" (or "Theresa Christina") became "Teresa Cristina", "Telephone" became "Telefone", "subdito" (subject) became "súdito", "prohibido" (prohibited, forbidden) became "proibido" and so on. Dr Kiernan removed a source that gave her Anglicized name for two other sources. The first one is Longo's "Isabel Orleans-Bragança: The Brazilian Princess Who Freed the Slaves", who maintain the names in their Portuguese versions (King Afonso VI, Maria I, Pedro II, etc...). I have no idea why he believed that this book had an Anglicized name of Teresa Cristina. Perhaps if he sees the "Coleção Teresa Cristina" (sometimes spelled "Thereza Christina" and Theresa Christina) he will believe that those are names in English? I don't know. Next book is the one by Daniel Parish Kidder and James Cooley Fletcher, who use 19th Century archaic Portuguese names such as Pedro II and Theresa Christina. No where it is using an Anglicized version. The book that was used before and that I restored used "Pedro II" but called the Empress' father "Francis I", not "Francesco I" and she "Therese Christine". See here. Done. --Lecen (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's quite clearly spelled "Theresa Christina" as anyone can see simply by looking at either book: e.g. Longo.
 * I don't know why you're going on about "senhor": I don't see it anywhere in the article. DrKiernan (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why you are reverting. You need to explain what is wrong with the current draft, and stop reverting just for the sake of it. We're both at three reverts now anyway, so we can't make any more edits for 24 hours. DrKiernan (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you do all this on purpose? Only to be annoying? Can't you understand that the books you've shown as sources are using Portuguese names, not Anglicized? All the books you added as ousrces use names such as "Pedro", "Theresa Christina", which are PORTUGUESE names, not Anglicized version of those names. You're adding a source that does not says what you claim. That's simply wrong. Neither Kidder, nor Longo are using Anglicized names. Is that hard to understand? Is it? --Lecen (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but nowhere does the current draft mention Anglicized names. Indeed, I've said repeatedly that there is no English translation of her name. Teresa, Theresa, Therese, Thereza, etc. are all used in English. There is no specifically English version. I still don't understand why you are reverting. Are you saying that you wish to changed "rendered" to "written"? I think I'd be happy with such a change. The footnote could then read:
 * The Empress's name is almost always used in its modern Portuguese form as Teresa Cristina by English speaking historians. However, her name is occasionally written as Theresa Christina,[91][92] Therese Christine,[93] Thereza Christina,[94] etc. DrKiernan (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The change isn't acceptable because her name, as you have yourself said, was Theresa Christina in Portuguese. There is no proof that the sources are English translations of a Portuguese name. The very next line of the source you've introduced says "comte d'Aquila" which shows that the book is not a direct translation into English. That is why I think we should avoid claiming anything to be an English translation and just give examples of the variants of her name used in published sources.

You have also now performed 4 reverts within 24 hours. You should not have done this, and should instead be discussing any potential edits before making them. WP:3RR advises you to undo your last revert, to avoid potential misunderstandings. DrKiernan (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My last edit was not a revert. I changed the information inside the footone you added. The names given in the book (page 32) are: Charles-Ferdinand, Leopold-Benjamin-Joseph, Louis-Charles, etc... Those are not Italian names of Princes Carlo Ferdinando, Leopoldo and Luigi, but English names. Can't you read English? --Lecen (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Older references frequently use variant spellings, anglicized forms, phonetic respellings, etc. The point is surely to let readers know of variants from the Portuguese spelling which they may encounter when reading English-language sources on an article's subject (particularly older references). That would include redirects that land a reader on an article with a different spelling (which might otherwise mystify the reader). MOS is clear that we go with the current spelling of names as used in high-quality references for the title and in most cases within the article text, and note alternative spellings/names. I've not found any guideline modifying or reversing the guidance given in MOS:LEAD for including alternative spellings. Longo, Kidder and others do use the "Theresa Christina" spelling, so I'm unsure as to what is the objection for giving the alt spelling(s) of her name. &bull; Astynax talk 02:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can sympathize with various spellings. BRAZILIAN BATTLESHIP Minas Geraes was named just that until the modifications to Portuguese orthography changed the 'e' to an 'i'. Unlike this article, though, I had an easy out – the ship was far more notable and received much more attention under the earlier 'e' spelling. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Names
I think it would be useful to first decide on what we agree:
 * 1) The Italian form of the name and the modern Portuguese form of the name is "Teresa Cristina Maria etc.".
 * 2) The predominant form of the name used by modern academic sources is "Teresa Cristina".
 * 3) Modern English-language writers predominantly use the form "Teresa Cristina".
 * 4) Teresa Cristina should be the form used for, in and throughout the article.
 * 5) Her name as it appears by her own signature is "Thérèse Christine Marie".
 * 6) The original form of the name in Portuguese was "Thereza or Theresa Christina".
 * 7) The forms Theresa or Thereza Christina Maria and Therese Christine Marie can be found in English-language works and in works in other languages.
 * 8) Per MOS:LEAD, significant alternative names of a subject should be given.
 * 9) There is no need to mention alternative names more than once in the article.
 * 10) Significant alternative forms of Teresa Cristina's name should be given either in a footnote or in parentheses in the lead.

If I'm reading them correctly, EdJohnston and LouisPhilippeCharles (blocked indefinitely) were of the opinion that alternative names should not be given in the lead because they are too similar to the predominant version. So, the first point of contention is: should alternative forms be given in the lead?

If editors cannot agree on whether the alternative forms should or should not be in parentheses in the lead, then there is a reasonable compromise between the two opposing views, which still complies with the relevant section of the guideline: include the alternatives in the article, for the reasons stated by Astynax, but since they are extremely similar, put them in a footnote to the lead instead. DrKiernan (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Thérèse Christine Marie" is her name in French. She wrote this signature in a photo she took in Europe during one of her trips. I know that because it was I who uploaded the signature from such photo that I got during a trip I made to Rio de Janeiro in 2005. As you can see, the French "Thérèse Christine Marie" is different from the English "Therese Christine" that there is right now in the article. You said that the one in the article wasn't an "English word". It's certainly not French nor Portuguese. Either way, I could simply upload a signature of her name in Portuguese, but I don't believe that's the whole point of the discussion.
 * Take a look at this list of names:
 * Joseph I of Portugal (Portuguese: José I)
 * Maria I of Portugal (English: Mary I)
 * John VI of Portugal (Portuguese: João VI)
 * Pedro I of Brazil (English: Peter I)
 * Miguel of Portugal (English: Michael I)
 * Francis I of the Two Sicilies (Italian: Francesco I)
 * Some of the Portuguese monarchs' names are in Portuguese and others are in English. Teresa Cristina's father has his name in English, not Italian. It's quite common to see at Wikipedia a translation to the name of monarchs either to English or to their original languages. This can be seen in John II of France (French: Jean II) and Nicholas II of Russia (Russian: Nikolay II), for example. Others are the opposite: Franz Joseph I of Austria (English: Francis Joseph I).
 * What DrKiernan wants, to shorten, it's to forbid editors (and consequently, readers) of knowing in what language are the names of those monarchs given. As anyone can see, this is something far more broader than simply "are readers allowed to know the Anglicized form of Teresa Cristina's name?", since a discussion about it would have consequences in all articles about royals around Wikipedia.
 * My point of view is simple: there is no harm to tell the reader either the name of the royal in his/her original language nor in English. Obviously, I'm taking only about royals, not any person. It's not a problem and helps the reader understand that the name of monarchs in Wikipedia do not follow a standard. This is the case with the name of Portuguese and French royals. Some are in Portuguese and French, others in English. That's all. --Lecen (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should stop trying to explain my opinions, because each time you do so, you get them wrong. "You said that the one in the article wasn't an "English word"." No, I did not. I said that they were all used by English speakers. I say to you AGAIN: Teresa, Therese, Theresa, Thereza are all used by English speakers. I've said this to you on multiple occasions. DrKiernan (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get back to the first discussion point. We need to keep the discussion focused or it will simply circle. Do you accept placing the alternative forms in a footnote as a compromise? Or do you insist that they be placed in parentheses in the first line of the lead? DrKiernan (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does this means that articles such as Franz Joseph I of Austria, Nicholas II of Russia and John II of France would also have to be changed with alternative forms being place "in a footnote as a compromise"? Or only Teresa Cristina's article must follow your rule? --Lecen (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion is on this talk page. This talk page is for discussing this article only. DrKiernan (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, okay. So, all other articles can keep alternative forms in parentheses but not this one? Right... --Lecen (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe all articles, including this one, should follow the consensus established at Manual of Style (lead section). That is #8 of my summary. Was I premature in assuming that we were agreed on that point? DrKiernan (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion is on this talk page. This talk page is for discussing this article only. DrKiernan (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, okay. So, all other articles can keep alternative forms in parentheses but not this one? Right... --Lecen (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe all articles, including this one, should follow the consensus established at Manual of Style (lead section). That is #8 of my summary. Was I premature in assuming that we were agreed on that point? DrKiernan (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, as it's been 24 hours without further comment, I shall assume that we are agreed on #8, and are also agreed that alternative forms of the name should be given in either a footnote or parentheses in the lead. I shall add this as #10. I suggest we wait for a further 24 hours to make sure that we are still in agreement, and then proceed to discuss which alternative forms should be included. DrKiernan (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why can't we combine the two ideas, similar to what the article is now? As long as the anglicized name/names are given in parenthesis (keeping the article in consistency with other royals), can we add a short footnote after them explaining why these are the alternative forms? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment conflates two points: On the issue of which names to include, I have not yet discussed whether so-called "anglicized" names should be included. On the issue of footnote versus parentheses or a mixture, I actually don't much care. It was other editors or another editor who felt strongly for removal. I marginally prefer a footnote because it will be easier to explain the names, but I can probably work with either or both. DrKiernan (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well they probably should be included, if for no other reason than that's the de facto standard on Wikipedia. :-) I did something similar in Minas Geraes-class battleship, and it seemed to work fine. There's a need to state the alternative named in-text, but if an explanation is warranted, a footnote should be used for it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're assuming too much, DrKiernan. I'm simply waiting for comments from other users. But I'll tell you what I think right now: the way the article is right now it's perfect. All other royal articles follow the same standard (that is, either the Anglicized or the original form of his/her name in parantheses next to the years when they were born and died). It's doesn't make sense at all your idea that only this article should follow your rule. --Lecen (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Do you agree with the points listed or not? This discussion keeps breaking down because we're talking at cross purposes all the time. We need to keep on track and concentrate on one thing at a time. DrKiernan (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was of the impression that he agrees(?) that alternative names should be given, but in the article itself. Commentary on the names would be relegated to a footnote. That's my read of it, anyway. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what's the problem here. I'll repeat myself: translation of names should be given in parentheses just next to birth and death dates as it has been the standard in all articles on royals from the Western world. Wilhelm II, German Emperor and Franz Joseph I of Austria are two examples identical to Teresa Cristina's: their names are kept in their original languages (German, in their case) and the Alnglicized form can be seen in a parentheses at the very beginning of the lead. If I'm still not being clear: no change should be made into this article. P.S.: And I'm tired of having you call "original research" simple translation of names. --Lecen (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's move on to the alternative names to be included in the lead then, as despite the fact that we are agreed on all the points above, trying to get a simple "Yes, I agree" appears impossible. I suggest we discuss each name in turn.

I would like introduce the original Portuguese "Thereza or Theresa Christina" into the alternative names, either in a footnote or the lead, as this was the form of her name used throughout her married life and for twenty years afterwards. Currently, the lead incorrectly states that this is her name in English. But it is her name in Portuguese before the reform of Portuguese orthography. DrKiernan (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would make little sense because it's not the same thing as translation of a name. Take for example Manuel Luís Osório, Marquis of Erval, his name was spelled ins his life time as "Manoel Luiz Ozorio" as his title was "Herval". If we would keep track of that, it would have to add notes for every single person from Portuguese and Brazilian background in Wikipedia. The lead does not "incorrectly states that this is her name in English". The English name Theresa Christina mentioned in the lead is not the same archaic Portuguese name Theresa Christina even if they are spelled identically. I'll draw for you: telefone (English: telephone) was spelled "telephone" before the early 20th century ortographic reform. This doesn't mean that it's the same word as the English "telephone", even though both are spelled identically. --Lecen (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The source used to claim that "Theresa Christina" is a translation in the article does not support that assertion. It says quite plainly on page 30 "Theresa-Christiana-Mary" and on page 32 "Theresa-Maria-Christina". Neither of these matches what the article claims. Both of these forms are extremely rare, and in my view are not used significantly enough in English-language sources to warrant their inclusion here.
 * As I suggested before, the name "Theresa Christina" cannot be included as an English translation in the absence of a confirming source. However, we do have sources (Longo and Kidder, for example) showing it as an alternative spelling. DrKiernan (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's merely an Anglicized form of her name. That's all. Carlos is Charles, João is John, Roberto is Robert, Miguel is Michael. Even if there was no sources indicating that, which there is, it wouldn't be a problem since all articles on royals have Anglicized forms of their names included. --Lecen (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. They have alternative forms that are found significantly in reliable sources. DrKiernan (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As it's been another 24 hours without comment, I've removed "Theresa Christina". We do not have agreement to add it as an alternative spelling, and we do not have a source to include it as a translation. I again suggest a delay of 24 hours before raising a new topic, in case there is further comment. DrKiernan (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving on then to "Therese Christine". When I said that "Theresa Christina" and "Thereza Christina" were as English as "Therese Christine", because all three are found in English-language sources, Lecen implied that "Theresa Christina" was not a translation because it occurred only in works where Peter was given as Pedro, thus showing that the names were not English. However, on the source given for "Therese Christine", Peter is also given as Pedro (p. 166). So, the names are not translated there either.

Her own signature shows the French form of her name, and the French form (without accents) is used frequently throughout the Victorian era in works of multiple languages:    . Indeed "Therese Christine" occurs in more foreign-language works than it does in English-language ones. Consequently, "Therese Christine" is not English any more than it is German or Dutch. It is more likely a "French" version without accents.

I have repeatedly said that this is not an issue of the Portuguese language. It is an issue of the English language, which I speak natively and fluently. Non-native speakers would do well to believe native speakers when they say, "English does not work like this". There are multiple English forms of the name Teresa/Theresa/Thereza. It is impossible to translate one to another because they are not in different languages: they are merely different spellings. The article Mother Teresa is at that name for a reason. The article Teresa is at that name for a reason. "Translating" the name "Teresa" to "Therese" is never done in English.

By giving one out of a possible three alternative spellings, the impression is given that the alternative spelling shown is the only one or the predominant one found in English. However, it is not. It is in one obscure 19th-century encyclopedia. Compare this with other alternative spellings which are more common, and found in modern academic sources. Google book searches comparing "Theresa Christina" with "Therese Christine" (restricted to books written in English about Brazil) gives well over a thousand books for "Theresa Christina" but less than a dozen for "Therese Christine". If, as Astynax says"The point is surely to let readers know of variants from the Portuguese spelling which they may encounter when reading English-language sources" then the form chosen is the wrong one. It should be the most common one, not the rarest one, which no-one will ever encounter anyway. DrKiernan (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, as there's no response. DrKiernan (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Separating the two issues here -- "Theresa Christina" has to be in there as an alternative spelling. You kind of proved that with "well over a thousand books" above. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. DrKiernan (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Anglicization of names or not?
Articles about royals in the Western culture often have their names translated to English. The Russian Czar Nikolay II is known as "Nicholas II", the Austrian Karl I is "Charles I", the Portuguese João VI is "John VI", etc, etc... On the other hand, there are royals who have their names kept in their original languages. This is the case of the German Wilhelm II ("William II"), the Austrian Franz Joseph I ("Francis Joseph I"), the Brazilian Pedro II ("Peter II"), etc, etc...

What their articles all have in common is that next to their names, at the beginning of the lead, in parantheses, there is a translation of their names either to their original language or to English, depending on the situation. This is pretty much standard in the Wikipedia (in English). I did the same in Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies (See here), an article which I brought to FA standard. Although very rare, the Portuguese name "Teresa Cristina" has been translated to English either as "Therese Christine" or "Theresa Christina".

Thus, I have two questions:
 * 1) Are names of royals (and only royals) from the Western civilization supposed to have translations of their names either to English or to their original languages in parantheses as it is presently done in Wikipedia (and as I've shown above)?
 * 2) If yes, is it okay to do the same in Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies' article? --Lecen (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The first comment in an RfC should be phrased neutrally. This is clearly specified in the instructions at WP:RFC. By skewing the notification to highlight your own opinion and ignore the arguments that the examples given are not translations, you are again in breach of WP:CANVASS. "Therese Christine" is the French form of the name. "Theresa Christina" is the form of the name used in Portuguese before the early twentieth century reform of Portuguese orthography. Your final "source" contradicts the name you've given. It says "Theresa Christiana" on page 30. You have been told all this before, see the discussion in the two sections above. DrKiernan (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The guideline Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) (WP:NCNT) should be followed. It says to use the common form used in current English works of general reference. Where this cannot be determined, use the conventional anglicized form of the name. So why not anglicized Wilhelm II to William II? See Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor/Archive 1: Wilhelm II is to be more commonly used in published/posted English writing than William II. This is entirely according to WP:NCNT. The same for Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange: he is known in most official sources in English as Willem-Alexander, not William-Alexander. But the Austrian "Karl I" is in most English sources known as Charles I, etc. etc. Hopefully this helps. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow the sources and the guideline. If sources frequently use an alternative name, then provide it. If they do not, then don't. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking for "alternative names". I was quite direct: should there be anglicized forms of their names in parentheses or not? If the name is already anglicized, should the name of the royal in its native language be shown in parentheses? Please, Dr Kiernan, do not respond this message. --Lecen (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If I wish to respond, I shall do so. It is frankly unfair to ask me a loaded question and then tell me not to respond. A request for comment is not restricted to people who agree with the proposer only. Anyone may comment on the topic, regardless of their opinion.
 * An anglicized form should only be given when it is frequently found in reliable English-language sources as a translation. DrKiernan (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand entirely you request and why you per se want to put the anglicized forms of their names in parentheses, but I will explain the procedure again: follow the guideline WP:NCNT, which is applicable for the name giving for royals. Also, WP:MOSBIO which explains the style of naming in general in biographies. And if I'm correct, the guidelines DrKiernan was referring to, are also applicable. Thus, use the common form of name in the opening paragraph, which is used in current English works of general reference. Where this cannot be determined, use the conventional anglicized form of the name. If in English works commonly is used the anglicized form then this one should be used, but if in English works commonly is used the Portuguese variant, then use that one. It is that simple. There are only four cases in which I can imagine to put other names in parentheses: 1) the concerning person is also very commonly known by other or differently written names, or by multiple names also (but in this case section 2.3 of WP:MOSBIO is applicable); 2) the person has different names, for example kings or queen who are reigning multiple different countries; 3) the person had a different name before his or her marriage; 4) internationally the anglicized form of their name is the preferred name which is put in front of the introduction followed by their name written in the native language between brackets. But I never saw edits in which the name is deliberately anglicized just without reason and put between brackets, unless of course as explained in 1) people are as commonly referred with (anglicized) name also. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That current usage in recent English-language references should be followed is clear. Even so, there are still differences even in recent references between publication in various English-speaking nations, and there are older spellings (and anglicizations) used in older references that readers may have previously read. MOS:LEAD tells us that the Lead section should include variants. There is a good reason behind this, as unless the alternaives are given up front, it can be confusing to a reader who comes across an article that uses a different spelling new to them—whether that is from an old cutting, an outdated reference, a English-language source from a country which uses another spelling, etc. MOS:LEAD does not restrict this to only royals. The variants or anglicized forms must have been published somewhere at some time. The variant spellings provided in an article do not necessarily need to be found in the references used for the article or be repeated in the Body of the article, and there is no need to cite those spellings—although if challenged, pointing to a published piece that uses the variant in an edit summary or on the article's Talk would leave enough of a record in support. &bull; Astynax talk 20:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do include "Theresa Christina" spelling - First of all: the RfC is worded very poorly, and it is not clear exactly what is being considered. From reading the discussion above, it appears there is a dispute as to whether to include the "Theresa" spelling in the lead.  In Google Books, there are 393 hits for "Teresa Cristina" Pedro,  268 for  "Theresa Christina" Pedro, 70 for  "Teresa Christina" Pedro, and 18 for "Theresa Cristina" Pedro.  That means that, in the literature, the most common spellings are Teresa Cristina and Theresa Christina. For that reason, It should not be included.  The argument that "Theresa" is the "anglicized version of Teresa" doesn't carry any weight, because the name Teresa  is a perfectly valid name in English.  As a compromise, I suggest that the "Theresa" spelling be removed from the lead paragraph, and add a footnote to the first sentence which  lists all the alternative spellings.  Based on those counts, the "Theresa Christina" spelling can be included in the lead paragraph, either in parentheses or in another manner.  --Noleander (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, have you tried "Theresa Christina"? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's "Theresa Christina", not "Theresa Cristina". The purpose is not to present alternative spelling, but merely a translation of her name to English, as already happen in other articles about royals. Example: Wilhelm II (English: William II, 18xx-19xx), or Nicholas II  (Russian: Nikolay II, 18xx-19xxx). I really don't know why is this such a big deal. Why something so simple can not be added to this article when every single other articles has it? --Lecen (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. Okay ... let me do those google counts again.... just a minute.  Allright, I amended my comment above. --Noleander (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not include William II in Wilhelm II because it's an anglicization, but because the Emperor is often called that in English - perhaps more often than Wilhelm. Whether Theresa Christina is an anglicization at all is open to some question; Teresa is reasonably common in English these days. Is it useful? Do English texts call the subject Theresa Christina? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See above – "393 hits for "Teresa Cristina" Pedro, 268 for "Theresa Christina" Pedro" (Pedro being her husband's name, which should filter out most of the unrelated material) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's exactly what Septentrionalis says: include the common form used in current English works of general reference. How difficult can that be to understand? So filter your hits on English current sources. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And, in case you can't interpret what I wrote above, it appears that there are two common forms, so "Teresa Cristina" should be the article name (done) with "Theresa Christina" included as an alternate form of the name. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed content
Just as I did in Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. I'm moving pieces of the text to here. I will use them on other, more suitable, articles. --Lecen (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Marriage
The European royal houses which had been approached were wary, fearing that Pedro II might develop an erratic personality similar to that of his father, Emperor Dom Pedro I, who was also notorious for his infidelities.

Romantic attachment was secondary in an age in which the role of a royal consort was to bear heirs for her husband and nation. As a princess, eligible suitors were very limited, and the prospect of marrying an emperor was an opportunity not to be passed.

The Brazilian squadron, accompanied by a Neapolitan naval division consisting of a ship of the line and three frigates, returned to Rio de Janeiro with Teresa Cristina on 3 September 1843

In his eyes, Teresa Cristina seemed much older at 21—an age at which women of that era were deemed to be old maids.

He was tall, well-proportioned, blond, blue-eyed, and considered handsome in spite of a protruding jaw inherited from his Habsburg ancestors.

One account has him needing to sit due to shock, while another has him turning on his heel and leaving. Historian Roderick J. Barman observed that "he may have done both these things."

The Emperor was charmed by the portrait, saying that its subject appeared to be a "fairy princess". According to historian James McMurtry Longo, the woman portrayed in the painting was not Teresa Cristina, but someone else, and by the time Pedro II "discovered the deception, it was too late." Because of complicated royal intermarriages, Teresa Cristina was related to Pedro II in many degrees of consanguinity, which required a dispensation from Pope Gregory XVI before the marriage arrangements could be finalized.

Teresa Cristina learned that evening that the Emperor had based his expectations on a picture which did not accurately portray her. Teresa Cristina was despondent, although she hid her anguish from her husband and their subjects. She resolved to make the best of the situation, and wrote home: "I know my appearance is different from what has been announced. I will make every effort to live in such a way that nobody will be misled by my character. It will be my ambition to resemble the nature of Dona Leopoldina, my husband's mother, and to be a Brazilian with all my heart in everything I do." Although a proxy marriage had already been performed, an extravagant state wedding was held on 4 September at the cathedral in Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's new Empress won over her adopted countrymen with her pleasant disposition and earnestness. In the days following her arrival, she received expressions of affection and delight from every quarter—except from her new husband.

Rift with the Count of Áquila
One of the main purposes of a monarch's marriage was to provide a successor, and the announcement of a pregnancy was anxiously awaited. As months dragged on without an announcement, people began to speculate as to reasons for the delay, including questioning the Emperor's potency. The true reason was quite different: the Emperor had formed a dislike for his bride and had no wish to consummate the relationship. Teresa Cristina eventually asked to be sent back to her father in Italy. Pedro relented in the face of her obvious misery and marital relations finally commenced. Even so, Pedro II continued to treat his wife coldly and subjected her to many slights.

Rift with the Count of Áquila
Luigi, the Count of Áquila and Teresa Cristina's younger brother, had traveled with her to Brazil. He had married Pedro II's sister and heir, Januária, following Teresa Cristina's own marriage. Pedro II and his brother-in-law did not get along, and by mid-July, they had stopped speaking to each other. The Count's outgoing personality conflicted with the Emperor's introversion, and a penchant for frivolous pleasures offended Pedro II's sense of duty and propriety. Januária was enamoured of her new husband, and the contrast between the two couples irritated the Emperor further and highlighted his insecurity and immaturity. That both Januária and Teresa Cristina got along well with Áquila only compounded the Emperor's alienation.

The Neapolitans who had accompanied the bridal party to Brazil sought to carve out positions for themselves. Áquila's confessor was seen as inflaming the Count's ambitions; encouraging him to create his own faction among the courtiers. Paulo Barbosa da Silva (the palace steward) was alarmed by this. He, along with Aureliano de Sousa e Oliveira Coutinho, Viscount of Sepetiba, had formed a group known as the "Courtier Faction" which was composed of high ranking palace servants and notable politicians. They had exercised a strong influence over Pedro II for years and had no intention of allowing rivals to challenge their positions.

The Courtier Faction began to exploit the family rift to its own advantage. The courtiers falsely insinuated that Áquila was cultivating a bloc plotting to seize the throne. The insecure young Emperor was inclined to accept this as fact, and the Count began to be slighted and excluded at court. Áquila reacted by openly complaining of the lack of consideration and respect being given to himself, and went on to contemptuously deride society and life in Brazil. Luigi requested repeatedly that Pedro II grant him leave to travel to Europe. When he and the Emperor publicly quarreled over the matter at a state banquet, permission was quickly granted to avoid a public scandal. The Count of Áquila and Januária set sail from Rio de Janeiro for Europe on 23 October 1844.

Domestic life
The births stopped after July 1848. Four years of continual pregnancy may be part of the reason for the change. Another factor may have been the early death of her eldest child, Afonso, in June 1847. Upon the death of her youngest son Pedro in January 1850, there were only two daughters remaining as heirs to the throne. Although the Constitution allowed a female to succeed under male-preference primogeniture, the prevailing attitude at the time was that only a male was capable of exercising authority over the nation. Teresa Cristina was aware of her obligation to produce a male heir, and as a dutiful wife never gave any indication of resisting her role. Aside from the tragedies, another likely reason for the halt to childbearing is because the Emperor was becoming more attracted to other women who possessed beauty, wit and intelligence which the Empress could not provide.

Rivalry with the Countess of Barral
Pedro II changed considerably in the period between the departure of Áquila and Januária in 1844 and the birth of his last child in 1848. He was more mature and confident, and no longer gave credence to allegations of plots against him. He learned to detect attempts at manipulating his decisions and rejected partisan influence-peddling. With growth, the Emperor's weaknesses faded and his strengths of character came to the fore. He learned to be not only impartial and diligent, but also courteous, patient and personable. He began to fully exercise authority, and his new social skills and diligence in government greatly enhanced his effectiveness and public image. He tamed his emotions, never losing his temper or displaying rudeness in public, and was "exceptionally discreet in words and cautious in action." In time, even the breach with Áquila was smoothed-over. Most importantly, this period saw the fall of the Courtier Faction. Pedro II quietly and decisively engineered an end to the power held by the courtiers—all of whom Teresa Cristina strongly disliked—by barring their access to his inner circle.

End of the Empire and banishment
The years passed and Teresa Cristina's daughters matured. Isabel and Leopoldina were married to Princes Gaston of Orléans (the Count of Eu) and August of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary, respectively, at the end of 1864. The newlywed couples moved on to new lives, and their governess, the Countess of Barral, returned in March 1865 to France, where she had lived prior to being appointed to oversee the princesses.

Pedro II and Teresa Cristina brought with them, after their first trip to Europe in 1872, the two oldest of Leopoldina's children: Pedro Augusto and Augusto Leopoldo. They were to be raised by the Imperial couple as possible heirs, since Isabel was then childless (until the birth of her first child in 1875).

Time passed, and the old couple still behaved as ever.

Although the nation was in the midst of an unparalleled period of economic progress and its international reputation had never been better, from the early 1880s the monarchy had been allowed to become increasingly undermined. The main causes can be attributed to Teresa Cristina's husband, who had long ceased to desire a continuation of the monarchy in Brazil. He allowed Imperial authority to be steadily eroded, allowed the rise of discontentment among former slaveowners who resented the abolition of slavery in 1888 and did nothing to suppress insubordination among those military officers who had openly advocated the creation of a dictatorial republic.

The fall of the Brazilian monarchy had a crushing effect on Teresa Cristina's spirit.

André Rebouças, a renowned Brazilian abolitionist leader, who of his own free will had accompanied the Imperial Family into exile, wrote in his diary that he had to awaken at 3:30 during the night "to help the empress, who was crying due to a most painful attack of asthma."

Death
Isabel and her family, as well as Pedro Augusto, departed to Spain.

She was not thought to be near death, so her requests for a priest went unheeded, and Pedro II went out on tour of the town. With no family to attend her and with little company, Teresa Cristina's breathing became increasingly labored, and the failure of her respiratory system led to cardiac arrest and death at 2:00 pm.

According to historian Lídia Besouchet, a "huge crowd" gathered in Porto to witness her funeral.

It came almost as a surprise that the person who suffered the most from Teresa Cristina's death was Pedro II himself. According to historian José Murilo de Carbalho, despite his "initial disappointment with the fianceé, her lack of attractiveness, the love affairs into which he allowed himself be carried, the act of living together for 46 years ended up generating in him a strong feeling of friendship and respect for his wife, which her death brought to the surface." This opinion is shared by Roderick J. Barman, who said that only "after she was no more did he begin to appreciate her concern, her kindness, her self-denial, and her generosity. The realization came slowly and with growing force." He goes on to say that to "assuage his sense of guilt and to lessen his deprivation, D. Pedro quickly redefined his mental image of D. Teresa Cristina, viewing her as &#39;minha Santa&#39; [my Saint]." She "was now his superior, surpassing him in virtues. She was enjoying in heaven the rewards and recognition he had not given her on earth, Her very sanctitude assured D. Pedro that she had forgiven him his past neglect and that she would intercede with the Almighty to secure him forgiveness there too. As a saint she would watch over him and aid him until he died."

Reaction to death
Her simplicity, kindness and—especially—her safe distance from political controversy shielded her from criticism, including from republicans.

Azevedo also said that she "had no enemy. The most violent enemies of the monarchy never insulted her with the shadow of an allusion, with any semblance of irreverence, and who knows? Her virtue might have been the strongest sustenance of this throne, which crumbled another day." She "had the good sense of never taking part in politics, of never getting involved in State affairs." And finally: "Her death will be long bewailed: D. Teresa Cristina was one of those beings whose memory has the right to tears."

Lead sentence
I propose changing the subject of the lead sentence (and possibly the name in the infobox) from Teresa Cristina to Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies. I am so sorry that User:Lecen is this difficult to discuss with. I have cited Manual of Style/Lead section, which says that, if possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence, as well as countless examples of (featured) articles. I explained to him that this article stands out from the crowd (including Teresa Cristina's predecessor, Amélie of Leuchtenberg, and other Portuguese queens) for no reason. His only argument is that he does not like it that way. He then said that he did not wish to discuss this with me anymore but when I edited the article he autocratically reverted again. Are there any reasonable arguments in favour of ignoring the Manual of Style in this instance and treating the article differently from articles about all other related consorts? Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I find it unnecessary to say that I'm a person who "is this difficult to discuss with" and that I "autocratically reverted" something. Please focus on the subject, not on an editor. This article has been for a long time a stable one, until it became scheduled to appear on the main page. Surtsicna made substantial changes to the article (see it's history log) without bothering to open a discussion on the talk page or to talk to any of the main contributors. It was I the one who came talk to him and anyone can see that I was polite and kind to him. I stopped talking to him once I realized that he was looking at my history log and following my edits.
 * Having cleared a few things out, I'd like to point that there are several Featured Articles where the name in the lead is not exactly the same as the title or is not mentioned at all: George III of the United Kingdom, Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec and Tibet during the Ming Dynasty. I had no idea that this article, and only this, was supposed to blindly follow Wikipedia's manual of style. Where is the freedom? P.S.: "...and other Portuguese queens". Teresa Cristina was a Brazilian consort, not Portuguese consort. Brazil and Portugal are different countries, one located in South America and the other in Europe. Please, at least try to read a little more about the subject being discussed. --Lecen (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I also found your false accusations unneccessary, which made me conclude that you are difficult to discuss with. I was not following your edits - the article was on my watchlist because I had significantly edited it before. You know that. You stopped talking to me once you realised you could not provide a single argument. And you did not - during our entire polite discussion, you refused to provide a reasonable argument.
 * Now that you have decided to provide some kind of argument, you cite examples that are specifically exempted by Manual of Style/Lead section - "if the article title is merely descriptive, the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text". That explains why the articles you cited begin the way they do. Besides, I had already explained it to you and you simply chose to ignore it. You could have made the effort to read what I linked you to. Anyway, no article is supposed to blindly follow any rule if there is a legitimate reason to ignore the rule. You have, so far, failed to provide one.
 * If you are going to insult my intelligence by explaining the difference between Portugal and Brazil, then I have no other option but to give you an English lesson. When I wrote "including Teresa Cristina's predecessor, Amélie of Leuchtenberg, and other Portuguese queens", I obviously referred to Amélie as one of Portuguese queens. I have never said that Teresa Cristina was a Portuguese queen. I would kindly ask you to be decent enough to read what I am writing, but I doubt I would accomplish anything. This was a nice attempt to discredit me, though. Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "...I obviously referred to Amélie as one of Portuguese queens". Amélie was never a Portuguese queen. Again: please read more about Brazilian history. P.S.: "...to insult my intelligence..." and "...to give you an English lesson" are both uncalled for. And there is no necessity for the irony in "I would kindly ask you to be decent enough to read..." You're being rude for no good reason. I would like to ask you to be more polite, please. --Lecen (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologise for my mistake. I was unaware that Amélie was wife of a former king of Portugal. Nevertheless, you still refuse to provide a reason. Since you obviously do not intend to provide one, I will edit the article so that it complies with the manual of style, established principles and related articles. What you are doing (reverting and ignoring the other editor's pleas for a discussion) is called edit-warring and I hope you will stop, otherwise I will have to report you. Surtsicna (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your persistent refusing to discuss makes me believe that you are doing all of this simply because you dislike me. While I hate to think that a valuable editor like you would blindly revert without discussing due to personal (and, in my opinion, unwarranted) animosity towards another editor, I am afraid I have no other explanation. Surtsicna (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you stop talking about me? Stop making unfounded claims like "...doing all of this simply because you dislike me". Do you really believe that by threatening me, the main contributor on this article, is helpful? What you're saying is "I'll push the version I like and if you try to revert I'll have you blicked". You did exactly that, without bothering to wait for the opinion of other editors.  --Lecen (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I had been waiting for hours. You provided no legitimate reason whatsoever and you did not intend to. Your last response does not provide a reason either. Am I supposed to stop attempting to improve the article because of that? Of course not. Surtsicna (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As to the issue at hand, the previous wording of the Lead's first sentence is completely in compliance with WP:LEADSENTENCE. It is NOT required to repeat the title exactly in the opening sentence. As the vast majority of the article deals with Teresa Cristina's career as a Brazilian empress, and not as a princess of the Two Sicilies, limiting it to her name without the title is appropriate and not confusing. It is not beneficial to engage in personal attacks or slurs here. &bull; Astynax talk 15:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying that it is in compliance does not make it in compliance. In other words, no, it does not comply and that is painfully obvious. The lead sentence is not required to call her Teresa Cristina at all, but is there a legitimate reason not to? No, there isn't. Is there a legitimate reason to ignore a guideline, thousands of other articles and common sense? I'm still waiting to see one. Astynax, if all of that is true and "limiting it to her name without the title is appropriate and not confusing", why is the article titled Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies rather than Teresa Cristina? If her "maiden name" is notable enough to be the title of this article, how come it is not notable enough to be the subject of the lead sentence? Surtsicna (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Come now, let us not be ilogical, obviously her maiden name is notable and must be in the article title. Who knows how many Teresa Cristina there are, I believe there is even a Brasilian notable singer by that name. Now, when one is refering to the Empress, it is more customary to say: Dona Maria Pia instead of the Dona Maria Pia de Savoia and even in the English language. The article clearly states in the very next sentence of her birth status of being of Two Sicilies, as does the title. Apart from this, read the sentence aloud, it flows much better with the simple Dona Teresa Cristina. This is just my opinion, but this arguement seems to be a creation by you Surtsicna, to stir something up. Obviously when this article was given the honour of featured status, the reviewers found the lead sentence suitable, curious that you don't. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is notable enough to be in the title of the article, it is obviously notable enough to be in the lead sentence. I've only enquired as to why this article doesn't follow the Manual of Style and doing so I haven't encountered a single reasonable argument in favour of ignoring it, only extremely hostile comments of people who seem insulted because I dared to propose a change. Surtsicna (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone: calm down. We're all here to improve this site's content. Sursicna, please reread WP:LEAD again. The first bullet point refers to the structure of the first sentence, that is we should not have "There was an empress of Brazil, Teresa Cristina, ...". The third bullet point is the applicable point here: "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms." I don't think that "of the Two Sicilies" is necessary here, as it is mentioned in the next sentence. It only needlessly complicates the opening sentence. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratuations!
Great job on making this a Featured Article - it's great to see a Brazilian topic on the front page too. I learned a lot by reading this (shocked I didn't realize Brazil ever had its own monarchy... go USA public schooling). 41.186.11.210 (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. We spent a lot of time writing this article as well as others related to Brazilian imperial history. You shouldn't, however, take such a hard stance toward U.S. public schooling. It would be unfair to students to look in such detail the history of every single country in the world. --Lecen (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to echo the same comments from above. It was a decent read – not terribly long, but very informative and fairly comprehensive on a piece of Brazilian history that many of us outside of South America don't get to hear much about. --MuZemike 06:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thak you, MuZemike. Glad to hear you enjoyed the article. --Lecen (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"King Don Francesco I"
Though we commonly speak of Dom Pedro, "King Don Francesco" seems a solecism. Doesn't "king" trump "don" in English and in Italian?--Wetman (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have said the same in the past (Featured article candidates/Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies/archive1) but trying to get anything changed in this article is like pulling teeth out of shark's mouth. DrKiernan (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * King Dom João VI is fine but not King Don Francesco? How odd. --Lecen (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You ought to listen to what native english speakers tell you, rather than dismissing it out of hand. DrKiernan (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It all comes down to the usage in sources. The honorific "Dom" is very frequently used for Brazilian and some Portuguese monarchs in English language sources, even paired with the title. "Don" also is used for Spanish and Italian dynasts in English sources, though that honorific is less frequently paired with a title. E.g., "King Don Francesco" would be rarer than just "Don Francesco", unless there were other contemporaries (such as a Prince or Duke) also holding the honorific "Don" that could be confused with a king by the same name (and there are a huge number of Don Francescos). In many cases where both a title and honorific are used at the same time, the title follows the name (as in "Don Francesco d' Aquino, Prince of Caramanico"). I agree that, apart from Brazilian and Portuguese monarchs where the honorific after the title is in sources, "King Don Francesco" can sound odd. It would look better to say either "King Francesco of the Two Sicilies" or "Don Francesco, King of the Two Sicilies". &bull; Astynax talk 17:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In English, "Dom" or "Don" often precedes the names of Portuguese and Spanish notables, respectively, but this is extremely rare when referring to Italian notables -- which is the case we are discussing. In fact, "Don Francesco d'Aquino, Prince of Caramnico" suggests to me that the titleholder is a Spaniard, even if his princely title is Italian: "Don" is mostly used in Italian like "Lord" in English: preceding the first name of an otherwise untitled son of the high nobility. In the Almanach de Gotha it is exclusively used this way, never for Italian royalty or lower nobility. FactStraight (talk)
 * In the case of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the ruling family were Spanish Bourbons, so "Don" is indeed (in my own reading) encountered. &bull; Astynax talk 08:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's encountered, but not in direct conjunction with another title. DrKiernan (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue this, as it isn't an important point in my view, except to note that "Don" (and other honorifics) does occasionally pop up along with King (and other titles) in sources. As you may recall from Don Quixote and other works, even in translation, the honorific has a long history of being included as a part of official royal styles, however relatively uncommon it may be today. In addition to sources, a very quick search of google produces more results, of which I'll link to a few &bull; Astynax talk 09:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent sources. I am not so easily fooled. You have 3 relevant examples; the other 7 all relate to monarchs in Iberia. Three out of the thousands of sources talking about Francis represents the unusual not the usual. DrKiernan (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was trying to stay out of all discussions going on here, as I learned that they usually go nowhere. "Dom" or "Don" is used in Portugal, Spain and southern Italy. And yes, they are called "King Dom João VI", "Emperor Dom Pedro II", "King Don Carlos IV", etc, etc... It doesn't make sense that it's ok to keep "Empero Dom" or "King Don" for Brazilians, Portuguese and Spanish, but not for southern Italians. Lastly, I would like to ask you, DrKiernan, to improve your tone toward the people who disagree with you. Saying "Please don't misrepresent sources. I am not so easily fooled" is uncalled for, you have no right to insinuate that Astynax, a long time and respected editor, the person who wrote this article, is behaving with bad faith. Also saying "And then anyone who trys to improve the article in this way is accused of xenophobia, ignorance or personal animosity" is unhelpful. Did I accuse someone here of xenophobia or ignorance? Did Astynax do that? Did Limongi do that? Did Cristiano Tomás or Paulista1 do that? As far as I remember, it was you who said "You ought to listen to what native english speakers tell you", insinuating that I am ignorant. It was your friend Surtsicna who created out of nowhere the claim of personal animosity when he said that I was "...doing all of this simply because you [Lecen] dislike me". So, yeah, watch your tone. It would make this mess of discussion a little less confusing. --Lecen (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You say "It doesn't make sense". This is your problem: you think things should be as you think they should be not as they actually are. You think the English-language should follow your rules rather than actual practice because your rules make more sense. Well, this is the way English is. It does not follow rules; it develops haphazardly and waywardly; I know how it is used and spoken because I speak it fluently and natively. You do not.
 * You broke 3RR two days ago, so don't preach to me about behavior. You're hardly a paragon of virtue. When I wrote of xenophobia, I was not thinking of remarks at this particular talk page, but of remarks like these: DrKiernan (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I know how it is used and spoken because I speak it fluently and natively. You do not." Please, again, stop calling me ignorant. "I was not thinking of remarks at this particular talk page..." So, you're telling that you brought something that has nothing to do with what is being discussed in here? For what purpose? "...but of remarks like these" Unless you wasted hours looking for those diffs, which I doubt since they are posts written five months ago and they were related to discussions which you weren't part of, you must be collecting them for quite some time for future need. It's an odd and scary behavior and it's called "wikistalking". I would like to request you to stop it. I'm going to ask yet again to you to refrain yourself of being offensive to other editors. --Lecen (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't called anyone here ignorant. I have asked you before not to put words in my mouth. Stop attacking me. DrKiernan (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, I haven't misrepresented sources. You had inaccurately stated "It's encountered, but not in direct conjunction with another title", and I merely posted links that illustrated that that statement is wrong; it is sometimes used, even in English. The links show the tradition in the royal styles of the Spanish Bourbons, which they carried into their Italian domains. Though there are many other sources out there (not all on Google), I'm unwilling to further waste my time trying to convince you of the simple fact that the title and honorific are used together. This drama is way out of proportion concerning a pedantic point. The royal style does not detract from the article as currently phrased, neither would changing it detract from the article. &bull; Astynax talk 21:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said on my talk page, you are so blinded by hatred that you cannot even see that we are in fact both agreed. We both think that "King Don" is fine for Portuguese and Spanish monarchs but strange and unusual for Italian ones. You are simply perpetuating the argument for the sake of it. DrKiernan (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Bias
I have yet to read the rest of this article, but within the opening there already seems to be something odd in the sentence "Despite a cold beginning, the couple's relationship improved as time passed, due primarily to Teresa Cristina's patience, kindness, generosity and simplicity." We don't really know her personally, but this sentence would be difficult to verify, and in fact has no source attached to it. Can anyone vouch for why this sentence should be included? Señor snazzy pants  talk  21:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead serves as a summary of the article's content. As such, there is no need for excessive referencing, as the material will be covered further into the article. In this case, the subsections "Marriage" and "Domestic life" detail her personality pretty well - especially her relationship with her husband. Both sections (the entire article, for that matter) are very well sourced.  Li mon gi  (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether in the lede or body of the article, this is typical of much of the content on the Brazilian Imperial Family articles: descriptions of people's interior character, feelings, attitudes or relationships that it is almost impossible for writers, even contemporaries, to have been able to document. It novelizes our encyclopedic text, making it sound less objective and less derived from reliable sources -- but I've given up trying to challenge it. FactStraight (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not surprised by your decision to give up. Having to beg for reasonable arguments and still get none must be rather disappointing and discouraging. Surtsicna (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny how both act; Ive seen both of your talk pages, it seems many people seem to disagree with you. Perhaps the others are not the problem... Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your talk page has been repeatedly sanitized by blanking and archiving since the account was opened, deleting some critical comments from others: Does that mean that because people have disagreed with your edits, you are "the problem"? Or does it mean that you, like me and everyone else, sometimes have disagreements about editing and therefore need to try to cooperate more effectively? My comment was not meant as a criticism of any individual editor, but rather of a style of editing which I think can be improved for the benefit of Wikipedia. Unfortunate that critique would elicit a personal attack. FactStraight (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never deleted an ounce of information on my talk page, please go through the archives (which were put in by a very helpful fellow editor so that my talk page did not look like a complete novel) and you will find everything there. What you will see very often is editors who persist on their way without taking consideration for the actuality of things. I do believe we must all work together, but I find that very hard to do when editors Surtsicna, in this instance, are constantly just bringing up "problems" for the sake of it. She?he? (I do not know nor does it matter) has flooded this talk page with nonsense "problems" that exist, it seems, only to cause hassel towards User:Lecen, who is perhaps the greatest asset to Brazilian history on wikipedia. This all seems personal, because the "problems" brought up are nonsenese, whether the maiden name should be displayed, whether Don should be displayed, whether the Ancestry in the first paragraphs should be displayed. The review that went over this article found it to be a masterpiece of work on wikipedia and was given its due award as featured status. When editors like Surtsicna come along and cause tiny problems on nonsense, it doesn't help wikipedia, but hurt it. I find all this to be unsettling the fact that some editors do things as such. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the Don issue, the article was promoted without the Don, but it was sneaked back in after the article was promoted. Our point is that four editors, including Astynax who has most to do with the english-language editing of the page, say that Don is not used, and yet it still gets re-inserted every time it's removed. And then anyone who trys to improve the article in this way is accused of xenophobia, ignorance or personal animosity. This battleground mentality needs to stop. If multiple editors say it is problem, then it is very likely a problem. If you really wanted to improve the article then you would address the problem rather than dismiss it by making absurd accusations against neutral participants who are only trying to assist non-native speakers in their grasp of english. DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As the point of the introductory lead section is to summarize third-party sources, perhaps you have a better word for their description of Teresa Cristina's treatment. "Cold" seems to sum that up rather neatly, as explained in the sourced material which follows in the body of the article. While editors are not allowed to insert their opionions or original research, it is completely acceptible to summarize the view of reliable sources. As Limongi pointed out, there is no requirement for sources to be given in the Lead section, as they occur later in the article, which you evidently did not read. &bull; Astynax talk 08:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it possible for us to disagree about something without me being less informed about the facts and sources than you? Please re-consider my point: regardless of whether the lede accurately reflects sources cited elsewhere, the nature of the characterization is unencyclopedic for 21st century purposes. Many contemporary memoirs may be found which described persons in ways which we would not consider encyclopedic today: "died of melancholia" or "un-ladylike" in behavior, or "uncivilized". The point is that these represent personal opinions which require both observation and the context of the times to unpack and represent objectively. They should simply not be included except as quotes attributed to specific sources (and then only if there is reliable evidence that the opinion cited is prevalent rather than exceptional, lest undue weight be given). That aside, don't we all know well that an individual may seem "warm" to some while others find him "cold"? I would avoid characterizing the marriages of my own family members as "good", or the behavior of my own head of state as "wise", or the marriage of Elizabeth II and Prince Philip as "happy", given how complex such judgments are and how many others might well disagree with me. I believe that sticking to descriptions of actions ("Elizabeth II and her consort celebrated their diamond wedding anniversary with a gala"), rather than of people's feelings, personality or quality of relationships, minimizes this problem and improves the objectivity of this encyclopedia. I stopped objecting to it in the case of Brazilian royalty because it seemed important to other editors to include comments about the emotions of long dead dynasts, whereas it wasn't important enough to me to challenge continually. Yet I would still wish for a more detached approach in WP, and said so when someone voiced the same concern about this article. Just my opinion. FactStraight (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Excess ordinal use
Piledhigheranddeeper made an edit to remove excess ordinals following Pedro's name, which was reverted by Lecen, without explanation. I'm not clear on why this was reverted, it is fairly common in our monarch articles that the monarchical ordinal is dropped after the first use in common prose, such as through Elizabeth II, George VI, Pedro I of Brazil, Ferdinand VII of Spain and most others. In my view, Piledhigheranddeeper's edit was quite reasonable and shouldn't have been reverted without explanation. Are there any objections to restoring this change? – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  23:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. None of the sources call Pedro II merely "Pedro". In his family, there was him, as well as his son Pedro, also his grandson Pedro (son of Leopoldina) and his other grandson Pedro (son of Isabel). --Lecen (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Brasilian sources aren't useful indicators of English language usage, and the English sources most commonly use the term "D. Pedro II". Our MOS dictates we don't use honorifics and prefix titles in common prose, and convention across royalty articles suggests we do away with the ordinal in common prose as well. Presumably Piledhigheranddeeper also agrees with removing the excess ordinals in line with our other royalty articles. Does anyone other than Lecen object at this point? – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  03:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but in this particular case I don’t think it is a good idea to take the ordinals out. I have never seen a source refer to him simply as Pedro, he is always Dom Pedro II, Dom Pedro or Pedro II without the honorific style D. or Dom, even in American newspaper articles published during his lifetime, although he is not well known today, he was an iconic individual of the 19th century, the amount of sources referring to him are massive. Another issue is that Dom Pedro II was a member of the house of Braganza and was never referred to by a family name, as Lecen demonstrated it would be a mistake to call him only Pedro, it would confuse readers since many members of his family were also named Pedro. If you want, you can check the forms of address of Dom Pedro II in the archives of the New York Times, here. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did check the English sources in the Pedro II article, actually, but thanks for the link. I don't believe reference to him as simply 'Pedro' is mistaken after clearly establishing context at the beginning - we achieve the same thing in most other royalty articles even though there are many cases of 'Bob I, Bob II and Bob III' in quick succession. That said, if this is deemed necessary, that's no problem, however I'd request that a suitable edit summary be provided when reverting a good faith edit like this one in future. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  05:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The amount of Pedros that exist in Portuguese and Brasilian is incredibly ridiculous! To remove the ordinals is like taking away the name in general, there is no way to tell who is who. Apart from this, I cannot recall anyone just saying "Pedro". I know back in Portugal when we speak of our kings, we can never just say the name, because there are multiples. Even when we are only talking of one king, we never just say the name, we continously say "Afonso IV" or "Pedro I". I think this simple; the ordinals must stay. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What you do back in Portugal is irrelevant to this matter. The only thing that matters is how this man is commonly referred to in English language literature. Eighteen kings of France were named Louis, yet calling the Sun King 'Louis the Fourteenth' every time he is mentioned is simply silly. He is the subject of the article Louis XIV of France and it is clear that when the article says 'Louis', it refers to him and not to his 10th-century ancestor. The ordinal thus does not have to stay and especially not if it is not used by English language sources whenever this man is mentioned. Anyway, as has been said earlier, the user who made an explained good-faith edit deserved at least an explanation when his edit was reverted. Surtsicna (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)