Talk:Maximilian I of Mexico

style

Surely his style when he was born was His Imperial Highness not His Imperial Majesty? STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:53 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

Surely<G>. -- Someone else 00:01 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Removed after Public Domain 1911 encyclopedia entry, as it's been fairly extensively modified by now. -- Infrogmation 01:02 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Who was Tegethoff? -- Zoe

Article name

I note that this article was recently moved from "Maximilian of Mexico" to "Maximilian I of Mexico". Could the reason please be clearly explained here? I presume it is something relevent to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)? Thanks. Wondering, -- Infrogmation 06:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For monarchs who are the only one of their name, the current policy is:

Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain.

Yes. Like Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia or Hussein I of Jordan or John (not John I) of England.

I proposed this policy some months ago, and there were no objections, so I changed it some months ago. Maximilian, so far as I can gather, did take the ordinal (see [1], which is usually reliable). Thus, the ordinal should be in. john k 13:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think in this case Wikipedia naming conventions trump the person's own preferences. I propose to move back. PatGallacher (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's more than the person's preferences, surely what was used on cyphers, on official texts and in common parlance should be what is used. If a specific point was made for the ordinal, its not something that Wiki should step in on - i thought the guidelines were there for grey areas? Mwheatley1990 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

About Maximilian's Death

When Juárez refused to commute Maximilian's death sentence, it wasn't to send a message to the world. The Mexican president didn't commute it because he said that Maximilian's life was out of his hands, and it was now in those of "the law and the people." (I retrieved this from a biography of Juárez by Dennis Wepman)

--Tower Interface 12:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is about a theory about Maximilian's death

I think it was around 2000 or 2001, I don't remember the exact date, but Los Angeles times published a theory about Maximilian's death on it. The writter stated that Benito Juarez had actually let Maximilian go and instead the one who was shot was a look a like, according to the newspaper he left to Central America where he died in poverty, since he couldn't go back to Austria because of political conflicts regarding the trone. Do any of you know about this conspiracy?

Political conflicts regarding the throne? What the hell is that supposed to mean? john k (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

When did he change his name to Craig MacMillan?

The article mentions his born name (German), but refers to him as Craig Macmillan, an English/Scottish name throughout. When and why did the name change occurr? Zapiens 14:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Craig MacMillan

What is this Craig MacMillan nonsense? It can't be edited. Can someone please correct this? It's obviously a prank.

PARENTAGE OF MAXIMILIAN

Not everybody accepts the parentage of Maximilian as given in this article. During the period when he was born, there was a close friendship between his mother the Archduchess Sophie and the Duke of Reichstadt, a.k.a. Napoleon II, son of Napoleon Bonaparte. Many have noted the close facial resemblance betwixt Maximilian and Reichstadt, not to mention the fact that the imperial nanny had a habit of referring to Maximilian as "the stepson".

About Maximilian´s death theory

I have heard about that theory. From what I understand, Juarez shot a look a like and Maximilian escaped and lived for many years in El Salvador by the name of Craig Macmillan. It is said that Craig Macmillan was a tall caucasian man, who always wore white, and was constantly visited by Europeans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benval (talk • contribs) 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Parentage?

There is some evidence that Maximilian was actually the son of the Duke of Reichstadt, the son of the French Emperor Napoleon I, with whom his mother maintained a long relationship. Whether one believes it or not, it ought to be mentioned in the article. Tom129.93.17.139 02:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of parentage, did Maximilian I have any sons or daughters? 71.34.67.135 (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The more relevant/likely rumour is that he was the son of Swedish throne pretender prince Gustav of Wasa, son of the late Gustav IV Adolph of Sweden, who was deposed 1809. Maximilian and Franz Josef was nicknamed "die Wasa Buben" by the gossipers of Vienna.--Orakologen (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Post-mortem photo of Maximilian

If any contributor can use it, then here is a photo of Maximilian after his death. The details are scarce, except the photo was taken quite some time after his death. Post-mortem photo

Fred26 (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One picture is missing, where he is coming down a ship. It differs from other pictures here, though being meticulous all paintings differ from each other. Where is that other picture stored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.179.126 (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Career in Austria

I don't get "His parentage had naturally nothing to do with his success" in that section. The only way to read it is as sarcasm. --Krokodeilaki (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Short Stature

This makes no sense. Under the reasons for why people think he could have been the son of Napoleon II, it says that he was shorter then his other siblings.Napoleon was average height for his time period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wastedgrunt36 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Important: need opinions

Hi, everyone. I'm planning to start working on this article and take it to FA standard. However, I'm only going to do it in case there is support from all other interested editors. Suggestions, opinions, anything, is appreciated. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No one?! --Lecen (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a wonderful idea but as I don't contribute in the English Wikipedia, I won't be very useful! However, I have got two French biographies of Empress Charlotte and some other books about the Royal family of Belgium... So if I can help you in any moment, contact me (in august, because I leave for Canada next week). Good luck ! Konstantinos (82.237.218.242 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC))

I added an entire new section the article, fully sourced. Also, I debunked this absurd claim that Maximilian was the son of Napoleon II. We can't add rumors and claim they are facts. I'll continue working on this article, albeit very slowly. --Lecen (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the rumor appears in different biographies. I really think it is only a rumor and I never read a book which accepted it as un real possibility. But it seems that some contemporaries believed it because of the friendship of Napoleon II and Archduchess Sophie. 82.237.218.242 (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Baldness & appearance

In the lead it reads "Maximilian was prematurely bald, although his portraits showed him with a full head of hair"... Is it just me or does this not belong in the lead? Maybe it is better to create a section "Appearance" with a decription of the Emperor's looks (abobe, there is also talk about his stature, so enough ground for this). In any case, it does not belong in the lead. Pierlot (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed is not the place for the lead. I'm goin to adress all issues in time. He started to became bald around his early 30s (like his elder brother), so, I don't believe that can be called "premature". He was very tall, not short as the article says, also. If you want to have an idea of how this article will become once I'm done with it, please, take a look at Pedro II of Brazil. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In all the images he is on, Maximilian indeed appears to be a tall and slender man. He was the same height as his brother, who towered over 5'8" (1.75m) Elizabeth of Bavaria so that would make Maximilian at least 6'1" (1.85m), quite tall for his era. As for the premature baldness - if it was hereditary and a trait he shared with his brother, father and grandfather then this is another thing that makes Napoleon II's parentage highly unlikely. Success and good luck with the article! Pierlot (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

But the Duke of Reichstadt was a close relative of Maximilian's presumptive father, and himself a grandson of Franz I. So that hardly seems like cllear evidence. john k (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

He was 6'2" as you can see on page 16 of [this book] written by an American who met him. Maximilian had a lot in common with his first cousin, Pedro II of Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I certainly notice a clear resemblance in the two men. Seems like a perfectly reliable source, too. Well found! Pierlot (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon II died at 21 so we will never know if he would have lost his hair at an early age. (92.7.16.72 (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC))

Picture

Surely there should be a better picture of Maximilian? (92.7.9.176 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC))

Travels and the Brazilian princess?

No Brazilian princess is mentioned in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.206.41.100 (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The section, as well as everything else in the article is unfinished. In case you want to know more about the Brazilian Princess, see Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Images

• 
  The Execution of Emperor Maximilian (1868-69), oil on canvas, 252 x 305 cm. Kunsthalle Mannheim
• 
  The Execution of Emperor Maximilian (1867), oil on canvas, 195.9 x 259.7 cm. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

• 
  Photograph(?) of the execution of Maximilian (right in photograph) Miramón (center) and Mejía (left), 19 June 1867
• 
  Print, 1867
• 
  Photograph of the firing squad, 1867

Should this article include a reference to Manet's paintings of The Execution of Emperor Maximilian or the photograph in that article? See above. -- 00:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No photo was taken of the execution. That's a drawing. --Lecen (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not what the French article suggests, but I defer to your superior knowledge. There seems to be a photograph of the firing squad there too, plus some other images in the Spanish and Portuguese versions, including the Manet.

Should any of these images be included here? We already have a somewhat romanticised painting of Maximilian's "last moments", complete with weeping attendants, painted about 15 years later. I was somewhat surprised that the famous paintings by Manet are not already mentioned, if not displayed here. Critics put them in the same category as Picasso's Guernica or Goya's The Third of May 1808. I'll let you decide. -- Theramin (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC) (tweaked)

Yes, but the photo of the firing squad was not taken at the moment he was shot. About yoru earlier question? I see no problem about adding the picture and the link to Manet's painting. I started working on this article but I gave up on the third section. I doubt someone else will finish it. Good luck! --Lecen (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. I might add them them. -- Theramin (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

From Maximilian to Maximiliano I

Since his regnal name was actually "Maximiliano I" I wondered if there would be a problem if I change the name of this article to "Maximiliano I of Mexico"? --Lecen (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Bad idea based on OR. all the RS have used Maximilian Rjensen (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"OR"? Okay, then. Let's leave the article as it is... which isn't good. --Lecen (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not OR, but he is universally referred to as "Maximilian" in virtually all sources in English, which is supposed to be what articles titles are based on. I'm also not sure how rejecting a plan to change the article name to a form not used in English constitutes a preference that the article be left as it is. john k (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I find this sentence

to be problematic.

" After arriving in Trieste, the coffin was taken to Vienna and placed within the Imperial Crypt, where it can be viewed today, on 18 January 1868."

Should it read, " After arriving in Trieste on 18 January 1868, the coffin was taken to Vienna and placed within the Imperial Crypt, where it can be viewed today." ?
Further, I am uncomfortable with the use of the word, "today" because, well what day is that? However since I am new to this article I think I'll just post this and Watch as to what, if anything, occurs. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Editorial slant

165.120.157.248 made a number of changes to make the article take a line that basically emphasize Maximilian being invited by Mexican monarchists and de-emphasize the French & Napoleon III. [2] Do you have any sources for this? Not saying the current article is perfect, of course, but while it's certainly true there was an official invitation from Mexicans to Maximilian, my understanding is that it was done at the point of a bayonet - it was a puppet government. So yes, it's technically true, but true in the same way that, say, Joseph Bonaparte became King of Spain a few decades earlier via invitation from that country's nobility. The fact that Maximilian's government lasted only a year or so after the French left also suggests that it was basically a French government, not a particularly well-supported one from Mexicans, for better or worse. SnowFire (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This issue needs to go to the sources. What do the references say on the topics? This is not about what any of us feel about the subject. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The French had interests in Mexico, this is clear. But it's also true that the Conservartive Party in Mexico backed Maximiliano. Even members of the Liberal Parry supported him and were part of his administration. It was not a "puppet regime". --Lecen (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

As always on wikipedia there is room for more than one interpretation, as long as they are properly supported. Carptrash (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Similar titles of article-sections

• Re this edit: It is not so much a matter of style (hence covered by the WP:FNNR rule: "Editors may use any section title that they choose.") as it is a matter of clarity. WP:FNNR says that two possible article-sections are "explanatory footnotes" that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article and "citation footnotes" that connect specific material in the article with specific sources. Usually, you can tell which is which by glancing the contents. In "Maximilian I of Mexico", "explanatory footnotes" were called "Endnotes", while "citation footnotes" were called "Footnotes". It was not clear which is which (which section contained "explanatory footnotes" and which section contained "citation footnotes"). --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maximilian I of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140503115911/http://www.nacionalistas.org/2012/06/homenaje-los-martires-del-segundo.html to http://www.nacionalistas.org/2012/06/homenaje-los-martires-del-segundo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

What crimes was he accused of?

Missing from the story: Did Max's captors accuse him of particular crimes, or did they just regard him as some bad guy whose execution they were anxious to justify? - knoodelhed (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thirteen specific charges were made against Maximilian at his trial by the Republican authorities. Of these the key one was his signature of the "Black Decree" of 3 October 1865, under which substantial numbers of prisoners had been executed. This was taken to justify Maximilian's own death sentence. The remaining charges can be summarised under two headings: the establishment of his Imperial regime had provided a pretext for the continued French occupation of Mexico; and by not departing with the French forces he had prolonged a civil war and the suffering of the Mexican people. Buistr (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox picture

@CMD007: Since I was reverted in this edit: Why exactly are you insisting on a portrait? What's your case for using it? Per Template:Infobox_person/doc#Image, photographs are expected for modern biographies, because they are accurate in a way that portraits simply are not. This is especially true for nobles who can have overly flattering portraits made of them - we have a number of historical figures pre-photography who are described in ways that simply do not match the surviving portraits. It'd be one thing if it was a very poor quality photograph or misleading, but I'm not seeing it.

I can't agree with many of the other things you've changed, either. One academic claiming it was yellow fever's fault Maximilian got a poor reception seems a stretch: what's so hard to admit that the town wasn't really very royalist? Maybe there was also a fever, but I don't think that's the focus in most histories. And why is a random guy who spoke at a conference (Carlos Felipe de Habsburgo) relevant in an article on someone from his family line who died over ~150 years before said conference? The bio at said website doesn't even talk about Maximilian I at all, nor does the conference appear to be remotely notable. It's irrelevant. And do you have any reference for these honors allegedly granted by the Empire? (For all that they're kind of meaningless anyway since he'd be granting these honors to himself...) SnowFire (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Will it hurt you personally if Maximilian’s article uses his portrait? Maximilian’s contemporary Napoleon III also has a portrait instead of photo, are you going to strip his? Maximilian’s face is exactly the same in the painting as in the photo, you can’t be serious about making a grotesque face better. It’s also easier to see his face in the portrait rather than the farther away photo. It is also a fact that every monarch from Queen Victoria, Leopold II of Belgium, and Isabella II of Spain to Umberto I of Italy and his own brother Franz Josef of Austria has clearly visible medals and honors showing, larger than in Maximilian’s photo, denoting their status. Lastly, it matches his wife’s article in the English, French, etc versions and also uses portraits by the same artist in the same style.

As for the yellow fever… one academic? I can get 8 sources on the first try on Google books. Do you have an axe to grind? “Most histories”? You mean American/Republican/liberal leaning ones?? I’m not understanding your disbelief. There are more than enough sources to stop you. Its a fact that Abraham Lincoln did not formally protest against the presence of Maximilian in Mexico and had he not been shot, we likely would still have a Mexican monarchy (Lincoln also opposed the Mexican-American War, but that’s another story). He didn’t want more war and wouldn’t have disappeared weapons magically on the border for Juarista guerrillas to pick up as his successor did. It’s also well known that the Emperor and Empress of Mexico were warmly welcomed in their capital City of Mexico, and to celebrate Maximilian's arrival, the city council spent over 54,000 pesos on the decorations, hundreds of triumphal arches, showers of flower petals, and fireworks. Or are these authors not good enough for you either? As for Carlos Felipe de Habsburgo, he is in the section entitled LEGACY. (The source is for him being born in Mexico, not for anything else, you might like to clarify your objection). The definition of a legacy is a thing handed down by a predecessor. Something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or from the past. He is a Habsburg from the exact same family and a Mexican. He is also a historian and academic. His article clearly states, “Carlos Felipe has published different essays and articles in history related publications. He has given many conferences regarding his family’s history as well as the Second Mexican Empire.” His great-grandfather was Maximilian’s literal nephew. I believe he should be closer to the top of that section if you ask me. (As far as time, 150 years isn’t that long… the last 20 have flown by). The next issue actually makes me laugh. Your questioning the honors? Do you question the Royal Victorian Order founded 30 years after? How about one with a silly name like the British Order of the Thistle? Order of St Patrick?

You obviously don’t understand orders of chivalry, as he was not bestowing them on himself, rather he was the Sovereign and Grand Master of the orders. There are countless sources stating that monarchs from Charles XV of Sweden and Norway to Napoleon III and from Abdulaziz, the 32nd Sultan of the Ottoman Empire to Alexander II of Russia were members of the Imperial Order of the Mexican Eagle. Just this year, in fact, there was a book published listing the Sultan as having received the Mexican Imperial Order and the fact that the emperor sent an envoy to establish Mexican consulates in Jerusalem and Alexandria. Still more sources show members such as Queen Victoria and Empress Eugenie for the Orden Imperial de San Carlos. This is real history and it really happened. CMD007 (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I gave up debating this because it was very clear that you'd inappropriately personalized the dispute and this would not be enjoyable for either of us ("Will it hurt you personally"? Well, no, but most mistakes on Wikipedia don't, doesn't mean they aren't mistakes), but in case this talk page gets dragged off to ANI in the near future as seems likely, I'll just say that I still disagree with the tone and substance of your edits in November, which were overly deferential to Maximilian IMO. Also, frankly, yes, if we have a high-quality photograph, it should almost always be used, and I don't see a strong reason not to use a photograph in this case. Photographs are accurate in a way that portraits aren't, so are preferable when available and other factors don't intervene. Note that if we examine contemporaneous North American rulers, Abraham Lincoln, Charles Monck, 4th Viscount Monck, and Jefferson Davis all have photographs in their infobox, which is correct IMO. SnowFire (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Ahnentafel

The ahnentafel should not be introduced into the article because the article does not need 30 names dumped in it without any context. That is contrary to WP:NOTGENEALOGY, which underlines that Wikipedia is not meant to be a genealogy website. The matter was discussed extensively at Template talk:Ahnentafel and it is evident that there is no consensus for this template to be added at whim. Going on about Ferdinand, Isabella, and Charles is pointless and provides no context for the 30 names dumped in the chart because none of those 30 are Ferdinand, Isabella or Charles. The supposed context is also factually incorrect; for example, Charles did not succeed his mother on her death but ruled alongside her from 1516. He barely even outlived her. Surtsicna (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Whim? The section is labeled ANCESTRY. How is information and sources on his ANCESTRY anything extra? His ancestry is THE reason Maximilian I of Mexico was chosen as a candidate for the Throne of Mexico. Whim? You keep saying the same thing OVER AND OVER, but guess what?? EVERY OTHER ARTICLE HAS AN ANCESTRY SECTION. Are you going to tell me you are going to fight hundreds or thousands of people to delete Charles III’s genealogy on his article?? Have you done so yet? What about Mary of Teck’s article? I’m waiting. CMD007 (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you can read correctly, it said that he “inherited the newly united kingdoms as co-ruler, and then solely, after the death of his mother.” You just admitted he outlived her, “barely”. Is three years important here? Did he or did he not inherited anything from her?? I’d say Carlos I did because his grandparents through her were the rulers of Castilla y Aragón. He then ruled Castilla y Aragón. Is this rocket science? Yet another example of making a mountain out of a mole hill. CMD007 (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Kindly stop yelling and reverting. That is not how one contributes to this project. If Maximilian's descent from e.g. Maria Franziska von Sulzbach is the reason he was elected emperor of Mexico, please write that in prose and cite a source. No, not every other article has an ancestry section, and even if it did, it does not mean that this one must. Other crap exists. You are again inserting factually incorrect (and off-topic) information about Charles's accession. It is Wikipedia policy that article content should be based on the content of reliable sources specializing in the topic, which in this case are the biographies of Maximilian. Since none of them contain this sort of chart, neither should this article. Surtsicna (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Those Ahnentafel/Family trees, should be deleted, as they're trivial & (IMHO) clutter. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Then what are you doing here? Start deleting. CMD007 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Surtsicna & GoodDay. His relevant relatives can be discussed in referenced prose if desired, but only if the source is commenting on why it mattered, not merely as an appendix. SnowFire (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This might be something warranting an RFC on the matter to establish a firm guideline on whether or not it should be included so that people don't keeping edit warring over it on various pages. 2601:249:9301:D570:55B1:36BA:6D0B:9B35 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

There has been a long discussion (Template talk:Ahnentafel) and we do have guidelines and policies (WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:PROPORTION, WP:OR). Surtsicna (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it appears that there are a lot of articles running counter to that policy. 2601:249:9301:D570:55B1:36BA:6D0B:9B35 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

That is the exact thing, thank you. What is the sense in leaving 8,000 articles with the genealogical chart, but one or a few (even 100) odd ones out? This is nonsensical. Nit-picky even. I haven’t found any concrete rules about this anywhere, even with all the links he’s thrown at me. In one discussion he himself says “This template has crept into over eight thousand articles without any consideration. Case by case consideration is now neither practicable nor necessary.” Ok? So then WHAT do you want Surtsicna? I agree with user Andrew Lancaster when he says, “but I see no reason to delete the latter in the mean time because they are still normally harmless, and often even a bit useful.” Regarding the written paragraph I added, Surtsicna, why not correct what you think needs correcting instead of deleting everything along with multiple sources? I didn’t know it was the policy here to delete multiple sources because you don’t like them. CMD007 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and we do not need another. Surtsicna (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

If including them is against policy, then there should probably be a more active project toward cleaning articles of those. I personally don't really care either way whether they should be kept or not, but it should probably be consistent. 2601:249:9301:D570:55B1:36BA:6D0B:9B35 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

If/when I come across them, I'll delete them. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Once again, as with all other discussions on this topic, there are no set rules and there is no consensus, except for the fact that there are still 8,000 articles with ancestral trees, which Surtsicna is not personally going to go through. However, he did go straight through Edward V’s and Edward VIII’s articles without deleting the ancestry chart, but did deliberately delete that of the Mexican Prince Salvador de Iturbide y Marzán. How perfectly telling. If I re-add it, he will say I am edit warring. This story gets old and it’s an abuse of privileges on this site (not to mention oddly biased), especially when there is no real mandate. This is _targeting. He is also _targeting me and following my edits or he wouldn’t have “edited” Prince Salvador’s article right after mine or commented on my correspondence with others regarding advice/sources for these charts, which amounts to harassment. CMD007 (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Report me. Try WP:Administrators' noticeboard. Surtsicna (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed Ahnentafels from the Greek monarch bios & related bios. Concerning ancestry itself? Why not settle for it being written in prose. Those horizontal family tree boxes are kinda archaic & due for total elimination. PS - Has there 'ever' been an RFC on this general topic? GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Whatever best fits Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia, but consistency should win every time. An RFC has been mentioned twice, but it seems that Surtsicna only replies to cherry picked questions/statements. He has yet to reply to the subject of the written prose he deleted (after begging me to use the Talk Page multiple times). Speaking of which: Your suggestion of written prose (which I added with sources, but he deleted as well) is an option. However, the conciseness of the ancestry charts (especially since on desktop they disappear into a pull-down bar and are practically invisible) is cleaner and simpler. German wiki features top down ancestry charts, but they look a bit muddled and aren’t as easy to follow. The idea that these ancestry charts are so “in the way” is baffling. CMD007 (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I have also just received a warning from my pal that I should stop “edit warring” or will be blocked. I’d like to know how his warring edits are not considered the exact same? Especially with NO MANDATE. The pettiness of not leaving two articles alone while the fate of 8,000 is being discussed is comical. CMD007 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This talk page is the "mandate". Your addition is opposed by everyone involved in this discussion. As the editor adding or restoring disputed content, you are the one who must secure consensus for your edit per WP:ONUS. You clearly have no consensus to add the ahnentafel. Your prose was factually wrong. Get a grip; nobody is obligated to edit eight thousand articles just to revert your addition to one. If you want the article to have a useful genealogy chart, one that actually shows essential relatives such as his brother the Austrian emperor, consult the biographies cited in the article to see what kind of charts they use and recreate it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

“This might be something warranting an RFC on the matter to establish a firm guideline” - 2601:249:9301:D570:55B1:36BA:6D0B:9B35

“I personally don't really care either way whether they should be kept or not” and “Has there 'ever' been an RFC on this general topic?” -GoodDay

- Is NOT a mandate.

And if you can read correctly, it said that Charles V/Carlos I “inherited the newly united kingdoms as co-ruler, and then solely, after the death of his mother.” You just admitted he outlived her, “barely”. Is three years important here? Did he or did he not inherited anything from her?? I’d say Carlos I did because his grandparents through her were the rulers of Castilla y Aragón. He then ruled Castilla y Aragón. Is this rocket science? Yet another example of making a mountain out of a mole hill. (I’m sure you saw this, but haven’t admitted it). CMD007 (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

He did not inherit anything after her death. This apparently is rocket science to you. Surtsicna (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica states, “Charles V inherited a vast empire that stretched from one end of Europe to the other. He acquired the Spanish throne from his parents, Philip I and Queen Joan. “Queen Joan”, or Juana, was the daughter of the Catholic monarchs. Philip also died before her. Can you explain how he didn’t inherited anything from her? Should it say “through” her? This is nonsense. CMD007 (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It should not say that he inherited the kingdoms after his mother's death because he did not. Either your history or your punctuation is wrong. And quite frankly, it should not say anything about it at all. The article is about Maximilian, and I very much doubt one can find Joan discussed in any biography of Maximilian. Feel free to cite one to prove me wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Then it should say he “inherited the newly united kingdoms as co-ruler, and then ruled them solely, after the death of his mother.”? This illustrates my point that you could have CORRECTED that per sources instead of DELETE multiple sources entirely. CMD007 (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Something being true does not make it worthy of inclusion. See WP:ONUS already. Which biography of Maximilian discusses Charles and Joan? Surtsicna (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if maybe an RFC at Wikipedia:ROY or one of the Village Pump pages, would be appropriate for this general discussion. I'm sure we can all agree, a firmly established consensus on this matter, is preferred. Certainly better than any editor or editors being blocked for possible edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I’d say that is a great idea, an actual consensus is preferred to a fabricated one. Thanks. It’s all so interesting how quickly edits deleting Maria Theresa of Austria’s or Charles III’s ancestry are reverted! How efficient! CMD007 (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

We had a request for comment at Template talk:Ahnentafel in 2019. It was agreed there that the ahnentafel can be neither banned nor enforced through thousands of articles but rather that its inclusion or exclusion in individual article should be based on whether it appears in the biographies of that article's subject. Surtsicna (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Where are the biographical sources for Elizabeth II that mention Louisa Burnaby located? It lists “Genealogist's Magazine” and “Lines of Succession: Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe (2nd ed.), London”. But these, as you would point out, are NOT biographies. Will you go now and erase her ancestry chart? And if I were to, would it be reverted in less than 5 minutes as was my Charles III edit? CMD007 (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Go and argue for that deletion at Talk:Elizabeth II. The content of that article does not determine the content of this article or vice-versa. That was the conclusion reached in the aforementioned discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted my deletions at the Greek monarch bios of George I, Constantine I, George II, Alexander & Paul. Won't object if they're undone 'or' maintained. This is a topic, that can potentially become heated. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This shouldn’t be heated at all. This is fairly simple. Except certain users are being hypocritical and wishy washy on this subject. They are setting out their own rules and then taking them back when I act on them. Along with yourself and another, I’m the party that is willing to go either way on this. They are not. They are setting double standards. Speaking of “I didn’t hear that”, some aren’t getting that 1) if we need biographical sources, then the ancestry charts at Elizabeth II and Charles III as well as Maria Theresa should be deleted 2) if we DON’T need biographical sources (and any source will suffice) the ancestry charts at Maximilian I of Mexico and Salvador Iturbide y Marzan should be RESTORED. This is about POLICY consistency. But will sertusicna ever acknowledge this is the case? CMD007 (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not about consistency. Different articles need different content, and nobody is obligated to edit eight thousand articles just to be allowed to revert one edit of yours. Surtsicna (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It IS about policy. They don’t “need different content”, that doesn’t even make sense. No one is obligated to do that, but they are obligated to follow policy. CMD007 (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It is evident that you have no understanding of what policies are. Hopefully this will be successfully explained to you at ANI. Surtsicna (talk)

It’s evident that there is no real policy, but that will have to be cleared up. CMD007 (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

19:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

What, really, is the issue here other than CMD007 is trying to add information to this article that is partly irrelevant to the article subject (or maybe could be summarized in one sentence elsewhere in the article) and partly unsourced (whether to an outside biography or some other RS)? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

If that is all you can get out of reading this talk page, read it again. CMD007 (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

So, at the heart of all this, there really is no issue other than someone trying to add irrelevant and unsourced material. Got it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope. You must have a difficult time if that is the level of your reading comprehension. CMD007 (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Successor as monarch - none

The infobox lists Maximilian's adoptive son, Agustin de Iturbide y Green, a descendant of Emperor Agustin I as a successor to Maximilian, with a citation and the notion "disputed." Monarchy definitively ended in Mexico following the execution of Maximilian in 1867, the second execution of a Mexican emperor after Iturbide's execution in 1824. The descendants of Iturbide might style themselves as heirs to a Mexican monarchy, but there is no such thing other than distant memory. Liberal Army General Porfirio Diaz fought against the invading French and became President of Mexico 1876-1911. During his presidency, he allowed a monument and a chapel to be built on the Cerro de las Campanas, where Maximilian and his two generals were executed. That would not have been possible if monarchism in Mexico were anything but a closed chapter of Mexican history. I propose removing Iturbide y Green's name as successor, removing the citation, and the tag "disputed" and replacing it with the word "none". 18:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Amuseclio Amuseclio (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That should be done as soon as possible. Surtsicna (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This was one of CMD007's changes back in November which were mostly for the worse and were extremely deferential to Maximilian. I restored that bit of the infobox to what it used to say with Juarez being his successor as ruler of Mexico, but honestly, someone should probably just volunteer do a big diff of the article at the start of November vs. the current article, and pick out which of CMD007's contributions are worth keeping and which aren't. SnowFire (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a source for that, so you can chatter about what’s for the “worse”, but it’s sourced CMD007 (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Differential? Or sourced information that happens not be be a liberal/republican American source? You can pretend Mexico’s imperial periods did not happen, but that isn’t reality. CMD007 (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The infoboxes of political leaders treat them as political leaders not as bloodlines. If this was an infobox solely on dynastic succession, then maybe on Iturbide y Green as successor, but certainly not on the First Empire as predecessor. And we are treating imperial periods seriously; part of that includes treating seriously the fact that they stopped in 1867, and that the Second Empire didn't exactly originate from the First. The infobox of Max's buddy Napoleon III shows that he was succeeded by the Third Republic of France, not random Bonapartist claimants. SnowFire (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, up until last year, Napoleon/III info box did mention the monarch/predecessor/successor, even when they weren’t consecutive. This is what I modeled it on (though now the rule is let’s not model on any precedent, let’s just abolish everything). Also, originally, I had the infobox (also with precedence) showing Emperor of Mexico (a title which wasn’t used only once) AND Head of State, which is where Juarez gladly went, as he was a head of state. It also had viceroy but a certain user gets a headache from too much info in an on-line encyclopedia. CMD007 (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, I propose not having Predecessor and Successor fields in the infobox at all. Maximilian's monarchical predecessor is not the same person as his general predecessor, and the infobox is really not suited to presenting such complex information. I believe it would be best to leave it for the succession boxes at the bottom, which can handle such nuances with grace. Surtsicna (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I am a big fan of keeping Infoboxes short and to the point and avoiding ambiguity, but this particular case isn't really THAT complicated? Can add an endnote to explain the details if required, but this really isn't that complex: he was succeeded by Juarez and the Mexican Republic. Checking, Charles I of England does list the Cromwellian Council of State as a successor (along with Charles II, although that's a case where the monarchy really was restored eventually and Charles II did rule), so I don't think it's too weird to list the "de facto" successor in some manner. SnowFire (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It might be clear to us who know more about the subject than the average person and (more importantly) who are used to the way things are done on Wikipedia, but I fear that having Juarez's name under the header "Emperor of Mexico" might confuse the casual reader. Also, it will inevitably lead to disputes about whether the predecessor shown should be Maximilian's predecessor as emperor (which, frankly, does seem logical if the header says "Emperor of Mexico"), namely Iturbide, or his predecessor as head of state, namely Juarez. On a more subjective note, I find endnotes and parenthetical explanations in infoboxes unsightly and contrary to what infoboxes should be. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

In this bio, I would support having in the 'predecessor' & 'successor parameters, just Monarchy established, Monarchy abolished. When it deals with the changing from monarchy to republic or republic to monarchy. I don't see the reason for adding the individual names. But, I think they tend to be used for monarchs/presidents (etc), as both are heads of state. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think keeping complex history out of the info box is the best way to proceed here. He was emperor for a mere 3 years of Mexico's post-independence history, a tenure shorter than Iturbide's. Iturbide was not a royal and so did not have the kind of pedigree that monarchists would have preferred. Max did, but he was not a direct successor of Agustin de Iturbide. I think the place for discussion of the two brief reigns of the emperors of Mexico -- both of whom were shot -- should be in the article Monarchism in Mexico. Monarchy was a more obvious choice for the newly sovereign nation. Iturbide's Plan of Iguala brought Vicente Guerrero and other long-time insurgents into a coalition with royalists who saw an independent path for Mexico rather than with Spain, once the Spanish liberals came to be in charge in 1820. Monarchism was a persistent conservative idea in Mexico throughout the post-Iturbide turmoil. When conservatives lost the Reform War to the liberals and their alternative conservative government under Zuloaga folded, they pursued the idea of a European monarch to rule Mexico. Juarez's cancellation of debt payment to foreign creditors, including one of Napoleon III's kin, was the opening for the conservatives to make their move. Maximilian seemed to be a dream candidate from their point of view. And Max was now unemployed after Franz Joseph removed him as viceroy. BTW regarding another thread of this talk page, I don't have a problem with the inclusion of Max's genealogy in the article, but there seems to be opposition. I don't consider it antiquarianism to include it. These family connections are very complicated and quite interesting, at least to me. There is evidence that Maximilian knew his royal connections to Spanish America. In other circumstances, Maximilian could have been an enlightened monarch, bringing progress. But his liberal politics made it such that he alienated the Mexican conservatives who saw him as their man. Max did not want to be a tool of French imperialism or a puppet of Napoleon III or captive to Mexican conservatives. That he managed to convince some moderate liberals to join his regime is perhaps a testament to their pragmatism, but some were tainted by the connection after the collapse of the monarchy. I consider it pragmatic that they became part of his regime. Although Juarez's government still existed in northern Mexico and was supported by the U.S. but without material aid until after 1865, it was entirely understandable if people thought he would be forced into exile outside of the country. Juarez believed he embodied the Mexican state, his black carriage was in essence the seat of government. Max could have gone into exile, but under duress from his brother Franz Joseph he had renounced his royal titles in Austria. He would have lost all claim to honor. A side note: I have visited the Hapsburg imperial crypt in Vienna where Max is buried. It was touching to see that he has visitors who remember him by leaving very Mexican paper flowers and other tokens of Mexico on his tomb.Amuseclio (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Amuseclio

I am ok enough with how the infobox currently presents the information on his reign and the Juarez government. Amuseclio (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Amuseclio

Infobox - death

Maximilian's manner of death -- execution by firing squad -- should be included. I did, in fact, try to do that and it appears in the edit history, but does not appear eveb in the preview. I don't know why. I used the template from the infobox for Alvaro Obregon, who was assassinated in 1928 and the infobox category is "manner of death." If someone can fix this, I hope they do. I edited the place of death to substitute Restored Republic for the listing of Second Mexican Empire. The emperor was executed after capture and trial by the Mexican Republic, so saying the Cerro de la Campana was a place in the Second Mexican Empire is inaccurate. Amuseclio (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Amuseclio

Template:Infobox royalty does not support the death_cause parameter. Surtsicna (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

TIL. Thanx.Amuseclio (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Amuseclio

I included the death cause, feel free to revert. Torimem (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks rather odd at the bottom, I feel. Also cause of death is not otherwise given in the infobox for monarchs, so I am not sure this one needs it. Does it? Surtsicna (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Cause of death, should be excluded from infobox. Note, we don't use assassination in the infoboxes of monarchs, for example. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead too long

I have added a {{Lead too long}} tag to the article. MOS:LEAD says: "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell..." (emphasis mine). The current lead of this article is longer than many (if not most) WP articles, and goes into far too much detail. It is not readable in a few minutes. For comparison, the leads of the featured articles on the front page for the last ten days have an average length of 370 words; this one has 860 words, almost two and a half times the length. Somebody with knowledge of the topic needs to prune it down drastically. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:5518:16AD:6F52:109A (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Form of names

This article uniformly calls its subject by the German or English form of his name, Maximilian, and not the Spanish form, Maximiliano. However, it (almost) uniformly calls his wife by the Spanish form of her name, Carlota, and not the English/French form, Charlotte. It seems they should either both be Spanish (at least once they became Emperor and Empress of Mexico) or both not, for consistency's sake. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC) 23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• You would normally be right but according to to Gene Smith's Maximilian and Carlota

(pp. 152-153) Charlotte announced at a banquet, four days before the couple departed for Mexico, that henceforth she was to be addressed only as Carlota in the Spanish form. Her husband was not present but he had earlier decided that he would reign as the Emperor Maximilian. Buistr (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)