Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:10, 4 July 2011.

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil

 * Nominator(s): &bull; Astynax talk 06:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC) and Lecen (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets FA standards and that it as complete as is possible given the meager references for this Brazilian prince. There have been corrections and what we hope are improvements since the article's GA acceptance. Constructive criticism here has helped improve our past articles/efforts here, and I look forward to comments from reviewers with thanks. &bull; Astynax talk 06:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the cause of death convulsions or yellow fever or both or possibly either? The article says both but does not discuss the contradiction. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Restored DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose The translations are unsourced original research. DrKiernan (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stay alway from the FAC which I'm part of. Due to our past troubles, I want to avoid any issues. I would be very grateful if don't get near me. You wrote a message in here before, then you erased the entire page to also erase the record that you had written here earlier. I don't know why you did that but I believe it's because you saw my name. Nonetheless you have returned, even though you were requested before to not get near me. --Lecen (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored that content as below you unjustly say that I am never helpful and I want to prove to you that I have been. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Media: File:Brazilimperialblason2.svg could do with slightly more information- when was it in use? On what did the Commons user base the drawing? (If known, though I doubt it will be: Who designed it? When did they die?) File:Barandier - Dom Afonso, Príncipe Imperial do Brasil.JPG could do with a more precise source for that particular file. Other than that, sourcing and copyright information looks good. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, J Milburn. The coat of arms was designed by the French Jean-Baptiste Debret (1768-1848) as you can see in the file description. It was used by the Brazilian government from 1822 until 1889. I added a better source to Afonso's painting. --Lecen (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Taking a read through:
 * "English: Alphonse" Italicise as a word as a word? Worth bolding if it is a name that has been used?
 * "Afonso's early death," You're yet to mention the early death beyond his dates, which some readers will miss.
 * "His skepticism that the monarchy would continue" His skepticism/scepticism about the continuation of the monarchy?
 * "The text in this source refers to Pedro II, but as Afonso was his son, the genealogical information also applies to him." Not sure this kind of note belongs in the article...
 * "The birth of an heir brought joy throughout the nation." Not so NPOV. On what is this claim based? Reports from the time?
 * "He was thrust into a thankless and burdensome role as the national symbol for a country that had nearly disintegrated during his childhood with rebellions that had flared throughout its provinces." Again, this reads more like a history book than an encyclopedia.
 * That whole paragraphy is a little POV-y; perhaps attribute the claims to a historian in the text? (I note you do something similar in the next paragraph... What you've done is by no means bad writing, I am just not so sure it's Wikipedia-friendly. I'm torn.)
 * "Unexpected departure" is not a good section title.
 * "13 July to a girl, who was named Leopoldina" Implies you are linking to an article on the name. Why not remove "who was named"?
 * "He is presently buried alongside other members of the Brazilian House of Braganza (including his younger brother Pedro, his uncle João and his aunt Paula) in the mausoleum of the Convento de Santo Antônio (Convent of Saint Anthony) in Rio de Janeiro.[14]" Is that where he was originally buried?
 * "the deaths of his only sons seemed to harbinger the eventual end of the Imperial system." Interesting claim- does he say so in a letter or something?
 * "beloved" Already made clear from the article, but adding this is not so NPOV
 * "The lack of a male heir caused the Emperor to lose all motivation for enhancing and promoting the Imperial office as a position to be carried on by his descendants." A "however" or something would be helpful here.

Interesting subject, and well written, though I consider the question of style (secondary historical literature versus encyclopedia article) a potential worry. I'm interested to hear other opinions on the issue- I may be being foolish. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Milburn, I'll answer some of your remarks and other I'll leave to Astynax. Hope you don't mind. Here they are:
 * Joy of birth: yes. In Imperial Brazil (and even before), birthdays of members of the Imperial Family were national holidays and commemorated in all Brazilian towns. Roderick J. Barman wrote about this: "The one object of identity and loyalty that did command allegiance across Portuguese America was El Rei Nosso Senhor [The King Our Lord], who in this patriarcal society served as the supreme father figure. The pompo and fervor with which local communities celebrated the solemnities marking the life cycle of the monarchy—accession to the throne, and birth, death, and marriage in the royal family—attested to the reality of this common loyalty. Moreover, the visible symbols of royal authority, such as the judges' staves of office, the royal coat of arms hung on public buildings and churches, and even portraits of the monarch, constituted the institutional backbone for the corpus of and of hierarchical privilege upon which the notables' dominance of the local community depended." (in Barman, Roderick J (pp.29-30). (1988). Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798–1852. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-1437-1 )
 * Place of burial: Yes, he was buried in the Convent of Santo Antonio and is still there, as well as many other Brazilian royals. His grandmother, Leopoldina (Pedro II's mother), was buried somewhere else, in the Convento da Ajuda (Convent of Aid), which was demolished in the early 20th century. Her remains were brought to the Convent of Santo Antonio and later were taken to the Monument of the Ipiranga in 1972.
 * Interesting claim- does he say so in a letter or something? You can check by yourself in the source itself on pages 129-130. This is also better explained at Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil.
 * Again, this reads more like a history book than an encyclopedia: This is better explained in Pedro II of Brazil and Early life of Pedro II of Brazil. The Emperor was a powerful symbol of national unity and was used by both political parties as such. To simplify your life, I'll transcribe a few words by historian Roderick J. Barman in his biography of Pedro II:
 * "The declaration of Pedro II's majority aroused a general euphoria. A feeling of release and renewal united Brazilians. For the first time since the middle of the 1820s the national government at Rio de Janeiro commanded a general acceptance. [...] the position of the national government was immensely strengthened by the disappearence of the regency regime. In tis place existed a single authority, endowed with inherited legitimacy, exalted by its ceremonial duties, positioned above partisan and personal interests, and possessed of constitutional powers susfficient to resolve political conflicts. This vision of the monarch and his role was fully shared by the emperor himself. The fourteen-year-old accepted unquestionaningly his ordained mission and threw himself who0leheartedly into his new duties." (Barman, p.74) --Lecen (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding other comments by J Milburn:
 * "English: Alphonse" Italicise as a word as a word? Worth bolding if it is a name that has been used? Reply: "Alphonse" is used in some older English and French accounts. The "Afonso" spelling is used in the sources cited.
 * "Afonso's early death," You're yet to mention the early death beyond his dates, which some readers will miss. Reply: I'm not understanding the comment. The "early death" used in the Lead is part of the summary of the material in the "Legacy" subsection.
 * "His skepticism that the monarchy would continue" His skepticism/scepticism about the continuation of the monarchy? Reply: I've reworded to clarify.
 * "The text in this source refers to Pedro II, but as Afonso was his son, the genealogical information also applies to him." Reply: The note merely alerts the reader that the reference gives the genealogy of the father (Pedro II) and does not mention Afonso. I'm unaware of any specific genealogy of Afonso, but his genealogy can be drawn from that of his parents. I've reworded slightly to make the point clearer.
 * "Unexpected departure" is not a good section title. Reply: I have changed it to "Early death and aftermath"
 * "13 July to a girl, who was named Leopoldina" Implies you are linking to an article on the name. Why not remove "who was named"? Reply: I have changed "named" to "christened" (she was not born with a name).
 * "beloved" Already made clear from the article, but adding this is not so NPOV Reply: The references pointedly remark that Pedro and Isabel maintained a loving relationship. The word was inserted here to avoid leaving any impression that Isabel was not considered by Pedro to be a fit heir because of a split with her father or personal problems between them. This is explained more fully in the articles on Pedro II and Isabel.
 * "The lack of a male heir caused the Emperor to lose all motivation for enhancing and promoting the Imperial office as a position to be carried on by his descendants." A "however" or something would be helpful here. Reply: I've reworded this a bit. "However" or "but" might go too far beyond what the sources say, in implying a direct link or reaction. It might seem a pedantic point, but the relationship between his political views and personal loss were complex, and there seems to have been an ongoing thought process. The death of his male heirs contributed to his view of the Empire's future, but there were other factors.
 * Thanks for your comments. &bull; Astynax talk 09:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you provide details of the references for the translation please. Here not on the article. I'd like to see them and compare them to the below. You might also consider adding the details of the hereditary epilepsy and baptism to the article (this is a suggestion not a request). DrKiernan (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Books:
 * Pedro II of Brazil: son of the Habsburg empress by Gloria Kaiser (2000): "Alfonso Leopoldo" (pp. 211, 403)
 * Dom Pedro of Brazil by Mildred Criss (1945) "In June 1847 the little Crown Prince Alfonso was found dead in his crib" (p. 111)

Journal articles:
 * Epileptic events in the XIX century as reported by the Brazilian Royal Family 10.1590/S0004-282X2010000300029: "Alfonso Pedro"

Newspaper:
 * The Times, May 19, 1845: "The infant son of the Emperor was baptized on the 25th of March, and named Alphonzo Pedro &c. The King of France and the ex-Empress of Brazil stood sponsors, the former being represented by the Prime Minister of the country." (p. 5)

Google hits:
 * Kidder: "Imperial Prince Dom Affonso"
 * Documentary Editing: "Mary commemorated royal events in her diary, including the presentation of Prince Alfonso, heir to the throne, to the legislature in 1845."

Source review - spotchecks not done, deliberately avoiding the issue of citing translations. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't use square brackets for ellipses
 * Why not include both authors for Diener refs?
 * Where is Wilmington?
 * Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: Thanks. The square brackets (per WP:ELLIPSES) differentiate between inserted ellipses and ellipses in the source. (I checked again and removed the brackets, as the final ellipses don't appear to used in this place in the 1824 Constitution. If they are in the Rodrigues version, then feel free to put back the brackets.) I have added Costa to the footnote for the Diener reference. Lecen has changed "Wilmington" to "Wilmington, Delaware". The doubled periods are an artifact from the citation template and has been fixed. &bull; Astynax talk 18:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Most of my comments have been already addressed above so I will not repeat them. "monarchial institution" should be I believe: "monarchical institution". Please someone else check on this as I'm not 100% sure. -- Alexf(talk) 15:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - some of the translations are doubtful and incorrect. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC) I was too hasty with my conclusion. For example, I thought that "Major Commander" (of the Order of Christ) was incorrect (due to a translation error), but it seems that this peculiar rank indeed existed. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done some spotchecks on the two Barman volumes cited, using on-line sources; the references check out, and no evidence I could see of close-paraphrasing. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The name is "Comendador-mor", which means "Major Commander". The source can be found online (in fact, all Almanaks Laemmert can be found there) in this website. I used two almanaks as sources: the one published in 1847 (for Afonso's full name on page 35) and another one from 1849 (to know which chivalry orders did Brazilian Princes had which can be seen on page 24 and page 26) I reverted your edits because they are unnecessary. The sources used already tell the Prince Imperial's grade. See the last phrase on page 26, for example: "O Imperador será sempre o Grão-Mestre, e o Príncipe Imperial Commendador-Mor de todas elas" (The Emperor will be always the Grand Master, and the Prince Imperial the Major-Commander of all of them). --Lecen (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lecen is correct, in this case "Major Commander" is the correct term. Any time you see “–mór” in a portuguese title it can be translated as major, general or superior, a high ranking title, even though the meaning changed from the 15th to 19th century. However, we have to be careful how we translate, for example a "sargento-mór" was a high ranking officer of the portuguese colonial army, higher than a regular captain, they were normally commanding officers and members of the nobility.  In the British ranking the term if translated from Portuguese as "Sergeant major" means a very different thing, a much lower rank, the Portuguese colonial title ranked in the same level as major or lieutenant colonel of the British system. Examples of high ranking titles that used “–mór”: Sargento-mór, Capitão-mór and Alcaide-mór. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: A well-written and well-sourced article. I can also attest to the quality of the Portuguese translations, they are correct. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not the translation of the ranks that is in dispute; it is the translation of the name. He is never called Alphonse. DrKiernan (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * DrKiernan, I would appreciate if you could be a little more polite. 2-  I don’t want to get involved in the little “feud” that you have going on.  I read what the administrator told you after the block, he said: stay away from Lecen and vice versa.  It seems Lecen was the better man and took the whole thing out, what is your point now?  Wikipedia is supposed to be based on collaboration.  We can all go back and read what you wrote, you went after Lecen deliberately.   3 -  Yes, Afonso is the same as Alphonse or Alphonso, I don’t care if it is in the article or not.  As I understand it, Lecen was only trying to maintain a common standard, you made a big deal out of it.  I believe it is even unjust to oppose the article based on it, you should have discussed it first, or should have asked for a vote.  Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've not been impolite. The blocking administrator did not tell me to stay away from Lecen, in fact he said the opposite: "you will both make a concious [sic] effort to engage in discussion". Lecen took it out after my oppose and after my reply to you. I have never gone after Lecen deliberately. There is a common standard: they are called the featured article criteria. This article did not meet those criteria. If you don't want to get involved in a "feud", as you call it, then don't start by making an untruthful statement about my intentions and actions. DrKiernan (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr Kiernan, I'm requesting you once more to stay away from me. Please leave this FAC. I will not allow you to turn this FAC into a mess by arguing with other editors. You are not helpful, never was and has no intention of ever being. You never had interest in Brazilian history and never volunteered at all to help me work one of these articles. I don't like you and I don't care if you support or oppose my articles. All I want is that you stay far away from me. If you insist on placing comments in this FAC I will request help from an administrator. --Lecen (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't find the report of the baptism and diagnosis of hereditary epilepsy useful then? DrKiernan (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.