User talk:Lecen/Archive 22

Maria Amélia
Surely that citation is still good for her father's half of the tree? But since you removed it, I went and tagged the Ancestry section as lacking references. I had included her in WP:Selected anniversaries/February 4, but I can't use the article without a citation there. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 03:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not being WP:POINTy. There are no citations in that section. I assume that means you're not going to cooperate. — howcheng  {chat} 03:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles about royals do not require source for "ancestry" sections. Check other similar FA. Now, don't waste my time again. --Lecen (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the guideline/policy where that is stated. As far as I know, WP:V applies to everything. Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 04:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Another question: Is there some particular reason you are averse to adding a citation there? You say that it's not required, but wouldn't it be better if there was one? — howcheng  {chat} 04:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza (1878–1920)
Could you care to explain the reason why the ribbon bars for the orders were removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlanteanAstorian (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the purpose of a section like that is to inform, not to turn the article into a rainbow psychedelic nightmare. See the articles about the Brazilian emperors. You want to help? Then, expand the article, read books about the person and add more information to it. --Lecen (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to the miriade of articles on other political and royal figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlanteanAstorian (talk • contribs) 11:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil
Oi ::, Tudo bem? Eu acrescentei a imagem do juramento do D. Pedro I à Constituição de 1824 no tópico em que fazia referência a esse assunto e retirei uma imagem do D. Pedro porque o verbete já tinha muitas dele. Na imagem que coloquei tem inclusive uma assinatura dele. Por que você excluiu? Abraços --Diego barbosa silva (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s not how it works. That’s a featured article, which means that a carefully and painstakingly work was done on it to find the best sources, write it under professional standards and undergo hard scrutiny to pass. It’s not about a person’s subjective opinion on whether there are too many pictures of him or whether you’d like to see his signature there (which already is). If every time someone came over and wanted to add a picture or information that he or she prefers, the article would become unrecognizable. Do you really want to help? Then, start working on other articles. Read books, write the text, cite the sources. José Bonifácio, History of the Empire of Brazil, Cisplatine War, are just a few examples of articles that should be risen to the level of features. However, after many years on Wikipedia, I got used to see random users show up, make some changes on articles that are already perfected, and ignore ones that require actual work. It’s a pity. --Lecen (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Oi ::, não tenho interesse em modificar tanto o artigo, nem o seu texto, mesmo sendo Doutor, tendo grande conhecimento em História do Brasil, tendo livros publicados e sendo ex-Diretor do Arquivo Nacional do Brasil. Meu interesse foi apenas em acrescentar uma imagem do juramento de D. Pedro I à Constituição de 1824, documento este sob guarda do Arquivo Nacional do Brasil, justamente na seção que fala sobre isso. Não foi nenhuma questão subjetiva por gostar ou não. Apenas é mais coerente e ilustra melhor a seção em que foi colocada. Por favor, avalie e não se feche para as possibilidades de melhora do verbete, que pelos princípios da wikipedia devem ser construídos de forma coletiva e colaborativa. Reitero que essa imagem é muito melhor do que mais uma imagem de D. Pedro I. Creio que o artigo deve ter umas 8. --Diego barbosa silva (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the Wikipedia in English, a public forum for English speaking users. Please, speak in English, since others may be interested in following the discussion. Also, it doesn’t matter if you are a doctor or not. One of the worst aspects of Wikipedia is that the opinion of experts has no weight. It seems you haven’t understood what I said in my previous message. Let me repeat it. Your subjective opinion, that is, your personal taste or preference, doesn’t matter. You like picture X, others will prefer pictures Y, W or Z. That’s not how it works. The article underwent years ago a careful review, including of its pictures, to be awarded with a Featured label. Again, if you wish to help, start working on other articles that are underdeveloped. --Lecen (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, you shouldn’t see my opposition as a personal one. I have nothing against you. I always welcome users who wish to make improvements or useful additions. However, as I said before, articles, especially featured articles, require stability precisely because they reached a level of maturity that took time and effort. If every person came up suggesting a new chance, the article would eventually be unrecognizable. I hope to see you around, I always appreciate exchanging ideas, and good luck! --Lecen (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Unlike you, I think the best of Wikipedia is just don´t give different weight to doctors or not. I mentioned my curriculum just because you told me to study before proposing changes here. Study is always good and I always do. But I believe that this is no argument to accept or not a modification here on Wikipedia. Again I insist, there is nothing subjective about the change I made. The image is of the oath of D. Pedro I to the Constitution of 1824 in the topic titled Emperor Constitutional. I can not find any reason to not accept the amendment, which is in accordance with the Wikipedia Style Manual. Please, reconsider. --Diego barbosa silva (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it seems that there's a misunderstanding. I didn't say you should study before proposing changes. I said that other articles need improvements, and you, and anyone, in fact, could grab a few books and start expanding them (because I'd be very happy if there were others helping me out improving them). Regarding your proposal for Pedro I, that is, changing a picture to another, my suggestion is: why don't you open a thread on the article's talk page and ask other users their opinion? You seem to believe that I oppose the change, but I personally have nothing against it. I'm just trying to explain that once articles reach featured level, you need to propose changes, instead of simply making them. As I said before, I hope you intend to stay, I'd be very happy to share ideas with someone. --Lecen (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Museu Paulista GLAM
Cheers Lecen! I hope this message finds you well. I would like to bring to your attention this initiative you might be interested in partnering up with, hosted on Wikipedia in Portuguese: Wikipédia:GLAM/Museu Paulista. We'd appreciate a lot you get involved! Best. --Joalpe (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Precious six years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry sections
Per consensus at WT:Featured article candidates/archive69, Ancestry sections are not exempt from WP:V. In your edit summary, you said, "Any biography of Pedro II has the tree." I believe you, but you still need to add the citation. These are also not "well-known facts" on the order of "Paris is the capital of France." I highly doubt the average layperson even knows who Maria Luisa of Parma is, much less that she is the daughter of Duke Philip of Parma. Furthermore, why do you object to having more references in an article? That just seems completely nonsensical. Unless I've made factual errors, the proper response I expect from you is, "Thanks for improving this article to make it more rigorous in its referencing." — howcheng  {chat} 22:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You lack consensus to make those changes. The prince is not an obscure character, and his father even less. Their genealogy is well known and attested. You’re not going to add reference to every single person in that tree. My suggestion is: do something actually useful. Write an article, like I did. Bring it to FA level. --Lecen (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since when does anyone need consensus to add references? You're not going to add reference [sic] to every single person in that tree. Umm, . Also, I don't know who you think I am, but I've written plenty of articles. I've also a  of articles from a  to something that resembles quality, and have  my fair share of stubs. And while we're on the topic of suggestions, I have one for you: either restore my edit, or dig out one of those biographies on Pedro II and add the citation to the article instead of wasting both of our times by arguing about it. — howcheng   {chat} 23:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Any biography of Pedro II has the tree is a terrible argument. By that logic, you wouldn't need citations for anything in the Pedro II article. {{tq}Dom Pedro II (English: Peter II; 2 December 1825 – 5 December 1891), nicknamed "the Magnanimous",[1]}} Doesn't pretty much every biography of him have this? So you don't need a citation, right? Of course you do, because that's a stupid argument. Let me ask you this: I get that you don't think they are necessary, but is the article harmed in any way by having citations to reliable sources for the ancestry? If yes, please explain how, and I could be convinced. Otherwise, why do you care if I add them? — howcheng  {chat} 00:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:PERSONAL
I'd advise you take a look on No personal attacks:
 * Some types of comments are never acceptable:


 * Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

I suggest you read the rules before start undoing people's edits. Remember: In a discussion, comments must be about the content, not on the contributor. Coltsfan (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

List of presidents of Brazil
Howdy. I'm been in past arguments over when the presidents leave office. Some say at midnight, others say later on in New Years Day, when the successor is sworn in. Help me Lecen, which is it. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Presidents in Brazil start their term on January 1 of the following year after election and end four years later, on a January 1, not December 31. However, the Constitution on article 78 establishes that the elected-president has to be sworn in on 10 days after January 1, or else, the position will be declared vacant. Thus, Bolsonaro cannot, for example, write a presidential decree on 4am on January 1, 2019. The same occurs with senators and federal deputies (congressmen): they need be to sworn in to have their positions recognized. --Lecen (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So Temer's tenure ends December 31, 2018? GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ends January 1. The swering-in ceremony on January 1 is not merely symbolic, it’s an actual passing of the torch, with the new president (Bolsonaro) signing the document that validates his occupation of the office (along with parade, celebrations, etc) --Lecen (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a problem then, which stems from List of presidents of Brazil. That's the article I used to make today's changes that I did to the bios of the presidents & vice presidents. I think we need someplace to settle the issue. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That article is wrong. See it’s Portuguese version, which is correct. --Lecen (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the official website. Shamefully, the presidents aren't even organized chronologically. However, look for Lula and Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Dilma was impeached, as well as Collor), who were able to finish their terms. --Lecen (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You may have to dip your toe in at the Rfc at List of presidents of Brazil concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits of Jair Bolsonaro
User:Wumbolo has complained about your edits of Talk:Jair Bolsonaro on my talk page. He says you have engaged in personal attacks. You can respond on my talk page if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Estimativas de morte, guerra da Cisplatina
Olá, achei sua edição inserindo estimativas de morte, quanto ao tópico guerra da Cisplatina, complicada. Em primeiro lugar, a cifra quanto às mortes é incerta, e isso deveria ser ressaltado: realmente, não há certeza quanto a esse número. Em segundo lugar, e isso apenas especialistas no assunto sabem, a historiografia a respeito do conflito em questão é tingida de parcialidade. No geral, apenas historiadores militares - brasileiros e de fora - sabem dessa parcialidade. Mesmo historiadores brasileiros não sabem. Os números quanto às mortes eram altamente manipulados, e isso muito intensamente pelo lado dos aliados. O número de mortos, a narrativa sobre o que aconteceu (vitória ou derrota), enfim, há de se ter cuidado.

Combate de Lara Quilmes, por exemplo: "O Correio Nacional, de Buenos Aires, disse no dia 1o de agosto: [...] De acordo com os relatórios oficiosos, parece que não excede 30 mortos e 70 feridos. O Mensagero Argentino (3 de agosto) e o British Packet (no 1, de 4 de agosto) reduziram a 48 os mortos e feridos; no entanto, um ano depois, este último (no 46, de 17 de junho de 1827) dava outro algarismo, 55 mortos e feridos. A fragata 25 de Mayo nunca mais pôde servir. Quando entrou nos Pozos, rebocada pelas canhoneiras, as únicas velas que tinha eram o traquete, o velacho e a rabeca". http://funag.gov.br/loja/download/975-Obras_do_Barao_do_Rio_Branco_VI_Efemerides_Brasileiras.pdf (páginas 126 a 128).

Estimativa não argentina, feita por um historiador militar americano, Robert Scheina, coloca a perda deles em mais de 100 (!) : "Os brasileiros perderam seis mortos e vinte feridos; no último grupo esteve John Pascoe Grenfell que perdeu um braço. As perdas argentinas podem ter sido tão altas quanto uma centena de mortos e uma centena de feridos". Latin America's Wars, the Age of the Caudillo, 1791-1899, Robert L. Scheina

O comandante Carlos Alvear, no relatório dele, a respeito da Batalha de Ituzaingó (ou Passo do Rosário), informou o número de mortos brasileiros como sendo 1200. Os números brasileiros dão conta de 200. O autor anônimo da Contribuição à Guerra da Guerra entre o Brasil e Buenos Aires, um nobre mercenário alemão, testemunha ocular do evento, e não obstante favorável ao lado dos aliados, apontou em seu livro (cf. fls. 236, Ed. da USP) ser isso um exagero. As fontes militares (estrangeiras, da época, e historiadores militares como o Robert Scheina; e nacionais) dão um número próximo a 200.

Muitas historiadores nacionais, sem especialização na área militar, sem conhecer a forte campanha de propaganda, acabam copiando esses números de fontes argentinas, o que contribui ainda mais para a distorção dos fatos.

Infelizmente, historiadores brasileiros, exceção notável dos militares (principalmente os da Marinha) e diplomatas como o Barão do Rio Branco e Sérgio Correia da Costa, compreendem a "areia movediça" que é a narrativa a respeito desse conflito.

O historiador Britânico Brian Vale resumiu muito bem a questão:

"no momento eu estou pesquisando a guerra entre o Brasil e a Argentina de 1825 a 1828. '''Eu descobri que os argentinos cobriram muito bem esse período, há muitos e muitos livros, mas a maioria é pró-Argentina e anti-Brasil". ''' http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/1997/2/02/mais!/15.html

O combate de los Pozos, por exemplo, na historiografia platina, com repercussão no Brasil inclusive, é tido como uma vitória aliada. Brian Vale revela que, à época, os próprios marinheiros britânicos, que lutavam pelo Brasil, sentiram-se desconfortáveis com o alto grau de mentiras em que se metia o adversário:

"Luego a las 15:00, Brown tomó la iniciativa. La escolta de Rosales se veía volviendo sobre el horizonte norte. Brown señaló la unión a la acción, mientras que Norton ordenó a la flotilla de Grenfell para interceptar. Entonces, pensando que el Niterói se había encallado, Brown llevó a sus cañoneras a que llegue el ataque. Esto condujo a un breve intercambio de disparos antes de que los argentinos se dieron cuenta de su error y se retiraron a sus posiciones originales. Eran las cinco de la tarde y ya estaba frío y oscuro. Los brasileños se retiraron lentamente, anclados a dos y media millas de sus enemigos. Los capitanes brasileños no dieron mucha importancia a la acción de 11 de junio de 1826, más tarde llamado la Batalla de Los Pozos. Senna Pereira en sus Memorias desestimó en dos frases concisas: «No se hizo nada en el ataque propuesto para el 11 de junio. El enemigo sufrió algunos daños en sus cañoneras, pero era poco más que una escaramuza. La única ganancia fue que tres marineros brasileños habían tomado galantemente ventaja de la confusión para volver a tomar la goleta María Isabel, capturada fuera de Montevideo el 10 de abril, y habían logrado escapar y volver a unirse a la escuadra imperial. [...] '''Norton y sus hombres no pueden haber considerado 11 de junio un compromiso importante, pero a la gente de cosas Buenos Aires parecía diferente [...] Sin darse cuenta (o olvidadiza) de las aguas poco profundas que hacen que sea imposible para cualquier nave brasileña acercarse, vieron el aparente rechazo de una fuerza tan grande por uno tan pequeño como una victoria poderosa. Guillermo Brown llegó a tierra para encontrarse a sí mismo en un héroe nacional. [...] Los periódicos (de Argentina) lo siguieron. [...] Para no ser menos, El Correo Nacional informó con satisfacción que “hemos sido informados por una persona que habló con Norton que Brown es un héroe y los oficiales bajo su mando incomparables!”». Mientras que en la republicana Buenos Aires, la importancia del apoyo público significó que la información sobre los acontecimientos se hizo libremente disponible y se inclinaba para dar una impresión favorable, el régimen monárquico en Río de Janeiro no se preocupó por la opinión pública, y se limitó a imprimir despachos oficiales con pocos comentarios. [...] Un oficial de Norton concluyó con cansancio: «Todo esto muestra el tipo de guerra que tenemos que aguantar aquí»''' Citação do livro "A war betwixt Englishmen: Brazil against Argentina on the River Plate (1825-1830)".

Estudar esse conflito me ensinou bastante a respeito da vida. Saudações de um colega estudioso brasileiro.

Ps. Some todas as baixas brasileiras nas batalhas, mesmo aquelas informadas pelos argentinos, batalha por batalha, e não chegará à cifra de 8000. Um abraço.
 * Oito mil cearenses morreram nos navios transportes que os levavam para a frente de batalha, causadas por epidemias. Baixas em guerra são contabilizadas mortes em batalhas, mas, até a 1ª Guerra Mundial, a maior parte das mortes em conflitos eram causadas por epidemias. O Brasil perdeu entre 50 a 100 mil soldados durante a Guerra do Paraguai. A esmagadora maior parte devido a epidemias. Peço que busque pesquisar mais e se informar melhor sobre um tópico, antes de realizar modificações em um artigo, ainda mais em trechos devidamente referendados por citação bibliográfica. --Lecen (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

As cifras não são seguras, ok? De outro lado, colocar uma fonte, quanto a um dos lados, e outra, quanto a outro, é incorreto. O certo seria uma fonte com informações sobre os dois lados. E mais de uma fonte. No caso particular desse conflito, o que é certo e seguro é que houve abundante manipulação quanto às cifras, particularmente do lado dos aliados. De qualquer maneira, do jeito como colocou, dá a entender que 8 mil teriam morrido em razão de batalhas, o que é falso, mesmo se levando em conta os dados manipulados oferecidos pelo lado dos aliados.

A história desse conflito é muito mal contada e não obstante tem um impacto marcante no lado platino, ainda hoje:

https://gauchazh.clicrbs.com.br/geral/noticia/2013/06/ituzaingo-a-historia-do-hino-brasileiro-que-teria-sido-roubado-por-argentinos-4185206.html https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcha_de_Ituzaing%C3%B3 https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalha_de_Umbu

Tem muito mais. Sugiro ler as obras do Barão do Rio Branco e do Sérgio Correia da Costa. Já dei o recado. Fui! Um abraço!

Speedy deletion nomination of 1868 Brazilian political crisis


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 1868 Brazilian political crisis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Holy Goo (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)