Talk:Hilda Toledano/Archive 1

message: Not a copyright violation according to http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011763.html. Angela. 08:11, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
It may not be a copyright violation, but it needs correction for NPOV, clarity, and accuracy.  Portugal is a republic. The passage of titles to bastard daughters, even if somehow later legitimated is at best problematic. The website from which this (and apparently other) pages were copied seems to be an advocacy website devoted to the dubious claims to succession of this line to the House of Portugal. One looks in vain for this line at The Online Gotha. Nor is she recognizable among the House of Bragança in the printed Gotha, which names Dom Duarte Pio Nuno João Miguel Gabriel Rafael, Duke of Bragança, as the head of the house. -- Nunh-huh 08:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: We should NOT be calling this person Maria Pia, but Hilda.  Just because she CLAIMS to be the heir to the throne does not make it true, and because she CLAIMS to use a royal name does not mean that Wikipedia should do so.  RickK 22:39, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
*Tell me about it! muriel@pt 15:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs a thorough rewrite

message: The category should be changed to Impostor pretenders, because Hilda cant be place in the same bag as universally recognized pretenders because her claims (no mather how her supporters scream and shout) were overruled by the Supreme Court of Justice. A link to the article Claimants of the Duchy of Braganza must be added. muriel@pt 15:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: When the thing is unprotected

message: Dear anon user (Manuel?), as you found by now, you are pretty much alone in your opinions about this article, hence the reversions not only i made, but other users too. Wikipedia is about clarity and consensus. If the comunity agrees in a version, you cant just change it to your preferred version. I hope you understand this. I see your point in supporting Ms. Toledano claim and i think its worth an article about her and about the claim. But you cant ignore the basic fact that this claim is just a claim and that Duarte is, for all practical matters, the Duke of Braganza. It is not universally accepted, yes, but he is. There are other claimants besides Rosario and Hilda, namely the Duke of Loulé, who has a lot more exposure in Portugal than the ones you support. So i propose the following:
*to leave this article as a biography of Hilda Toledano, or Maria Pia, if you insist
*to remove all the discussion about rights, constitutional lines, court rulings, baptismal acts, whatever to the article: Claimants of the Duchy of Braganza 
*this article will have to include also a section to the Duke of Loulé claim, (because this claim exists just like the one of Hilda Toledano)
*i also suggest that the claimants article include a section about succession rules, namely, a discussion about the exclusion of children born out of adultery and the descendants of Miguel. 
I have no love for any monarchic cause, i just want wikipedia to be a Non Point Of View encyclopaedia that treats all sides of a problem with detachment. This is a free encyclopaedia, but please remember what i wrote, it cant be a free advertising media for anybody. muriel@pt 21:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: to remove all the discussion about rights, constitutional lines, court rulings, baptismal acts, whatever to the article: Claimants of the Duchy of Braganza; this claimants article will have to include also a section to the Duke of Loulé claim, (because this claim exists just like the one of Hilda Toledano); i also suggest that the claimants article include a section about succession rules, namely, a discussion about the exclusion of children born out of adultery and the descendants of Miguel. 
...i honestly couldnt care less about the title of this article, provided that the name Hilda Toledano is mentioned. I just want to keep things as clean from opinions and factions possible. But maybe you should ask the opinion of the other intervinients on this discussion, namly Nunh-huh and Jtdirl. (It would be a lot nicer if you log in and sign your comments with 4 ~ like everybody else). Cumprimentos, muriel@pt 21:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What now

message: It has been proposed to move this page to Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza on the grounds that this was her name and Hilda Toledano was only a pseudonym she used to write books.
----
:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*oppose: the proposed name is an attempt to suggest the validity of her claims, which are accepted by only a small number of her supporters. Manuel is one of them; his efforts to enforce his naming led to duplicate articles which had to be merged, as he insisted on cutting and pasting to his desired name. I suggest that if Ms. Toledano's supporters want to rename the article, they make their case at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles); I would support any move that follows our naming conventions. -Nunh-huh 21:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't take this there, unless you have reason to believe we're going to have a change of policy on recognizing pretensions. Choess 00:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
Dear 82.54.247.122|Manuel, please only vote once. Longer comments go in this section. For clarity, the next reply is to my vote in the vote list of the "requested move" section above --Francis Schonken 16:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: 9 people voted: 8 opposed the move, 1 supported the proposed move. Result of the vote can be summarized:
*Supporters of the move: 1 voter out of 9 = 11% < 60% => Don't move this page
Seen the backlog at WP:RM, the topic will be removed there. --Francis Schonken 05:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote results, 7 days after start of vote

message: :Add any additional comments
Dear 82.54.247.122|Manuel, please only vote once. Longer comments go in this section. For clarity, the next reply is to my vote in the vote list of the "requested move" section above --Francis Schonken 16:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Now in this page we want write about this woman as a pretender of the Royal House of Braganza and no as a writer of novels. She is known with the name Hilda Toledano only for her novels and instead when one person talk or search informations about her as a pretender use the name Maria Pia of Saxe Cobug Braganza (you can see this also in google).  So I suggest to write in the page of Hilda Toledano about her work and her novels but no about her dinastic claims and in the page of Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza write about her dinastic  claims and connect this page with Hilda Toledano page. I think that this is the more truthful solution . Manuel  25 September 2005 (UTC)
* Oppose - reason: although wikipedia:naming conventions (people) is not a guideline (yet), it advises against splitting pages on a single person, unless that person has a stature in history comparable with that of Isaac Newton. Which for Maria Toledano is far from the case, so I'd rather advise to keep this person's description on a single page, less than 30kb. --Francis Schonken 05:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Split the page on this person in two separate pages

message: A POV fork of the article has been created by Mr. de Sousa at Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança. Discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança - Nunh-huh 21:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV fork 

message: What works has Toledano authored under that name?  They should be mentioned in the article... +sj + 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books? 

message: The agreed-upon title for this page is "Hilda Toledano". Please don't move it against consensus again. - Nunh-huh 19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, since this page is listed at WP:RM again. I opposed the move before; I oppose it now. I see no reason to suppose the consensus above has changed. Septentrionalis 21:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  page name 

message: This woman was a fake like Anna Anderson trying to be Anastasia Romanov. Look at her face: Hilda Toledano doesn't look anything like D. Carlos, D. Luís or D. Maria Pia (her grandparents) or any other Braganza! 
Lets make a DNA test to stop these stupid pretenders!
Of course there is no reason to censor out these comments. I'm trying to put some serious discussion: does Hilda Toledano look like any Braganza? I don't think so!
Just note -- to delete a talk page section like this one shows very well
the wiki spirit of the pretense defenders of the stupid theroy of hilda toledano.
she his fake and her psedo deffender are just dishonest.--BBird 22:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a fake, just a fake, nothing more than a fake 

message: I cleaned up the section on legal ramifications to try to make it more concise and, at the same time, clarify the challenges of each's claim based on my own understanding of the common rules of succession. Mostly I eliminated passages where cumbersome terms are repeated and clarified the "legitimacy" issue. Hopefully, it helps. 142.167.247.103 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of clean-up/clarification? 

message: I am growing concerned that revisions to the article are continuing to be made without any discussion here nor, from the information being changed, without any new material being presented. 
My intention in editing the article on 16 June was merely to make language clearer and more accessible to a wider audience. My assertion that Ms. Toledano/Maria Pia was a "minority-view" claimant was not to legitimize nor to deny outright the claim, but instead to point out that hers is an alternate claim to that presented by Dom Duarte Pio.
However, the editing war over the legitimacy of her claim to the throne seems to have taken over what should be a straight piece of biography because we lack any independent information about her life or, by extension, that of Rosario Poidimani. The rumours about both are rampant on boards in which the matter is discussed. Perhaps this article should be reverted to some NPOV revision (mine would be nice 8), but I'll accept any balanced article on the subject) and then protected to force everyone to discuss the article.
12.40.61.2 16:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed Revisions 

message: Dear anonymous,
About the affirmation “the Church's interests in issues of baptism are limited to confirming that someone has received the sacrament, and not in establishing parentage of the child”  can be also true but is also true that in this baptisimal document are written the name of the father and the mother that issues the baptism of the person and if you think that  above you wrote the consequence is also the possibility in our baptisimal document where are reported the name of our parents  could be not valid to establishing our  parentage. How is possible confirm and establish the true parantege of all our? DNA test for all the people who want the baptism? So is a nosense affirmation and is correct delete. 
About the affirmation “There exists no record from the time or parish at which Ms. Toledano/Maria Pia was said to have been baptised”  is true but you can also explain that the records of the Parish of Madrid Alcalà were burned down during the civil war in Spain (1936-1939) so all the people baptized here lost their baptismal certificate. So the Ecclesiastical Court of Sacra Romana Rota after ten years of esamination of many important civil and religious autorities (also the king of Spain Alfonso XIII) confirmed the validity of Maria Pia baptismal certificate where there is also the declaration of recognition of paternity of the king Charles of Portugal. So if you can write about  this “no record exists from parish” you also must write the cause (the civil war,) or I think this is no important so we can also delete this particular because the definitive sentence of Sacra Rota  has recognized this.
 
About the affirmation “Ms. Toledano/Maria Pia had a daughter and at least one grandson, but the reasons for the designation of Mr. Poidimani as heir are not known” this is fake. We known well the motivations of this abdication because Maria Pia in the official and pubblic abdication in favour of Rosario explained well the motivations and you can find in the act abdication in these affiramtions of Maria Pia : “Having come to an advanced age, in full possession of my capacities, practically blind, totally deprived of the support of my descent, betrayed by a few monarchists who do not respect either the tradition of the House of Braganza or the Constitution of the Monarchy, a victim of the continuous apathy of republican governments, from Salazar down to Mario Soares,I have decided to transmit by the present deed all my rights as Head of the House of Bragança to Dom Rosario Poidimani, a prince and an enterprising businessman, who has deserved it well through the great love and sincere devotion he has demonstrated towards my beloved fatherland, Portugal” . So I delete this false your affirmation.
I don’t understand why anyone deleted the photo of the pretender Rosario, the 3 sons names and births of Rosario. Also in Duarte page are reported his photo, the name and the birth of his 3 sons. So for impartial respect is correct insert this.
This new affirmation of this anonymous “Rosario Poidimani's claim as "cognate" of Ms. Toledano/Dona Maria Pia and thus to the throne is even more tenuous: no apparent blood tie exists between the two, and to date no DNA evidence has been introduced by Mr. Poidimani in support of his claim. Even if Maria Pia were legitimate in the strictest sense, her recognized heirs would be her daughter, then her grandchildren in accordance with the traditional rules of succession. No European monarch since the Napoleonic Wars has had the legal authority to name their successor specifically; they may abdicate or renounce their position in a line of succession, but they cannot choose who will succeed them. The crown or title simply goes to the heir apparent or heir presumptive, who must be, without question, of the "blood royal.” is very debatable. Infact also if were true the no blood close relation between Maria Pia and Rosario but only a far blood relation ( see the Pellicioni di Poli geneological tree of the House of Braganza , in every case Maria Pia  after having executed the documents of blood relationship  has undersigned, in 1987, a solemn Act of Abdication in favour of  Dom Rosario.  Maria Pia  daughter or grandchildrens renounced to dynastic rights of Maria Pia and were agree with Maria Pia to abdicate in favour of Rosario. Infact Maria Pia affirmed her will: “totally deprived of the support of my descent, betrayed by a few monarchists who do not respect either the tradition of the House of Braganza or the Constitution of the Monarchy, a victim of the continuous apathy of republican governments, from Salazar down to Mario Soares,I have decided to transmit by the present deed all my rights as Head of the House of Bragança to Dom Rosario Poidimani, a prince and an enterprising businessman, who has deserved it well through the great love and sincere devotion he has demonstrated towards my beloved fatherland, Portugal” . So this new affirmations are not important in this article because are only personal considerations and not objective facts. So I delete in accordance with the precedence version of this article approved many months ago.
The affirmation “Dom Duarte Pio descends from both of the branches affected by the changes wrought by the 1834 Constitution” is not important. He is a direct descendent of the king Miguel and he is not a Saxe Coburg Braganza, the only with the first right of constitutional succession in opposition of th emiguelist branch perpetually excluded from the constitution of 1838. So delete this.
Delete the connection with the “impostor pretenders” because Maria Pia and Rosario has considered from many monarchists the true heirs and pretenders to Portuguese Crown, see for example this official site of portuguese monarchist under construction . So is NPOV this connection, I think added from any Duarte supporter.
M.deSousa, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:It's been agreed that Poidimani is not encyclpedic, that Toledano is appropriately classified as an Imposter Pretender, and the other changes by our anonymous friend are, in fact, correct. Please stop trying to pervert a relatively neutral article into one that an unthinking, adoring supporter could have written. - Nunh-huh 14:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions 

message: Ladies and gentlemen, please do not throw accusations of vandalism at each other. One thing that this article is NOT prone to, thank goodness, is vandalism. We may disagree about the changes that each side is making but every one of us has to realise that the others are all editing to improve the article from their own point of view -- not to make the article worse which is the sole reason that a vandal edits. The fact is that while I may disagree with Mr deSousa's opinion on the article's subject, I thoroughly respect his right to hold it and completely agree with his exhortation to discuss things on this talk page. At all events stop the name-calling. It's in violation of Wikipedia policy and does nothing but make a bad situation worse. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr de Sousa's continued attempts to insert misleading information into the article are inappropriate, and have been discussed here. The idea that he's going to acheive the results he wants by doing so ought not to be encouraged.  What he needs to do is consider for a moment why his additions, signed in or not, are quickly reverted, and devote himself to promoting his pretender elsewhere. Wikipedia is not meant to promote minority viewpoints at the expense of reality. - Nunh-huh 20:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Charges of vandalism

message: I must protest the editing of the external links for this article with the comment that the claim supporters' websites are false or a "hoax." While we have continuously rejected any edition in which Ms. Toledano's supporters have attempted to lend credence to evidence that is certainly in question, it is not encyclopedic nor is it a neutral point of view to have the article denounce the claim in this fashion, either. In my previous editions it was my desire to present, in a concise and balanced manner, the facts of this person's life and claim as they have come to us. We must leave the judgement of whether Ms. Toledano's claim (or, by extension, Mr. Poidimani's) to the reader. It should not be our role as editors to make that judgement for them and I would hope that any future additions to this article would be discussed here.
--Kelly 08:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on External Links 

message: In an encyclopedia as wikipedia has no value the considerations because they are only personal considerationes and has not objective value. So please delete the paragraph about the consideration in Hilda Toledano/Maria Pia Saxe Coburg  page because are NPOV. Thannks . MS, 12:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considerations 

message: I took the liberty of cleaning up some of the mechanics and logic, though I suspect a more linear approach may be called for (more of a sequence rather than blocking off some information under different headings and having some info duplicated.)Kelly 01:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean, clean, clean 

message: I dread to raise this issue again - since last time (before I got involved in editing this article) it was so contentious.
The name "Hilda de Toledano" (note the "de") was used by this lady as a pen-name when she wrote two books (one in 1937 and one in 1954).  I presume that she also used the name when she published articles in the Spanish press in the 1930s.  Other than that she does not seem to have used this name.
Pailler suggests that the first official document which this lady had (ignoring the missing baptismal certificate) was her marriage certificate and her subsequent Cuban passport (thanks to her civil husband).  From that point on she seems always to have used the name Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo de Braganca (or some variant thereof).  This is the form for her death certificate and for numerous other documents.
Nobody could call me an adherent of this lady (although I think it quite possible that she may have been an illegitimate daughter of Carlos I).  Her legal relationship to Carlos (or lack thereof) is, however, unimportant when it comes to her name.
In Wikipedia we use the name most commonly used in English-language works for an individual.  In this case that is certainly not "Hilda Toledano".  There are all sorts of newspaper articles (NYT, Globe and Mail, Sydney Herald) all of which refer to her as Maria Pia and some form of Braganza.
It seems to me that just as one editor who favours Maria Pia has repeatedly added all sorts of inappropriate statements to the article, there are other editors who favour Duarte Pio (whom I have always regarded as quite admirable) who have felt compelled to respond by creating an article which was one-sided in the opposite direction.
Can we try to produce an article which is appropriate for an encyclopedia (i.e. not arguing a particular case, but presenting what evidence is available)? Noel S McFerran 04:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything she claimed was true, she is already discredited as being adulterine (a bastard born of adultery). That's a BIG no-no for any Catholic kingdom. Charles 15:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above response by Manuel de Sousa to Charles was removed by Jtdirl on August 7th.  This removal does not conform to the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.  A talk page is for discussion.  The Wikipedia:Vandalism official policy specifically includes "Talk page vandalism. Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism." Noel S McFerran 14:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I saw that Jtdirl (aka FearÉIREANN) had removed comments by an anonymous user from this talk page.  There was no explanation why that had been done.  As a non-administrator I am not able to determine that the comment was made by a sock puppet for a banned and blocked user (although I assumed that the comment was made by Manuel de Sousa, and I now see that he is permanently blocked).  I did not know that a blocked user was forbidden by the Wikipedia:Banning_policy from using anonymous accounts to continue editing.  I therefore apologise to Jtdirl for the accusation that he vandalised this page by removing the comment of another editor when in fact that was a legitimate action against a sock puppet for a banned editor.  I do suggest that the WP:Vandalism page be edited to show that that is a legitimate action.  I also suggest that other editors assume good faith.  I did not participate in the war between Mr de Sousa and various other editors, but it does seem to me that the fault was not entirely one-sided.  Phrases such as "It would help if before jumping to conclusions Mr McFerran checked his facts" and "I expect an apology for your slur" (as on my talkpage) do not encourage civility from other editors. Noel S McFerran 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accusing a user of vandalism for following WP policy without first checking with that user to see was there a reason why something was done, and leaving messages stating that I had vandalised a page, certainly counts as a slur. Unfortunately I was busy elsewhere cleaning up de Sousa's mess and so was not immediately able to post a comment on this page explaining the deletion. But the issue is closed as far as I was concerned. Noel did not know what had happened. He jumped to what proved to be the wrong conclusion and made unfair allegations. These things happen sometimes. I apologise if my anger at his allegation appeared uncivil. As he now knows, de Sousa has been a serious problem — he has been a professional vandal for months here. I would strongly advise users not to debate any issues with him. Anything added by him through sockpuppets onto Wikipedia can and should be deleted unread. The whole point of a ban is that a user is not allowed onto Wikipedia at all. They are not allowed so much as to add a full stop on the site once banned. Banning means no editing whatsoever, no contributions whatsoever. Even their own talk page is out of bounds. De Sousa can no longer edit this site. He can no longer set foot on this site. If he persists Wikipedia will release his details as a vandal to his service provider. In extreme cases WP can go to law to get rid of a persistent banned vandal. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: Yesterday I revised the section "Legal and constitutional considerations" with a new section "Analysis".  Today an editor who has only ever edited two encyclopedia pages just reverted the whole thing (I, on the other hand, have edited hundreds, and as a librarian know something about what makes a good encyclopedia article).  I'm not suggesting that what I wrote could not be improved, but to revert the whole thing seems to me excessive.  The "Legal and constitutional considerations" section was very poorly written.  There were all kinds of factual errors (the government recognises nobody as the claimant to the throne; the 1834 constitution actually came out in 1838; it wasn't repealed in 1950 but in 1910; etc., etc.)  I have restored the "Analysis" section with a few additional changes.  Please try to improve specific parts of it, rather than just reverting it.  It may even be appropriate not to have this section at all (since it is still very POV). Perhaps User:BranwenNiSidhe could explain what he means be a "slippery slope". Noel S McFerran 12:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My worry with this section is that even now (as I have written it) it reads like an anti-Maria Pia propaganda piece.  It's not as bad as it was, but it is still a little odd for an encyclopedia.  In the last week I've made lots of changes (improvements?) on the Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza and Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza pages.  Check them out to see how they can be improved.  The Duarte Pio page still needs more about Timor.  The Maria Pia page still needs more about the property dispute. Noel S McFerran 12:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Noel, I don't see that this article is any worse than, say, that on Michael Lafosse. The woman is notable primarily because of her counterfactual claims on the throne of Portugal; any honest article discussing them is going to have to devote a great deal of space to refutations, as well, lest readers be misled. The "Analysis" section is quite good, although it should perhaps be integrated or inserted into the "Active claim to the Portugese throne" section; it feels a bit out of place at the bottom of the article. Choess 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have purposefully never edited the article on Michael Lafosse since I personally have been one of his most active opponents and have published one of the major critiques of him on my website (http://www.jacobite.ca). In spite of the fact that I have a definite opinion about the Duarte Pio vs. Maria Pia controversy, I think that I am more able to write something NPOV in this case.  I am not aware of any published and verifiable source about Maria Pia which calls for DNA testing.  We are required to observe the Wikipedia:No original research rule.  In that part of the article which I have written I have tried to present her claims and the case against those claims.  I have tried to do the same thing for Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio in their articles.  There is always room for improvement.  NPOV requires that we present what people claim for themselves and also what their opponents counter-claim; it's not, however, appropriate (under NPOV) to say that one person is fake and the other person is real. Noel S McFerran 02:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis 

message: I notice that some of the later versions make rather much of the monarchist factions and that Duarte Pio, the current accepted pretender to the throne, is in the Miguelist camp. Is he not descended from Maria or Pedro as well, through his mother's line? If this is the case then the conflict between "constitutional" versus "autocratic" lines of succession is largely irrelevant, if not outright moot. 
Kelly
:How is possible now the miguelist rapresentatives declare them as legitimate Duke of Braganza as successor of the usurper king Miguel forever excluded from the succession by the last monarchic Constitution and after the Banishment Law lost all his civil and dynastic rights and so become a common plebeian for the incontrovertible will of the Cortes and the King of Portugal? Who grant them  this title? 
:Why in 1920 if the king dom Manuel was alive, Miguel II abdicated the title of Duke of Braganza (that he logically did not have) in favour of Duarte Nuno? Are there two Dukes of Braganza, the legitimate (the HM King dom Manuel) and so the other illegitimate (the miguelist Duarte Nuno)?
:Please now can reply to my questions? Thanks
::In 1922 Miguel abdicated as king of Portugal (the title he then claimed).  There were not two people claiming to be duke of Braganza; there were two people claiming to be king of Portugal (Duarte Nuno and Manuel).  In an encyclopedia, we talk about both claims. Noel S McFerran 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the Jacobite claimant to the thrones of England and Scotland is also descended from George I of Hanover hasn't ended that controversy. 1. In the Portuguese case there are other potential candidates (at least some people think so). 2. It's not just about the individual claimant; it's about the type of monarchy which would be restored (or at least it used to be about that, and some people still hold to it). Noel S McFerran 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue w/"Miguelist"/"Pedrist" designations 

message: I want to change the name of this page in Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza. This is the real and official name of this woman. There are many official sources where all can see this true name of this pretender. Or you can indicate me where I can find the name Hilda Toledano in any official documents or other sources? Why continue here to insert this pseudonym name instead of her real and baptisimal name used also as pretender? Justiceiro 17:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the name in this page and insert the name Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza 

message: I'm going to ask for semi-protection of this article, because of edit warring with an IP, and likely circumvention of 3RR from only registered user simply by logging out. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 06:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why you protect this page in favour of a vandal ( user:195.93.21.41 ) that continue to libel this pretender as "impostor pretender" ??? Please if you want insert this category in this article put here the impartial source of this your affirmation, at the contrary this is only a personal point of view of this vandal and a libel and in this encyclopedia has no value. Jackind 15:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my, the same broken English and syntax as the various anonymous sockpuppets of Manuel de Sousa... Charles 15:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my, if you want write here insert objective documentation against this pretender, where I can see she was impostor pretender and not talk about her, ok??? At the contrary you are a libeller Jackind 15:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: An administrator of wikipedia Steel1359 has semi-protected this page in order to favour a vandal, the user:195.93.21.41,that continued to vandalize this page inserting this pretender in the category "impostor pretender".This is only his personal point of view, there are no source of this affirmation and this is only a big libel but I see in wikipedia some administrator favour this vandals. Jackind 08:45, 17November 2006 (UTC)
:BOTH sides in this dispute would do well to read the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism.  This particular revert war is NOT vandalism (although it is decidedly annoying). As I have said before: in my opinion it is entirely unnecessary to include either the category "Impostor pretenders" or the category "Pretenders to the Portuguese throne". Noel S McFerran 13:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen you in Maria Pia page reinsert this libellous category against this pretender and said: "Rv, the category is fully and completely accurate. See the particulars of Guy Stair Sainty's essay on the topic, for instance". This category is "fully" and "completed" accurate only in your mind I think, you only mention the site of Stair Sainty, a person very friend of the pretender Duarte Pio of Braganza and also member of a private association in Italy, the ICOC, where the patron is Duarte Pio of Braganza. Is clear this Sainty want only denigrate Maria Pia of Braganza in order to favour his friend Duarte Pio. The site of this Sainty ( http://www.chivalricorders.org/ ) is defaced since many months, I think this is a precaution for all the libels this person affirmed in his site. Infact in the case of Maria Pia he affirmed all the documents in the site of Rosario Poidimani are false and he affirmed Maria Pia is a daughter illegitimate so without power of succession. Rosario sued Mr Stair Sainty for these libels present in his web site. All that you can see in the site of ICOC ( http://www.icocregister.org/Poidimani_Sainty.htm )is only a transcription of a precautionary measure for the darkening of the Stair Sainty page web( http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/fantasy/portugal-false.htm ) promoted by HRH Dom Rosario and the court of first instance issued a ordinance in favour of Dom Rosario. Mr Stair Sainty opposed this and the judgement on appeal issued in favour of Mr Sainty and that is concerning the not darkening of Sainty web page, waiting for the sentence of this lawsuit pendent. Is amusing read that the ICOC friends of Mr Sainty want deceive the readers that this ordinance was as a victory of Mr Sainty, that is really false, while in really the sentence perhaps will be issued in 2008. But now the site of Sainty is all darkened. Sainty also affirmed Maria Pia was illegitimate daughter of the king so without power of succession. In reality the Sacred Roman Rota confirmed after a trial of 10 years Maria Pia was undoubitable daughter of the king Charles of Portugal and also confirmed the presence of the document with the sign of the king that legitimated his daughter in order to put her in succession of the portuguese Crown. All the newspapers of the world consider Maria Pia as pretender (for example see the article in the newspaper most important in Spain for the death of this pretender http://www.elmundo.es/papel/hemeroteca/1995/05/07/sociedad/39247.html or read the book of an important french writer and investigator about this pretender http://www.projectedletters.com/the-pretender/ ). Now insert in Wikipedia the category "Imposter pretender" for this pretender is only a big libel without impartial source and so a big injustice. So please delete the category imposter pretender in this page because this is vandalism Nistork 09:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A BIG BIG WRONG OF AN ADMINISTRATOR OF WIKIPEDIA AGAINST THIS PRETENDER