Talk:José Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva

Extra stub

There is a stub on him using the name "Andrada e Silva" so he has two separate pages. I am changing his entry at the List of people by name to the above name. GhostofSuperslum 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The correct name is "Andrada e Silva" as you can see in the portuguese wiki. 201.62.213.124 00

48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Wouldn't it be interesting to add why the trust between The Emperor and Bonifacio (as I understand the number 2 of Brasil at the time) broke so horribly? I read in a book ("Eine Kleine Geschichte Brasiliens", Edition Suhrkamp, ISBN 3-518-12150-2) that he was the victim of a scheme aimed at weakening the Emperor. Can someone with more information help out? Thanx Maarten,dutch (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Read History of the Empire of Brazil#From Kingdom to Empire and History of the Empire of Brazil#Imperial Constitution to understand what happened. The Emperor and Bonifácio would later rekindle their friendship. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No POV problem seen here

I see only the lack of organization and further information. There is no point of view (POV) problem with this article. Indeed, there is little to get heated about with old José Bonifácio. This article could benefit from an Infobox Scientist template and perhaps a chronology of events. A "Legacy" section could help explain why José Bonifácio is considered the "Patriach of Brazilian independence." --Wloveral (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done!

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion

• "Bonifacio Jozé d'Andrada e Sylva" in the Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th ed., Vol. II, p. 20.

 — LlywelynII 01:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"His relationship with the prince became incompatible..."

Except there were multiple princes and on both sides. I believe "the prince" here refers to Dom João and not Dom Pedro, but could someone confirm that? Ahyangyi (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. In the discussion, it was not clear to editors what the common name is, if there is one. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

---

José Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva → José Bonifácio – WP:COMMONNAME is just "José Bonifácio", not particularly well known by full legal name Ortizesp (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Ortizesp: I don't think it's clear that José Bonifácio is the common name. Portuguese Wikipedia uses his full name, as do several sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I had an independent look at the sources, and I think it's a mixed picture, similarly to what @FormalDude concluded. Thus, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing the move here as an uncontroversial technical move. @Ortizesp, if you feel strongly that this should be moved, it looks like you're going to need an RM. Let me know if you need help with that. Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Hey, no issue with opening up a WP:RM. Do you have a means of doing it from here? Ortizesp (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.