User talk:Tonyjeff/Archive02

Archive

Talk:Tonyjeff

Pirarrã

Indeed I don't really speak Portuguese (although I understand most of it in writing as I speak Spanish), but what has my knowledge of Portuguese have to do with the Pirahã/Pirarrã question? Who in the world really does use the spelling "Pirarrã"? I did a google search for "Pirarrã" which produced 6 hits altogether — two of them are from Wikipedia and thus don't count — the remaining four are indeed Brasilian sites, one of which is a mere dictionary (the "Houaiss", it seems). But their site is down, so they cannot count either, anymore. So there are 3 Brasilian pages that actually use the spelling "pirarrã" only.

In contrast, there are 146,000 pages that use "pirahã", many of them in Portuguese. Also Dan Everett (who's of course fluent in Portuguese) uses this spelling in his papers and presentations (I attended some), no matter if in English or Portuguese. Needless to say that I've never come across this spelling until yesterday. I don't actually blame you for editing it, maybe you don't know better, but I blame this thoughtless principle of blindly using the lexemes of some dictionary's spelling or a spelling reform which obviously doesn't know better either and of course the reform itself. If "h" would be a foreign letter to Portuguese, I could understand, but it is not.

I won't edit again, although I still oppose this spelling. — N-true 11:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Galliera

I believe that's the idea, but I'm not sure of the details. john k (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Disputes

Thanks for your message, it does look like he's been busy on a fair few different language Wikipedia's creating articles etc. But I'll keep an eye out here on the English one. - dwc lr (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Re PELE EDSON/EDISON

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Edison/Edson debate. I am at this very moment working in collaboration with Pele on an authorized book that takes in his early life and times.. He insists on me calling him Edson in our conversations (he refers to Pele in the third person). As he is the greatest footballer of all time, I think we should make it clear in his Wikipedia entry that he considers himself to be Edson, not Edison. I have made the insertion, and look forward to your comments. Kindest regards Sammypepys (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I have made the sentence read: "he prefers to be called Edson" is a statement of fact. It is a nonsense for Wikipedia being the only point of reference that calls Pele Edison, and I think devalues the encyclopedia as the place to turn to for correct facts. Pele is coming to stay with me in November. If necessary, I shall get him to contact you personally to confirm that he wants to be called Edson.Sammypepys (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

recognition

To "recognize" someone simply means that you've admitted they are your child. The effect of such an admission will of course vary by jurisdiction. For example, very recently, Europe has formalized the rights of such a child to inherit their father's properties... so that the illegitimate children of Prince Albert of Monaco have a right to inherit his goods on his death. But they don't have a right to inherit his titles. Of his two children, his son was born to an unmarried mother, and his daughter was born to a married woman (at least technically, as the divorce didn't take effect until after the child's birth). Prince Albert can do nothing to legitimate his daughter, who was the product of adultery. If he married his son's mother, he would legitimate him by "subsequent marriage of his parents". But he can't just issue a decree declaring him legitimate.

There are other specific ways to legitimate a child, but they vary by country and by religion. But that's a separate matter than "recognition". Other examples of where a child has been recognized but not legitimated: Albert II of Belgium's daughter Delphine Boël; Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld (husband of Queen Juliana of the Netherlands)'s daughter Alexia Grinda-Lajeune, who was recognized only after his death. - Nunh-huh 19:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, without knowing the other discussion I can only hope that something I say will suffice. You can find a good discussion with some references at Heraldica's explanation of legitimatio per matrimonium subsequens. The requirement that parents had to be free to marry at the time of the child's birth in order for legitimation by subsequent marriage has been present since the 12th century in canon law. The page also notes the exclusion of peerages and honors from the effects of any such legitimation in English law. The Law of Legitimation by Subsequent Marriage by Erasmus Robertson is an older but perhaps more convincing source. You might also be interested in the section on Legitimation and Paternity in Family Law by Willim P. Statsky (p. 424; "In most states, a finding of paternity does not necessarily lead to the legitimation of the child.") There's a possibly pertinent discussion about U.K. law (English vs. Scottish) in Conflict of laws, p. 503, and a pertinent U.S. finding regarding Spanish law ("recognition of [a child born out of wedlock] by the natural father under Article 134 of the Spanish Civil Code is not legitimation") here. - Nunh-huh 23:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil

Cara, estava fazendo algumas modificações no verbete do Pedro II, quando percebi no final um pequeno box com os "pretenders". Ok, antes tinhamos que engolir o ramo de Petrópolis, mas agora também incluíram o ramo de Saxe-Coburgo! Querem transformar a Casa Imperial do Brasil num samba do crioulo doido! - --Lecen (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Eu até poderia fazer um texto sobre a Questão Dinástica, bem detalhado e com as devidas citações. O meu medo é que terminem por aniquilá-lo com "achismos". Eu acredito que a Wikipedia poderia falar um pouco das pretensões de Dom Gastão. Ok, mas seria algo como um capítulo a parte, uma observação ou uma nota de rodapé, digamos. Mas não como está hoje, onde estão criando uma divisão onde ela não mais existe! Seu conseguir terminar aquele texto sobre a história do monarquismo brasileiro (ah, sonhar!), eu poderia dedicar um trecho as pretensões de Dom Gastão e só. Somente só. E a verdade é que no Brasil existiu mais um Anti-Luizismo do que um Pró-Gastonismo de fato. Não é a toa que Dom Gastão se viu pela primeira vez com defensores no Plebiscito de 1993. "Qualquer coisa seria melhor que dom Luiz e dom Bertrand". Mas adiantaria eu ter todo o trabalho de escrever um texto para depois colocarem lá o que bem entenderem baseado em websites?!! WEBSITES?!! Esse tal de DWC LR utiliza um texto escrito por Victor Villon, que é um amigo da Astrid. Bastaria que eu publicasse um texto escrito por mim na internet e colocar aqui como "fonte biliográfica"! - --Lecen (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Se puder, me ajude no verbete do Dom Pedro II. Estou utilizado o "Don" ao invés de "Dom". Acho que pensam que estou pensando no espanhol "Don" quando na realidade estou utilizado o inglês "Don". Afinal, esta é a Wikipedia inglesa, e não portuguesa. - --Lecen (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Uma coisa é o caso dos Franceses e Italianos das Duas Sicílias: lá existem de fato dois grupos rivais que até o presente momento pretendem a um trono extinto. Mas este NÃO é o caso do Brasil. - --Lecen (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mais problemas

Tony, como faço para falar com um Administrador? Fui inventar de colocar imagens de brasileiros no verbete Brazilian People e um sujeito apareceu revoltado pro que havia colocado primeiro a foto de uma garota branca. Em seguida reclamou que a foto de uma mulher onde está escrito "parda" seria na realidade "negra". E para piorar, é arrogante, pois avisa que se não tiver fonte, ele irá apagar a imagem. Coloquei a fonte, sabe o que ele disse? Que como não era um livro on-line, não poderia ser utilizado com fonte! Só encontro loucos aqui! - --Lecen (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rodrigo Augusto da Silva

Tony, the last time we talked was regarding the Legion of Honor article in Portuguese. Somebody changed the text according to what you suggested; I believe it is fine, we also have the name in the original language, so it is good. Now, I have a different matter, I would appreciate if you could take a look at this article: Rodrigo Augusto da Silva, I need some feedback. I may not have agreed with you then but I believe you are a polite editor and I would really like to hear what you think. Thanks, Paulista01 03:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Marquess of Maranhão

hello, I refer to your picture: and your reference and your edit saying the marquess was not hereditary.

I have updated the COA of the Earl of Earl of Dundonald: and see also that has on its page various notes and references on the arms. I think your reference is in error as all brittish references give the Cochrane arms as - ar. a chevron gu. betw. three boars heads erased az., if the boars heads were sable this would mean the Earl of Dundonald's family name was Nesbitt (see Clan Nesbitt).

As to the Marquess not beeing hereditary, do you have a reference for this information. The current brittish peerage publications list the current Earl as beeing Marquess of Maranhão, see burkes peerage and gentry on the current Earl. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wettin

I couldn't order a decent brunch with my Spanish, but I took a brief look at that discussion anyway. Just a few thoughts: [1] the name in Spanish isn't directly relevant to what the name is in English, [2] it looks like there's a real shortage of printed sources being referenced in that discussion. Referring to other Wikipedia articles or to web pages as sources is several steps below reliable sourcing to, say, a printed book - the reference should be to what the house name actually was, not what someone thinks it should have been. However, even among Internet pages, some are infinitely more reliable than others, and among this class are Guy Stair Sainty's pages, the more pertinent of which are this, on the Royal House of Portugal, this, on the current head of the House of Bragança, and this, on the bizarre and false claims of Poidimani. [3] people tend to make up house names as they go along [4] I agree with you that "Wettiner" is not likely to be correct wrong. - Nunh-huh 02:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Wettin

Hi, yeah "Braganza-Wettin" is a name that I have never seen other than Wikipedia though I removed all reference to it on the English wikipedia as I could find not a mention of it in any book or news article. I also believe that it was invented by supporters of Maria Pia and believe all reference to it on wikipedia should be removed unless someone can present a reliable source where it is used. The royal house seems to be known by various names; some shortened forms like Braganza-Coburg, or a longer form Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha which is what is used in the Almanach de Gotha's I own, and which I would say is the correct name. Dropping "Gotha" would in my opinion just result in using a shortened name for the Royal house as its the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha not House of Saxe-Coburg which is correct for the German house, cheers - dwc lr (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In many recognized websites of genealogy, Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza is mentioned with the surname "Gotha" (as her father and half-brothers). Also in Jean Pailler book their surname "Gotha" is mentioned. Is not invented and is reliable and verifiable information. Thank you. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know, Jean Pailler is the most recognized biographer of King Charles I, so: who are you to say that he wrote propaganda books? If you don't like Maria Pia's person, I can understand it, but you should not confund your opinions with facts. For example, the last Royal House in Portugal was House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. But I guess you are not interested in the truth about this subject. Well, anyway thank you for all attention. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Miguelist pretenders

Just to remember you one of the most relevant History of Portugal facts: the Portuguese Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and never revoked, in article 98 categorically states as follows: "The collateral line of the ex-infant Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". Queen Maria II of Portugal and Portuguese Cortes declared King Miguel without his royal status and also declared him and all his descendants forever ineligible to succeed to the Portuguese crown and forbade them, under death pennalty, to return to Portugal. This decision was supported by the Portuguese Republic since the 60's. It's important to you remember this facts. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Marquess do Maranhao

I will also help you. I won't have much chance for the next two weeks but after that I will have a look. It would definetly help a lot of articles. DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009.

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	You may aswell have one now! Thanks again. DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009.

You've done enough work already! DAFMM (talk), 18th August 2009.

Marquess do Maranhao Research

How are you doing with it? Now that I am back 'online' I can start to help you a bit more.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

I have just been researching it and found that the list of the Earls of Dundonald on the Earl of Dundonald article is saying that it is hereditary (I could have made them edits a while back). I don't want to change it until we have firm evidence and sources. I have made a comment on it's talk page, in reply to Czar Brodie. DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

I still can't find anything. I did think of contacting The Earl of Dundonald (I found his address) but he will just claim it is hereditary (politician!). Then we have got people in the Brazillian government but that is going to be a bugger! We'll have to think differently to the usual roots (great!). DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

It's all pushing it though!!! I might try The Earl of Dundonald. DAFMM (talk), 31st August 2009. P. S. Let's keep in touch anyway!

Maranhao Postings

Tonyjeff,

I have just posted this. Please see the copy. I don't think it will help much though. However, it does let everyone know.

With etc..

DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.

Posted to the talk pages of: Earl of Dundonald, Archibald Cochrane, 9th Earl of Dundonald, Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald and Thomas Barnes Cochrane, 11th Earl of Dundonald.

All,

After some detail research conducted by both myself and mainly Tonyjeff we have discovered that much evidence points to the title not being hereditary. We therefore ask for your advice on the subject as all the articles related to the Earls of Dundonald (etc.) describe it as being hereditary. What do you all think and what information have you got?

Thanks a lot.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.

Hi!

Just wondering how everything is and if anything has happened on the Marquess front. It doesn't seem to be particulary well documented, does it?!!!!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 11th September 2009.

Thanks and I agree about the general rule. I retrieved this page which contains The Earl of Dundonald's address who I will probabley write to out of interest [1]!!!. It should get to him if we expand it! Thanks. DAFMM (talk), 14th September 2009.

'Retirement'

I have decided to take a break from Wikipedia. However, if I come back you will be the first to know! I will keep on searching about the Marquess do Maranhao and will contact your talk page if I find anything.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 20th September 2009.

Reply:

I couldn't resist coming back! I have just got a bit board of making edits to be moaned at by some 'important' idiot who thinks they are more clever than an Oxford don ('Wikipedia is corrupt'!)! I will stay on so that we can keep in touch and so I will stay active on the project as a matter of interest to me personally. I won't be making any article edits. As I said: 'I am retired'!!!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 23rd September 2009.

P. S. I thought I would be banned after trying something out that the others wouldn't like!

Gotha surname

In Genealogy of the Royal Family of Wettin (Portugal), and other genealogy websites, Maria Pia of Braganza was always cited as Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha e Bragança, and as daughter (bastard) of Carlos I of Portugal. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)