User talk:Cristiano Tomás/Archive 5

Edward
Hi. You put an image from the St. Vincent panels identifying it as Edward of Portugal. That's not Edward of Portugal, it's very highly likely to be Afonso V. And here I say "probably" because none of the figures in the St. Vicent panels have any identification. Art historians debate and speculate endlessly, but there is no consensus of who is who. I have run the risk of using the St. Vincent panels to illustrate Peter of Coimbra, John of Reguengos & Ferdinand the Saint because there really aren't any other images of them, and are not too many other candidates for those figures. But the figures in the central panel are highly contested. The weight of the evidence from the art historians I have studied goes heavily in favor of it being a portrait of Afonso V, not Edward. Since we have alternative images of Edward, I would suggest using those as the main picture instead, and relegate this one to a mere (but very contested) possibility. Walrasiad (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi CT. Did you see my message on this page and on the talk page? Please reply before reversing edits.  Walrasiad (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It's been a week, and you still haven't replied to me, so let me give it another shot here.

The nub of it is this: the identification of that figure as Afonso V has been relatively stable for nearly a century, until 2000, when a mathematician and his mother (Almeida & Albuquerque) published a rather controversial study claiming to have effectively found a "secret code" in the embroidery which they claim says the panels were made in 1445 (instead of the 1460s-70s, the usual date given by nearly all historians). Dating the panels in 1445 forces all the traditional identifications to change - since, of course, Afonso V was only a boy in 1445, whereas he was an adult in the 1460s (when the panels were really made, according to everybody else). Almeida & Albuquerque simply assigned names willy-nilly for everybody in those panels, without rhyme or reason, removing all the generally-accepted identifications. A-A is the only author who identifies it as Duarte. (Portuguese Wiki follows convention in identifying it as Afonso V.)

The A-A book was panned by practically all professional historians and art historians as pure balderdash, a fantasy on the level of the "Da Vinci Code" (e.g. by Vitor Serrao, Dagoberto Markl, Fausto Martins, etc.), flying in the face of all scholarship and known documentary evidence. Nonetheless, Almeida & Albuquerque were very good with their publicity, the controversy made the newspapers, they pushed the Ministry of Culture and forced the MNAA to host a conference in 2003 to address the book's claims - which were, again, dismissed as pure nonsense by the academics who attended it.

Now all that recent publicity brought general public attention to the panels again - the first time in a long time. The museum's panel which you seem to be depending upon - a display which, let me underline, carefully alerts it is merely a possibility and not accepted - simply shows the Almeida-Albuquerque sensationalist claims. I expect it was put on a display because it is something the public read about recently, and seems to be expecting to find some mention of, even though academic experts have almost uniformly repudiated it. (Additional Note: If you are basing your identifications on the display panel on the Wiki page, please note that it is NOT a display at the MNAA but from the Museum do Forte de Lagos many years ago.)

Besides Duarte, all the other adjustments you made based on the fringe claims of Almeida-Albuquerque should also be reversed. That is, Ferdinand the Saint (the great majority of scholars agree that it is St. Vincent - alone among scholars and flying against all evidence, A-A deny that the panels have anything at all to do with St. Vincent); Peter of Coimbra (no one by A-A assign it thus), John of Reguengos (another A-A fantasy). I notice you didn't complete the rest of A-A's fantasy assignments (e.g. you kept Isabella of Coimbra, even though A-A identifies that very young woman as the forty-year-old Eleanor of Aragon!)

You should not be relying on a fragment of a display panel which has the explicit note that it merely a hypothesis to assert concrete identifications which are not given anywhere in the serious literature, except in an unreliable, fringe sensationalist book by amateurs which has been roundly rejected by serious historians.

Additional note: I am in the process of rewriting the entire Saint Vincent panels page to survey the long history of scholarship and controversy surrounding them. I will make a careful mention of A-A's thesis, among many other theses, in more neutral terms than I have given here to you privately. But I will also articulate the problems with it more fully, with references you can review and re-assess for yourself. Walrasiad (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: If you check out the MNAA's website, while they are coy with specific identifications, they firmly repudiate A-A thesis by using conventional date (c.1470), that is, the adult Afonso V, and clearly attribute the central double-figure to St. Vincent (not Ferdinand, as A-A and the display panel you used allege). So the identifications you made need to be reversed. Walrasiad (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Portuguese Renaissance, Cristiano Tomás!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"reviewed as part of page curation, seems interesting."

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Afonso V image
Quick question about one of the the pictures of Afonso V you uploaded. I have been tracking down the original sources of some of your pics and filling in the source info at Wiki commons. This colored picture you inserted in the lede of Afonso V I am having trouble with. I tracked down the original illustration to the Anacephalaeoses of Antonio de Vasconcellos, drawn by Manuel Soeiro and published in Antwerp in 1621, but it is in black-and-white, not color. It seems to me the color version is just a pretty direct colorized version of the Anacephaleosis woodcut (and thus post-1621), but I am not sure if it wasn't the other way around (i.e. that Soeiro based his illustration on some prior color pic). Does the source from where you scanned it give any more details about its provenance? Walrasiad (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese toponomic patterns
Hi CR. I moved the "Nova Lusitania" passage to the talk page. The references don't support it. I am sorry if I appear a little brusque there. But I'd like to ask you here, more privately, why you seem so intent on it? I expect (and correct me if I'm wrong) you're trying to copy your fellow Americans which use a lot of "New X" (New York, New Jersey, New England, etc.) and names of European royals (Virginia, Maryland, Carolina, etc.) which is what I think may be influencing your instincts. But that is an English tradition - or rather, it is a Spanish naming tradition, which the English, French and Dutch copied. But the Portuguese never did - we have a very different and distinctive naming pattern, a tradition much older than the Spanish, which we stuck to. Portuguese cartographers, officials and captains never named ANYTHING overseas for places or people in Portugal. Ever. It is simply not how we did it. The Portuguese had a very different and careful set of criteria and guidelines we used in our overseas toponomy, a unique tradition we stuck to. You're trying to impose an alien Spanish tradition on us we never had (well, after the Hapsburgs took over, some Spanish influence come in, so we get a Nova Lisboa here and there, but it is extremely rare). Walrasiad (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ways to improve Captaincies of the Portuguese Empire
Hi, I'm Kieranian2001. Cristiano Tomás, thanks for creating Captaincies of the Portuguese Empire!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Reviewed as part of page curation, thanks for article, this article needs citations for reference and verification.Kieranian2001 (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alonso Sánchez Coello, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Portuguese, Castile and Kulturhistorisk Museum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Óscar Carmona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page His Excellency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mirandese
Please discuss instead of starting any kind of edit war. Not even Spain includes its various languages the way you are trying to force into Portugal. The fact is no one needs that piece of information because everybody who reads Mirandese (a few thousand) also reads Portuguese perfectly. A clear consensus should be achieved on this matter. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again I'm asking you politely to discuss the matter in the appropriate talk page before insisting with your pov. This in an article with a large visibility which talks about our common country and nobody owns it! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Selfless
Sorry for taking so long to answer. I'm barely around anymore. When I warned you about it I was not trying to take away your motivation. I simply wanted to warn you. There isn't much interest on Portuguese and Brazilian history in here and you'll find several editors who will pick a fight with you but who at the same time won't do anything to improve an article. You've seen that before in our move requests. Wikipedia is about pleasure. If it doesn't give you pleasure, then you should leave it. In case you need help, you can always ask me. --Lecen (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese Guiana
Cristiano, in the template about the Portuguese overseas empire it says that the Portuguese overseas empire was Acre. As far as I know it is Amapá. --Lecen (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

With what purpose
Look at these: Minas Gerais Province, Mato Grosso Province, Pará Province, Paraná Province, Kingdom of Brazil, etc, etc... A bunch of one-sentence-long articles. --Lecen (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you mind request the merge of Kingdom of Brazil with the article about the United kingdom of Portugal, Brazil, etc...? --Lecen (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Arms, etc
Greetings, Cristiano Tomas, I hope you are well.

First and foremost; in most European countries (including Portugal), the coats of arms of a family are made different from each other by the addition of different charges that make the coats of arms of different family members look different from each other. This is called cadency; and originates from the need on the battlefield to tell different people who were related apart (it wouldn't have been very useful if two relatives were fighting on different sides in a battle-for obvious reasons this could have been dangerous!)

In the case of the Dukes of Braganza, as you will be aware they descend from an illegitimate son of one of the Aviz Kings of Portugal. However; as illegitimate children did not automatically have the same status as their legitimate relatives, their coats of arms reflected this and instead of simply differences their arms by cadency; they had to bear arms that simply suggested who their father was, so elements would be taken from the arms of their father and jumbled up and arranged in such a way that they could not be confused with legitimate members of the family. The original arms of the Dukes of Braganza is a very good example of this.

The Portuguese royal arms; like any of the arms of any monarch; are Arms of Dominion. That is; they are the arms of the office and dignity of Monarch, and they are the arms of the country he rules as well and ; just as a monarch on ascending the throne cannot bear any arms he bore before he became King; neither can he bear the arms he used to bear. So; when Joao IV ascended the throne, his arms simply became the arms of Portugal and the arms of his sons were differences via cadency All subsequent sons of the Kings or of Portugal bore their arms in this manner. The eldest son of the current Duke of Braganza differences his arms with what is called in blazon (herald terminology) a label Or of three points. (as can be seen on the article on cadency. Excellent books explaining this in detail are Lines of Succession' by Jiri Louda and Michael McLagan, 'Simple Heraldry, Cheerfully Explained', by Sir Iain Moncrieffe of that Ilk, and 'Heraldic Cadency by Sir Robert Gayre of Gayre and Nigg. The Louda and McLagan book provides detailed family trees of the House of Braganza where the arms of all of them are illustrated. Thus; to speak of the 'Arms of a House', particularly as reagards roual houses as the royal arms are also the arms of state and therefore cannot be used by even her closest relatives-is a nonsense. Arms belong to individuals; NOT families. The Portuguese Royal family used (and still uses) the same system as used by the British, Dutch and Spanish royal families today. The arms of the other territories ruled over by the House of Braganza (with the exception of Brazil after it became an Empire; but this was a different branch at any rate) are irrelevant because none of them were sovereign states and thus none of their arms are Arms of Dominion.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are the arms of the current Duke of Braganza:

http://www.armorial-register.com/arms-pt/arms-braganza-hrh.html

-the arms of H.R.H. Infante Dom Henrique Nuno João Miguel de Bragança Duke of Coimbra, brother of the present Duke of Braganza on a bookplate: (you'll have to scroll down)

http://bookplate-jvarnoso.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Portuguese%20Armorials

-the arms of HRH Infante Dom Miguel, Duke of Viseu and younger brother of the Duke of Braganza (again; please scroll down):

http://bookplate-jvarnoso.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Portuguese%20Armorials

See also here: (in Portuguese): http://audaces.blogs.sapo.pt/2009/02/,

here:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armorial_des_Bragance

and here: (near the bottom):

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armorial_des_Cap%C3%A9tiens

See also here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Heralder#Portugal -Here is the page of the Serbian and American heraldic artists who helped Dom Duarte Pio design the arms of his children and to paint his and his children's arms:

http://www.czipm.org/galerija-heraldika02-16.html

-the arms of the present Duke of Braganza's eldest son, Infante Dom Afonso, Prince of Beira:

http://www.czipm.org/krotrport01.html

-and the arms of his second son, Infante Dom Dinis, Duke of Oporto:

http://www.czipm.org/krotrport02.html

-the only country in europe that doesn't follow use the method of cadency to difference arms from one another-particularly as regards Royal Arms is Germany; and even there they have on occasion used it.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Castles
Geez Cristiano. I was disappointed to see you had moved "Castle of São Jorge" to "São Jorge Castle", since I had began to build content on the Castles of Portugal section. In this regard, I had attempted to be more faithful to translation and use, and adopted the "Castle of" distinction, being equally common in English. This is not edit war material, I was just hoping that we could standardize all the Castles to one format: since most are currently "Castelo de/do/das/da", it only seems an easier build. ruben jc ZEORYMER  (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, you are sympathetic as ever. Second, as much as my attempt to standardize, I do have my own preferences, so my comments are personal (hence the fact that this was not a demand for consensus argument). Also, the use of "Castle of São Jorge" or "São Jorge Castle" is not the only "proper" use of English; while I abhor the idea of using it, another translation is "Saint George Castle" or "Castle of Saint George" (equally resumed as "St. George Castle"). And, of course, the reason why literally transliterating this to the above is abhorrent, is that I am equally influenced by you and Lecen (and my own personal preferences) to maintain the "Portuguese-ness" of names. So, resuming: appreciated your response, while acknowledging that standardization to full English creates pitfalls. ruben jc ZEORYMER  (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Infante Alexandre of Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maria Ana of Portugal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese Renaissance
I came to thank you for the Great Work about Portuguese Renaissance. As readers we are grateful. I know that the article can not contain everything, no matter how very complete and with good quality it is (as the case) and making an approach to all fields. I just wanted to, if I may point out, that perhaps are only lacking further reference to the Chronicles of Discovery (more(?) not the reference itself), a literature field which although inspired by the classics, were of great innovation throughout Europe in the sixteenth century. Perhaps a reference to Castanheda, Correia, Galvão, Couto. If you look well, even worldwide, are the names that international experts in any country, especially in the study of the European expansion, know better. The greatest impact in Europe, in Italy, and in the North, was exercised mainly by the "Décadas da Ásia" of João de Barros, due to huge curiosity by the remote, voyages, the exotic, new civilizations, daring and audacity at the time. And Décadas as Colective national Epopeia in Chronicle (and an innovation in many aspects at the time in Europe) would inspire Camões and his Os Lusíadas in verse. Another thing: The Painels of São Vicente contains all the bodies of the nation, not only just royalty, clergy and nobility, but also the People, eventually artisans, fishermen, members of the people, maybe "Homens Bons" of Conselhos(?!) etc. I know it is an encyclopedic article, very good and very complete, made by you, and not a treaty or a thesis, but if you may point out this, I´m grateful. And the article it is already well developed. Maybe some suggestions to you, any way. And eventually you also will even make some additions. But it was also only to thank you as a reader. (Due to my inexperience I do not know if I was right to put the comments here, as a new section (?). Perhaps should have found the way to put down the last post. I followed the instructions. Of course you are free to remove them or change its place.) Greetings. --LuzoGraal (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd Like to add also the great and inescapable figure of the Portuguese Renaissance, D. João de Castro, with his magnificent geographical Roadmaps or Rout Maps (or log books), routes and memos, notes (about Africa, Asia, the Red Sea), his first detailed drawings of Galleons (even at the level of European illustration), distinguishing them from the Carracks, Caravels, Round Square Caravels, galleys and other vessels, especially in the Suez expedition; and of course, his first innovative experiments in the study of Terrestrial Magnetism and his innovative conclusions in this field. João de Castro called for the need of the coordination between the observation and reason in the scientific field at a pioneer level also. Mentioned today by scientists and scholars in this field of science.--LuzoGraal (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * }

Lisbon
For the third or fourth time I come here and, once again, not for the best reasons. Please stop trying to impose your opinions, invoking poor arguments. I have started a discussion on the Lisbon talk page and hope that you explain your reasons there. Please do not revert my improvement again because I won't hesitate to act accordingly, something I don't want to do. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Poor revert
Hi Cristiano. I replied on the talk page about the document on Duarte Pio's birth but as an aside I wanted to apologize for deleting more material when I reverted earlier. It was sloppy on my part but it wasn't intentional. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Francisco Manuel de Melo
Olá Cristiano, vim de encontrar no artigo sobre Francisco Manuel de Melo a fotografia do primo direto dele, Francisco de Melo Manuel. A confusão sobre os retratos data já de há muito tempo, o pode-se verificar em outros sites que por vezes também a este autor dão-lhe o retrato dum outro primo dele (mais longíncuo) Francisco de Melo, conde de Assumar... Tudo isto fica explicado na Wikipedia portuguesa... Pode-me responder na Wikipedia portuguesa em Usuário Discussão:Victorcouto. Cumprimentos. Victor

Disambiguation link notification for January 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crown-cardinal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal-Infante (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)