User talk:Lecen/Archive 4

Empire of Brazil
Hi Lecen,

I have read the article Empire of Brazil, excellent by the way. I only found a few things that I would like to point out:

- The part regarding the nobility of Brazil needs a little more clarification, especially this part: ''no racial distinctions were made in conferring noble status. Caboclos, mulattoes, blacks and even Indians were ennobled.'' This is correct; however I believe it is important to point that this was a small minority, I would say less than 1% of all titles. So, it was not representative of the national system as a whole. Another fact that has to be pointed out is that the system awarded both the descendants of the Portuguese nobility and the ‘landed gentry’, especially the merchants and plantation owners connected with coffee production.

- I believe this phrase should be changed or removed: The nobility of Brazil differed markedly from counterparts in Europe.  Reason: The nobility in Europe also had non hereditary titles, Portugal adopted a similar system in the end of the 19th century; today the British Crown adopts mostly non hereditary titles to award citizens. Even in the middle ages, most titles were non hereditary and a successor had to be appointed or elected, especially in Italy.

Your writing and sources are excellent so I prefer to give you preference in editing this article but if you like I can make the changes, just let me know.

Best regards,

Paulista01 (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lecen,


 * I believe you misunderstood me; I apologize if I was not clear. My suggestion was not to add explicitly that “non-whites were only 1%”. I was using it to make a point, I completely agree about not using anything without sources.   Like you mentioned most of the nobles, officers and others in higher places were white so it makes no sense to say such a thing.  I know it and you know it, however most people that will read this article are clueless about Brazilian history.  I believe it is very important to be as informative as possible.   Pedro II was in my opinion one of the most progressive monarchs I ever studied and the best leader that our nation ever had.   He indeed befriended all races and even entitled them, but they were few, not because he didn’t want to, but because he had to follow some rules.  It is also important to remember that because of his progressive attitude he lost his base of support.


 * I will try to include additional information to that section to make it easier to understand. I also have good academic sources here, all in the English language.


 * Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re/ Villa Soriano
Thanks for the reminder re/ the lack of sources. I added a link and a few precisions to the paragraph. Salut, -- IANVS (talk | cont) 10:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I understood from the sources that the franciscan reduction was undoubtely established since 1624, and that the 1708 "definite establishment" refers to the definitive location (i.e. current location). Regarding the type of establishment, a reduction is not a village (as you know), but it nonetheless implies a permanent population. Indeed, the "Declaración de Villa" used to be a political declaration, not a demographical one. It implied an already established sizeable population and a significative economic importance. So the 1802 date is irrelevant for this matter. Salut, -- IANVS (talk | cont) 17:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Villa Soriano issue, I've got no problem if you revert it right now to the older version, but I'll request from you a source stating the problematic issue around Villa Soriano foundation (as a footnote, of course). In the unlikely case that I came across some factual data on V. Soriano history, only then I'd change it again.


 * Regarding the Latin American demographics section (now in the Latin Americans article), I did not intervene in your discussion with SamEV because I've got no position regarding the issue. On the one side, I understand that the Brazilian standard is quite different from the others (anyway, bear in mind that neither there is a single Hispanic American standard, and that the categorizations vary a lot between countries). On the other side, I understand the importance of preserving a coherent and easily readable display for the info (as the table we have today), and that the table categorization is drawn from the authoritative source. That's why I'm favouring the statu quo until a better option (readable, coherent, sourced) is available. Salut,-- IANVS (talk | cont) 17:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Lecen, an article about Latin America is a must for an encycolpedia. In any case, we should improve it so as to cover the region as best as possible. Deleting an article on Latin America is not an option. Salut, -- IANVS (talk | cont) 19:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Victoria photo
You found a much nicer version of this photo than I provided, however, the busy bodies at Wikipedia wish to delete it if no source can be found. I found it much to long ago to remember my source. Can you provide your source information to this photo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Queen_Victoria_Albert_1854.JPG

Mactographer (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipédia lusófona.
Não quero parecer xereta, mas pq você deixou a Wikipédia lusófona? Bruno Ishiai (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Fui fazendo algumas revalidações retirando vários artigos que acreditava não se adequar aos destacados, um dia propus o artigo Brasil para revalidação, logo vários artigos sobre Geografia foram retirados inclusive sobre Portugal, e continuei fazendo revalidações, caso queira votar... Não quero te converter para alguma religião ou algo assim, devo respeitar sua privacidade, mas agora as votações na wiki-pt estão mais exigentes. Um artigo seu como Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná conserteza ganharia destaque, é muito bom. Se eu fosse melhor em inglês já o tinha traduzido, o que é uma pena. Bruno Ishiai (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mas um wikipedista como você que manja bastante de história pode modificar os artigos de forma a mostrar a verdade sobre os mais diversos pontos de vista baseando-se em referências. Posso estar sendo chato nessa discussão, acredito eu saudavel, mas é o que penso e muito obrigado pela atenção independente de resposta e boas edições. Bruno Ishiai (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Pedro II of Brazil
Sure thing. I'll get to it sometime tomorrow. Ruby2010 (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lecen, I've found myself occupied lately with non-Wikipedia related things, so it might be a little while before I can review Pedro II of Brazil. Might I recommend you ask others to begin the reviewing process, and I'll try to jump in later? Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. Ruby2010 (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Grundle2600 socking
There is a current outbreak of User:Grundle2600 socking. I've removed his message from your talk page, and link it for your information. In case you're interested, it concerns Talk:Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government. (I mention it as it's new and may not be on your watchlist.) Rd232 talk 20:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II
I'm not too sure - my skills are pretty limited nowadays, but if you don't mind a query on my part - why have you chosen a recolored portrait, instead of something like File:Pedro II of Brazil - Brady-Handy.jpg? Connormah 01:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm pretty sure I can't - sorry I can't be much help. Not too sure of who can either, sorry. Good luck with the FAC though. Cheers, Connormah 02:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II
I'm not too sure - my skills are pretty limited nowadays, but if you don't mind a query on my part - why have you chosen a recolored portrait, instead of something like File:Pedro II of Brazil - Brady-Handy.jpg? Connormah 01:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm pretty sure I can't - sorry I can't be much help. Not too sure of who can either, sorry. Good luck with the FAC though. Cheers, Connormah 02:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Pedro II of Brazil
Okay, will do it within a day. Regards! Fιηεmαηη [talk] 16:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess the hair color is now fixed. File:Pedro_II_1853_1.JPG Fιηεmαηη [talk] 18:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I did not reduce the size of the image in any way. And I think it would be better if you asked some other Wikigraphists in the Graphics Lab. They'd be able to give a better view and do what's right right for you. Cheers! Fιηεmαηη [talk] 05:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC
The article looks very solid and I'm sure I'll be supporting; it was a fascinating read as well, about a topic I knew nothing about. I'm leaving the house shortly but will take a look when I get back. I will do one more pass for WP:MOS and so forth. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the promotion! Connormah (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Chavez Page
There are a good number of hardcore Chavistas trying to keep the Chavez page a complete propaganda piece. Fortunately, there are a few editors trying to at least provide some balance, including adding a section on the skyrocketing crime rates in Venezuela under Chavez. If you're interested, it'd be great to have some more editors who aren't solidly in the pro-Chavez camp.JoelWhy (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * JoelWhy, without addressing the substance of your comment, this kind of post isn't conducive to advancing the article. The problem at Chavez is as much the "anti-Chavez" editors as the "pro-Chavez" editors; I routinely give up and unwatch that article, new editors appear on my talk page pleading with me to go over there and help, I try to help, and find that neither side is working in good faith, staying on track on the talk page, and trying to advance the article in policy-based, focused discussion.  The most frustrating part about this is that what you call the "hardcore Chavistas" stay around and effectively end up "owning" the article because editors who are capable of neutralizing the article do not stay around and do not make effective talk page posts, learn policy, or work in ways that will advance the article.  This is just like Venezuelan politics-- the opposition did as much to shoot themselves in the foot as the Chavez supporters did to contribute to weakening of democratic institutions.  It's everyone's fault.  Until/unless editors who are capable of neutralizing the article learn policy and contribute to talk page discussions effectively, the article will remain mired in POV, battleground, and ownership.  Congrats on the FA, Lecen! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with you, Sandy, we can not forget that is hard to do anything at all in that article since any edit that displeases those hardcore Chavistas is immediately reverted or its content is changed in a way that its original meaning is lost. And if we try to bring the matter into the talk page, our point is always dismissed. Either because the sources are not "good enough" or because Chavez has nothing to do with the problem raised, etc... In other words, there is an effective team tag technique there that leaves the article untouchable. So far, all we can do is either hope Chavez is kicked out of office (and hopefully, not through a coup or he will become a martyr) or stand against any nomination for good or featured status. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this is off topic, but even if Chavez were gone tomorrow, Venezuela's problems would not be resolved, because he is only one part of the problem. The opposition's arrogance and neglect and failed leadership is a separate problem, and Venezuela is mired so deep in trouble now that it is basically ungovernable, and no leader can fix its problems easily or quickly.  Woe to the leader who would have to inherit that mess even if Chavez were gone tomorrow!  Venezuela has no easy fix-- our concern is the article.  So ... back on topic ... this is why I've suggested that the only way foward on that article is to institute 1RR-- the wheels of dispute resolution turn much too slowly, and typically it is very hard to get uninvolved admins to care or get involved.  I don't see any way of improving the environment on that talk page until all editors understand that they must discuss, learn policy, collaborate and cannot continue to own the article via reverting and removing sourced text, and that no amount of ownership allows us to ignore Wiki's core policies on neutrality, sourcing and due weight.  I don't see any way to achieve an environment on that article conducive to collaborative editing other than 1RR (which means no one can revert more than once), as that may force all editors to accept the fact that they must discuss and collaborate, and stop cleansing and removing well sourced text.  I don't enjoy working there since none of the editors work effectively-- and it's a timesink-- I really came over here to congratulate you on the FA, when I saw JoelWhy's post here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's is certainly one of the most serious issue in Latin American society (and as a Brazilian myself, I believe I can say that). This strange necessity of the appearence of one great leader that can change everything has always plagued Latin Americans. Bolivarianism, Peronism, Lopizism, etc... What makes me worried is that those kind of articles has always plenty of political agenda behind them. Editors who work on them see anyone who does not share their views as an enemy to be crushed, and not yet another colaborator who just wants to write something. And yes, it is a timesink. You want a headache? Try writing anything in Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. He is the Brazilian Hugo Chavez. Sorry, according to Barack Obama, he is "the man". Not 5% on what has happened in his presidency is said in that article. From the pictures chosen to what is written in the article, all is done in a way to look like one giant political propaganda. That is why I like to focus only on history articles: the chance that I might get involved in a long, boring, endless and useless dispute is far lower. And lastly, but not least, thank you for congratulating me. It took some time and patience, but is good to have more articles on Brazilian history available for readers. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Brazil > Plano Real
I find your 'undoing' of my edit on Brazil without further explanation puzzling. "Real" in the case of Brazil's Plano Real has nothing to do with royalty. Though the old colonial coin it vaguely refers to had that meaning, in the case of Franco and Cardoso's plan it certainly meant that the new currency would have real value, as opposed to the devalued one it replaced. Please explain your rationale or revert the undoing. RodC (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your mentioning of "Unidade Real de Valor" gives in fact more weight to the translation I propose. Also, the very fact that the people who devised the new currency's name stressed that the plural used should be "reais", not "réis" shows that they were not trying to resurrect the old currency. In what sense then is the meaning "royal" for the plan a "historical fact" as you wrote? Do you have a source for this? Then produce it, please. RodC (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. Since, according to your source (Skidmore), "the choice of the name was ambiguous", it is at least misleading to use only one of its two possible meanings in the translation. Either one expands on the ambiguity of "real" or, since that would probably be too much detail for this general article on the country, one leaves the problem word untranslated, which would give us "Real Plan". I expect you to edit the article accordingly. Thanks. RodC (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II
Just a note that someone is reviewing Pedro II here. The reviewer said it might take some time and she/he may need to get someone else to complete the review. &bull; Astynax talk 06:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can take a look at it and help out the other user that's reviewing it. Given the size of the article it may be beneficial to have a couple different eyes on it. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 13:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Lecen, Thanks for your note. I currently have four reviews on the go (Bergen Tramway (On Hold), Vestby Station, Persecution of Zoroastrians and Al-Azhar Mosque) and there are another three that I've half promised to do, so I could be the end of this month before I have any time. I was interested in in reviewing it, but, I tend not to do "second reviews". Pyrotec (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Graphic Lab
I don't check my talk page in English Wikipedia everyday and I'm a bit busy now please be aware of that. If I don't answer your message it doesn't mean I ignore you. I've uploaded a new version of File:Americo-avaí.jpg. Later I'll look into this request. First illustration is of worse kind. Is it possible for you to find a better one? And with the second one, could you make less blurry scan (top and in the middle)? Thanks. Vearthy (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Pedro Álvares Cabral
I've expanded the Lead section for the article. Feel free to change it if you want something different. &bull; Astynax talk 02:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied on my talk regarding your message - you might want to watchlist it. Cheers, Connormah (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way (I see you've swapped Pedro's lead image) - maybe something like this would work? I like how you've switched to a photographic portrait, but perhaps something younger could do? Just a thought. Connormah (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil
User Lecen, why did you undid my edition? I edited right things about Pedro I.. if you wanna check, you can search on the born documents of Pedro I of Brazil and IV of Portugal. Please, explain to me, I would like to now indeed.

Thank you. --Othermouth (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Lecen, I understood your point. I know that the majority of the nobles, until 19 Century, didn't have lastnames. Just some of them put the Royal House's names in their own. But I read on Pedro I's born document, on documents of the Brazilian Declaration of Independence, and on Pedro I's farewell letter, when he left to Portugal.. on these documents he's expressly mentioned with the names Bragança e Bourbon. So, I wanna ask you a favor, check these documents and then call me, ok? How much time do you need? 1 week is ok for you? Because this checking is extremely important to Pedro I's article.

Thank you, --Othermouth (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil
Hi Lecen, I'll try to make some improvements over the next few days. My first suggestion would be to get rid of that photomontage (a vey, very bad idea, with all due respect) and use an original portrait instead. A black-and-white portrait is perfectly fine if you can't get a color one. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, sorry about not having gotten to this yet. I'll see what I can do this weekend :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Jose Bonifacio
Hi Lecen,

I read your articles about the Empire of Brazil. I found this article about Jose Bonifacio: http://www.brazzil.com/articles/224-september-2010/10423-jose-bonifacio-de-andrada-e-silva-without-him-there-wouldnt-be-brazil.html The author said that Pedro II is insignificant to Brazilian history if compared to Jose Bonifacio. Is this correct? Just wondering. Thanks, CharlieAl (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Brazil Article
Regarding the Caboclos subject, Caboclos are of mixed Indian and White "race". Historic and geographic analysis suggests that the Caboclos are a majority in the North but not in the Northeast and Center-West. It is this way because the Pardos of the Northeast Region have undergone more miscigenation than the ones in the North, due to a larger African presence, so, we can't assume that most of the Pardos of the Northeast Region are Caboclos as opposed to Mulattoes or of Indian-Black-White descendency. And this creates the problem to classify the Center-West as mostly Caboclo, a large part of the population of this region comes from the Northeast. (Not to mention the Southeast and South)

Regarding the claims made by your sources over there, they are easily debunked by PNAD, IBGE and Genetic Studies. The more reliable informations are from the IBGE, maybe we should stick primarily to them.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you meant, if so, further explain, please.

Regarding that IBGE map I posted over there and the other changes I did, why have you undone them?

Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to reach something good in here as much as you are, let's try to reach some sort of consensus.

Regards, Carlos --CEBR (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image review at FAC (Pedro II of Brazil)
Hi Lecen, I am a bit busy at the moment and I note that this article has a lot of images... Perhaps I can take a look at some of them during the weekend. From a look at the first few images, however, there are some things you can help to make things easier. Please make the sources more explicit. What is "CD Família Imperial" for example?

Please locate sources for the dates and other pertinent information for the images. Identity of the author is an important point; We can make safe assumptions about items created in 1850s and earlier but the media created from 1870 onwards are tricky issues. A Brazilian author who created an item in 1870 at the age of 20 might live to 80 years old (1930), which would mean his Brazilian copyright only ends at the end of this year (70 years pma).

Note that "creation" is not the same as "publishing" or "disclosure". A photograph taken in 1900 (created) can be kept in private collection, until it is publicly exhibited in 1906 (disclosure) and then used in a book or reprinted and sold to 100s of people in 1930 (publication). Note that for foreign media stored on Commons, their US copyright status has to be also ascertained. Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Images
P. S. Burton (talk)  14:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

1964 Brazilian coup
Hi Lecen, I just want to let you that I agree with your change regarding 1964 Brazilian coup d'état being in Category:Democratically elected governments overthrown by the United States. I should have done more research first. PS: I am new here so please be forgiving:). Griii2 (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)