Talk:Pedro II of Brazil/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pedro I of Brazil is a title of the portuguese king Pedro IV of Portugal!

For more information please read the german and portuguese version on this subject... It's a ridiculous mistake to write an article about Peter IV of Portugal under the name of Peter I of Brazil. As everyone knows, the regency of Brazil was temporary and Peter IV returned to Portugal to help the endangered portuguese monarchy. I hope that the brazilian person that keeps changing Peter IV of Portugal to Peter I of Brazil takes this into consideration. The funny thing is that the brazilian person that does this doesn't have the honesty to also do it on the portuguese version, because he knows that what he is doing is wrongful propaganda... Can someone do something to stop this?...

Pedro I/IV was Emperor of Brazil for 9 years, and King of Portugal for the couple of months it took for word to cross the Atlantic that his father had died, and for him to make the arrangements to abdicate in favor of his daughter. The rule of Brazil was not temporary - he only abdicated in Brazil because the arrangements originally made for his daughter to marry her uncle and for them to share the throne had been up-ended by Miguel's assumption of the throne on his own behalf, and because of the need for him to champion his daughter's cause. In that cause he did not, in fact, return to being King - he instead acted as regent for his daughter, and thus was no longer "King Pedro IV". Obviously, Pedro I played an important role in the history of both countries, and we can only name his article one thing. Plus, why are we discussing this here, and not at Talk:Pedro I of Brazil? john k 00:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it might be a matter of propaganda, since Pedro I is a national icon, but it certainly is not wrongful, after all Pedro I of Brazil WAS one of his titles, so it's not wrongful to acclaim him as such. Second of all, he first became Pedro the I of Brazil in 1822, and THEN Pedro IV of Portugal in 1826. Since he wasn't the heir to the throne of Portugal at birth, due to the heir being his elder brother, his birth title was "Pedro I de Bragança", Pedro I of Braganza, so maybe we should go with that title. Because calling him Pedro IV of Portugal undermines the fact that he was pivotal to Brazilian History in a way that he was not to Portuguese history. Daniel

Should Dom Pedro be known as plain Peter?

For this to be Peter II of Brazil instead of Pedro II of Brazil is like talking of Lewis XVI of France. What are we to do? Wetman 06:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We regularly anglicize monarch names on Wikipedia. See for instance Charles XV of Sweden (was Carl), Humbert II of Italy (was Umberto), Henry IV of France (was Henri), Nicholas II of Russia (was Nikolai), William III of the Netherlands (was Willem) etc. etc. etc. This is normal encyclopedic procedure. In a Swedish encyclopedia they would be Karl, Umberto, Henrik, Nikolaj, Vilhelm. In a Brazilian encyclopedia, I'm certain they would be portuguized as well. (Of course, Louis XVI becomes Louis XVI because it is spelled Louis in English (Lewis I've only seen as a surname). He is always called Ludvig XVI in Swedish encyclopedias, though, Ludwig XVI. in German ones, etc.) Hence, under current policy, there is no reason whatsoever to have this as Pedro rather than Peter. If you want to change policy, feel free to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). -- Jao 07:20, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

I started to move all the text from "Peter II of Brazil" to "Pedro II of Brazil." Your comment underlines my own reaction -- WHAT!!! :))

So I am making that move now. See if you think it is right. ---Rednblu 07:05, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I today deleted all references to emperor-to-be, because Pedro II did become Emperor upon his father abdication. Although most Brazilian textbooks refer to the fact that he "assumed the throne when he was fourteen", it is a recognized fact that he succeded as Emperor upon his father´s abdication.

From that moment on, according to the Constitution of the Empire, he was emperor. During his minority, regents passed their decrees with the words: "The regency, in the name of the Emperor...". Therefore, he was acknowleged by society and by public institutions as Emperor from the moment of his father´s abdictation, even during his childhood when, under the Laws of the Land, he could not personaly discharge the functions of his office.

This is, by the way, the pratice among all monarchies. Alfonso XIII of Spain was born with the title of King, because his father died while his mother was pregnant of him.

Also, July 18th, 1841 was the day of Pedro II´s coronation, not the day he assumed personal power.

The Brazilian Imperial Parliament (General Assembly), declared him of age, and he took the constitutional oath assuming personal discharge of the Imperial Authority in June, 1940.

If you're thinking of moving the text by cutting and pasting, don't. That breaks the history. Use the "move" function instead. - Nunh-huh 07:07, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah! This is more realistic! Wetman 07:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

From all of the above, Pedro should be moved back to Peter, right? And I will do it with the "Move" function. ---Rednblu 07:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• This is serious? It should certainly be at "Pedro". Names which wind up anglisized are sometimes rather random, but I am only familiar with the monarch being called "Pedro" in English language, going back to numerous 19th century US original sources. Please show where and when he was known as "Peter" if you advocate that! -- Infrogmation 23:41, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe you are right. Pedro is now Pedro. ---Rednblu 08:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards for exceptions to monarchs' names

Discussion copied from User talk:Jao

Thanks for assisting so quickly our quandary over the proper name for the page on "Pedro II of Brazil." I moved the page name back to "Peter II of Brazil."

But I have a question. Should I move Wilhelm II of Germany to William II of Germany? ---Rednblu 08:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That would seem consistent, but probably not appreciated. This is from Talk:Juan Carlos of Spain: "Wiki doesn't translate things into english, it uses the form used in english. English speakers call him Juan Carlos not John Charles so that is why he is called Juan Carlos here. Ditto with Wilhelm II of Germany, who though often called William was regularly called Wilhelm in english also, so there is no need to translate his name. But nobody in English called Tsar Nicholas II Nikolai so he is in as Nicholas, as is his brother Michael II, not MIkhail, just as Juan Carlos' father-in-law is in as King Paul of Greece, not Pavlos." And this is from Talk:Haile Selassie of Ethiopia: "Modern monarchs are all in the form of [[{Name} {ordinal if more than one} of {name of state}]], with the name used in english unless a native name is used also in english or there is no english equivalent. (eg, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia not Tsar Nikolai II, Kaiser Wilhelm II not Kaiser William II)." So there are exceptions to the rule, and Wilhelm seems to be one. And so perhaps I was a bit rough, and Pedro/Peter should be an exception, too? I just haven't seen any arguments for Pedro being the more common name for him in English. Where does the Britannia put him, for example? That could serve as a guideline. -- Jao 09:15, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

"Consistent, but probably not appreciated." Yep. That sounds right to me. :)) Britannica puts both Peter I and II of Brazil under "Pedro." But they also put a lot of early Pedros of Portugal under Peter. So they have a very relaxed set of rules. My cursory sampling of monarchs' names in the Britannica would be consistent with giving monarchs Anglicized names if they have been dead for over two hundred years. So maybe you have accurately stated the rule: "Consistent, but probably not appreciated" with the understanding that the cost-benefit balance between "consistent" and "not appreciated" shifts somewhere around 150 to 200 years. :)) ---Rednblu 14:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

After consulting the digital archives of the London Times for the 1800s and finding many, many references to Dom Pedro of Brazil and none for "Peter of Brazil," I propose the following. First, "Peter II of Brazil" should be moved to "Pedro II of Brazil;" similarly for his father "Peter I of Brazil" should be moved to "Pedro I of Brazil." Second, that Wikipedia should adopt the Anglicized monarch name if the London Times did at the time; similarly Wikipedia should adopt the native monarch name if the London Times did at the time. ---Rednblu 16:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The London Times solution might be a bit flawed, as the tendency is towards non-anglicized/non-normalized names for living people. At least it has been so for some time, I don't know really about the 19th century. But I think it might be quite right to have the Pedros of Brazil at Pedro. My comments on the talk page were more a reaction to the French analogy (which was seriously flawed) than anything else, really, and if evidence is Pedro is the more common usage in English, then Pedro it should be. Perhaps this discussion should be copied to Talk:Pedro II of Brazil and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) alike, so it will be more visible for those interested. -- Jao 17:37, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Good, you've documented that it was "Pedro" in the UK, I've already mentioned it was Pedro in the USA (I can dig out some old sources if I must to demonstrate). Pedro it is.

---

I am copying this dialog right now. I also posted a comment to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). ---Rednblu 18:01, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Documenting moves to Pedro I of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil

In light of the above discussion, and after consulting several contemporary commercial encyclopedias in English and finding Pedro I and Pedro II instead of Peter I and Peter II of Brazil, I moved Peter I to Pedro I and Peter II to Pedro II. ---Rednblu 07:29, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Someone moved this back to Peter II. All you need to do to find out his normal style is to look at the reference works on him: they are unanimous on Pedro II. No-brainer. Cripipper 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Backup of photos with long captions before moving the long captions to the Image page

File:Dom-pedro-ii-family-b.jpg

Pedro II's family.
From left to right: Comte d'Eu, Pedro II, Teresa, and Isabella

President Ulysses S. Grant and Pedro II greet the public from the platform of a Corliss Steam Engine. Philadelphia Exposition, 1876.

Photograph of Pedro II in his old age

File:Dompedro-II.jpg

Pedro II of Brazil

These are backup of photos and long-captions before I shortened the captions. Shortened the captions on the page since the photos are small. Long captions moved to the Image page. You can see the large photo with the long captions if you click on the Thumbnail icon in the photo frame. ---Rednblu 09:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dom Pedro II of Brazil

Bah. And here's the first image to ever adorn this article. We have better images now I don't dispute. Maybe a few too many now. But I'd prefer old images be moved to talk or elsewhere rather than being made into orphans. I went to the trouble to find a public domain 19th century book with this illustration and scanned and uploaded it; I believe it made its web debut on Wikipedia. Maybe someone will have use for it someday again, so here it is in talk just in case. -- Infrogmation 23:41, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

what does reinterred mean

I know this is proably a stupid question, but what does reinterred mean. I've searched wikt:reinterred, dictionary.com, and google define.Bawolff 20:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind i serched intered and figured it out. Bawolff 21:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To cover [again] (as in with dirt)--Adam 20:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Illegal coup d'etat?

I was very amused at reading the statement "An illegal military coup d'etat of November 15, 1889 overthrew the monarchy." QUESTION: What, in the opinion of the writer of such extraordinary sentence, would constitute a legal coup d'etat? Thanks, --AVM 03:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an example of a monarchist, or more precicely, anti-republican sentiment being expressed by the writter... I myself am a Brazilian monarchist, but I hold no grudges against the Republicans. It's not proper to allow emotions such as grudges against the coup of November 15 to become transparent when writting an article for an encyclopedia. Daniel

Surely the problem isn't that it expresses a POV, so much as that it's completely redundant? Obviously the monarchy was overthrown illegally - it's very hard to overthrow a monarchy without it being illegal. The only instance I can really think of is Italy, where a referendum was held by the monarchical government. Pretty much everywhere else, monarchies have been overthrown in ways that are illegal under the monarchical constitution. So let's just remove "illegal". john k 23:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Pedro and Theresa

Theresa was a cousin from his mother, also an aunt second degrades to Pedro. The are related.

I hope, I explain it clear for everybody, who is interested in this point. --AndreaMimi (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained that point. Teresa was the first cousin of Maria Leopoldina, his mother-in-law, as they were both grandchildren of Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies and Marie Caroline of Austria. Teresa was also the first cousin of Pedro I, his father-in-law, as they were both grandchildren of Charles IV of Spain and Maria Luisa of Parma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.192.253 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

From Pedro to "Peter"

Although I´m a brazilian, I must confess that it really bothers me the fact that in all articles from Wikipedia, dead historical people are known by their english names, not the original ones. Pedro II should be called in here as "Peter II" or better: "Don Peter II".

In fact, I believe we should put all the brazilian royals with english names. I´m right now translating the article of Luís, second son of princess Isabel of Brazil to english (I´ve already done the same with Afonso, elder son of Pedro II) and we should really discuss this matter. --Lecen (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A king with epilepsy and mistress

This brazilian last king had epilepsy.His two sons died as children and one of his grandsons became mad, after he was sent to exile.He also had some mistress.Agre22 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)agre22

New article about the Emperor Pedro II

Pedro II´s biography as it is now is pretty much weak and unsourced. I´ve decided to rewrite it completely. Anyone who has seen my work on Platine War, Politics of the Empire of Brazil, Economy of the Empire of Brazil and Military of the Empire of Brazil knows what I´m talking about. I started the first part: Early years - Prince Imperial. So, that´s going to talk a while. Also, I´m using "Don", the english version of the Portuguese "Dom". The name stay as "Pedro" instead of "Peter" as it has already been discussed. Anyone who wants to help, please, do so. - --Lecen (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Just, what makes you believe there is an english form of "Dom"? It is a luso-brazilian title, equivalent, but not equal to the Spanish Don. So, we should use the title Dom, not Don. Smertios (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Smertios. I think Dom would be the correct usage. Don would be appropriate for Spanish or Italian nobles. Limongi (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That´s not correct. The Portuguese "Dom" it IS the SAME title as the spanish "Don". And more, in english, Dom means "Don". I´ll keep with the Don as it is the version that wikipedia use. If you want to change, ask for vote or something. . - --Lecen (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Lecen, what sources do you have confirming that Dom and Don mean the same thing? It's common sense here that Dom is a royal title, passed only by male lines of descendents from a former portuguese king. Don, on the other hand, is a minor aristocratic title used in Spain for nobles. Like Don Diego de da Vega in Zorro, for example. I can't see how they are equivalent. They just have the same roots. Also, there are absolutely no relations between the luso-brazilian title of Dom and the english title of Sir. The later is used for knights in the British lands, while the former has always been a royal title, to show that a person descends directly from a male line from a former portuguese monarch. Sir is similar to te spanish Don indeed, as they are both used to distinguish minor aristocrats, but it is completely different from the portuguese Dom, which has always been a royal, and not aristocratic title. I can gather material to prove that if you want, though i think everything will be in portuguese. Anyway, i doubt you will be able to find any references to Dom being used in the same way as Spanish Don or English Sir anywhere. What are your sources for saying that? Smertios (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, then please, show us yours sources that says that Dom and Don are not the same thing. I'll be waiting patiently. Dom in portuguese, and Don, in spanish, means "Domminus", that is, "Lord" or "Sir". Or in portuguese, "Senhor" or in spanish, "Señor". The title of Dom or Dona are not prerrogative of royals, as Pedro II gave to an english woman who lived in Brazil in the 1850s the right to use "Dona". And there are several portuguese nobles who aren[t of royal blood and has the "Dom". And the need to be a male line descendant is an absurd. If that was true, Leopoldina's children, like Dom Pedro Augusto and Dom Augusto wouldn't have "Dom". And they were grandchildren of Pedro II in female line and weren't in the direct line of succession. Again, please, show me your sources. Because I'll slap the face of the writer who dared to say those things. Capiche? - --Lecen (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I said the root from Spanish Don, Portuguese Dom and Italian Don are the same, as they all come from Latin Dominus, meaning Lord. But saying they are equivalents just because of that is not a good idea. It would be like saying that Earl and Count/Comte are the same title, even though wikipedia makes sure to separate them, just saying they correspond to the same rank. The same with Margrave and Marquis. You can't invent an English term like that, saying that Dom has been anglicized (sic) as Don. I doubt you'll find any English references from the 19th century referring to Pedro I or Pedro II as Don Pedro, or, more absurdly, Sir Pedro. The first source I can cite is wikipedia itself, in the portuguese version, which, although i know we aren't supposed to cite wikipedia itself as a source for the information, has a better researched set of articles about that. [1]. Also, I'm afraid to say you didn't research very well about Dª. Leopoldina's children. None of them uses the title of Dom or Dona. I have been involved with the brazilian monarchists and I can guarantee you that none of us refer to any members of the Saxe-Coburgh-Braganza branch of the Brazilian Imperial Family as dons. If you don't believe me, research Carlos Tasso in google, or in the portuguese wikipedia, and you'll see that. The children of Dona Isabel, on the other hand, have the right to use the title of Dom/Dona, as she was Empress de jure. Another good source I can think of is this site, which is one of the biggest lusophone online genealogical groups I know of: geneall But, as you are the one claiming that Don is the english form of Dom and is equivalent to Sir (which is a title for knights, not for royals or nobles), I suppose you are the one who has to gather evidence for that. Otherwise I believe the references to Don and Sir should be removed, as there are no sources confirming that. [2] and [3] are major policies of wikipedia, as far as i'm aware of. Smertios (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You still haven´t shown any sources to your claims. And yes, Earl is the same thing as Count as Margrave is the same thing as Marquis. They are just different names to the same rank in different countries. The sole fact that you´ve said that Leopoldina´s elder children were not called "Dom" shows how little you know about Brazilian history. I will not loose my time with you anymore, I have to rewrite the article. Go back to edit the "Naruto" articles, it´s better for you, for me, and for humankind. Trust me. - --Lecen (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, read WP:VERIFY, you cannot state that Dom, Don and Sir are all equivalent without giving a proper source. Second, it seems you don't have a great knowledge of the English language to assume Don is an anglicized version of Dom. Merriam-Webster recognizes both [2 Don] and Dom, as separate and different titles, according to its origins. That seems to be the problem here. The wikipedia article for (Margrave) clearly states that Margrave and Marquis are different titles (in France, actually, both exist), and not different names for the same title, in different languages. Also, I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the English Benedictine Congregation actually uses the title Dom and not Don. Wikipedia also has separate articles for those two titles, making your statement that Don is the wikipedia standard completely invalid. As for the situation about the Saxe-Coburgh-Braganzas, that's not the point of this discussion, though I have provided sources that they do not use the title of Dom/Dona. Please read Ramo de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança for that. And please read WP:EQ before adressing to anyone in a talk page here. And check the first pillar of wikipedia here: WP:FIVE. Considering we are still discussing this, and this problem falls into the doubtful but not harmful iten of WP:NOCITE, I'll just go with the standard procedure so we can continue this discussion. If possible, please provide quotes proving your statement that . As for the rest of the article, good job writing it. Just please read the guidelines i posted here and avoid saying things without sources proving them. Smertios (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, I´m going to start working on the article. I´ve added now a section about his death. The next one will be about his funeral. After that, about his life in exile. In case the article becomes to big or detailed, please, do NOT erase anything. When all it is done, we can even brake the article in several others. Any help, ideas, suggestions or something similar are always nice. - --Lecen (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Added the text of section Funeral. - --Lecen (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Lecen, you've done a great job on the Pedro II article... congrats! I think that we should change the infobox image with a portrait of Pedro II in regalia (maybe File:Pedro II1847.JPG) instead of the current one, where he is depicted civilian clothing. Most (nearly all) articles about monarchs (i.e. French monarchs and English monarchs) displays the monarch in some sort of royal (or military) attire in the infobox. After all he was the Emperor and not a civilian. Please let me know what you think. Limongi ^(talk) 17:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That´s a good question. Pedro II really despised the pomp of the monarchy. It is very known how much he tried to avoid it. That´s why there are no pictures of him in regalia and rare are the ones with any kind of uniform. He liked the idea of being the "Emperor-citizen", a simple man that had a public office and dressed like everyone else. He was, what we could call, a precursor of the modern constitucional monarch. So, that´s the problem: should we put a picture of him in regalia to attend Wikipedia´s rules or show him the way he wanted and liked to be seen? I sincerely don´t have an answer for it. But the picture you´me mentioned is a very good one and I wanted to use it on the text about his early years as Emperor. Right now I´m working on the text about the reaction worldwide and in Brazil to his death. I´m open to suggestions. - --Lecen (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Finished the section about the reaction to the Emperor´s death. I´m going to take a break for now. If someone has the patience to correct grammar and spelling errors, please, do so. - --Lecen (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that lead images have to be the ones which show the monarch in "royal attire". It's just that such images are most commonly used as lead images because most official portraits depict monarchs in "royal attire". If the most commonly used image of the last Emperor of Brazil is the image of him as citizen, feel free to use it as the lead image! Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost Finished the section about the Emperor´s legacy. Only one more section to go: "The Emperor returns home" - --Lecen (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Finished at last. I´ll work another day on the "Last years" section. - --Lecen (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to abstain on this issue, but I think we could keep the current image. My only argument is that this image is a photograph, not a painting. Regards; Felipe Menegaz 03:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Don´t worry, we were not talking about the current image. - --Lecen (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

New article about the Emperor Pedro II - Part 2

I´ve added the text to accession section. - --Lecen (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC) I´ve added a paragraph to Education section now. - --Lecen (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I´ve added the final piece of the Education section now. I´ve seen that so far no one has made any coments about it. Or I´m going into the right direction or there is no one else reading the article. I´ll work on the "coronation" section next week. Please, correct any spelling or grammar errors. - --Lecen (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Added text to "Republicanism" section. - --Lecen (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Added text to "War of the Triple Alliance" section. It is in Portuguese. I will translate peace by peace. - --Lecen (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I´m done translating it. - --Lecen (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added the section "Third travel to Europe". I will translate it to English later. - --Lecen (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ended translation. Added a new information on Republicanim section. - --Lecen (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement under 'Early Years' that Pedro was a nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte isn't exactly accurate. Rather, he was a nephew of Napoleon's second wife, Marie Louise (of Austria). Marie Louise was the sister of Pedro's mother. Thus Pedro and Napoleon II were indeed first cousins. But he had no descent from the Bonaparte family.(M. O'Connor, Oct., 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windemere (talk • contribs) 22:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

So, out of curiosity, the man who is married to your aunt and is the father of your cousin, who he is if not your uncle? - --Lecen (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added the text to section "Racial thoughts and abolitionists". The text of the whole article still need copy-edit, however. - --Lecen (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Categories

Why is he not categorized as a child ruler in the anglophone Wiki? His sister Maria II of Portugal is, the rules on the page state that the geographical location of Brazil would not allow his listing there, only those of "Europe, the Middle East and North Africa". Does anyone know the reason for classifying them according to location? Europe, the Middle East and North Africa don't have that much in commom in my opinion. There is a category for Asian child rulers. Middle East has a broad meaning, some consider it as part of Asia and some include North Africa in there too. So it's a bit blurred, I'm confused. I know Brazil was the only "successful" monarchy in the Americas, should there be a sub category for him? Lusophone wiki does not distiguinsh them by location (although there are quite less listings on it). Notconnectedtome (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes by Fernandoe

"Brazilian royalty, of the Brazilian branch of the House of Braganza and as heir to the imperial throne of Brazil..."

This change does not seem to be quite accurate. While Pedro II was descended from the Braganza, I've never read that the honorific title was reserved for rulers or the royal house. Also, changing the text of the quoted and sourced material in the footnote must be reverted, unless you have another edition to cite which uses the alternate text.

"Bragança e Habsburgo" indicates Pedro II's heritage, but not his name or title. If there is a WP:RS which explicitly says differently, such a statement may be added as an alternative view, so long as the source is cited. • Astynax ^talk 20:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now checked the dictionaries available to me, and they state that "Dom" is applied both to members of the royal family, as well as to other nobles and persons of position within the national and church hierarchy. If there is a law or some source which says that it is limited only to the "Kings, Queens, Princes and children of Princes", I will defer to that. • Astynax ^talk 00:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, "Dom" is not limited to royals – the rule is quite complex but you figured out the general.

No, "Habsburg and Braganza" is not Peter II "surname". --Tonyjeff (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Right changes by Fernandoe

Dear Astynax, sorry, I thought that I had wrote the explication about what I'm changing in the text... Please, let's go to check the information that I add in this article:

• The nobilitiy is unauthorized to used this honorific title. You can see an example, in the article of Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, Marquis of Pombal, one of the most importants nobles of Portugal and of his colonial ultramarine Empire. he never used the honorific title of Dom.
• Just the titled royalty is called by the honorific title Dom. For examples you can see in the articles of:

- Pedro I of Brazil - Página de Miguel de Bragança, Príncipe da Beira, na Wikipédia lusófona - Januária Maria de Bragança na Wikipédia lusófona - Página de Maria II de Portugal, na Wikipédia lusófona - Maria Amélia de Bragança, na Wikipédia Lusófona - João VI de Portugal, na Wikipédia Lusófona - Maria Francisca de Assis de Bragança, na Wikipédia Lusófona

All of those people that I mention before were members of royalty, all of them use the honorific title of Dom or in the female: Dona.

Let's see now members of the nobility of Brazil, Portugal and Spain: - Page of Marquis of Angeja, na Wikipédia Lusófona - Page of Marquis of Funchal, na Wikipédia Lusófona - Page of the Marquis of Louriçal, na Wikipédia Lusófona - Page of Afonso de Albuquerque, duke of Goa, na Wiipédia Lusófona - Page of Duke of Pamela, na Wikipédia Lusófona

All of those people that I mention in the "second part of "*" were members of nobility and neither of them used the honorific title of Dom.

So, we can certainly see that just the heir members of royalty, like the Emperor, Empress, King, Queen, heir Prince, "infantes"(Princes not heirs of Portugal and Spain), Brazilian Imperial Princes, Princes of Brazil, can use the honorific title Dom.

• Peter II of Brazil, was son of Pedro I of Brazil, Emperor of Brazil, and of Maria Leopoldina of Austria. Peter I of Brazil, was son of João VI of Portugal, King of Portugal and the Duch of the House of Braganza. It is obvious that Peter II of Brazil, is a descendant of Brazilian branch of the House of Braganza.
• So, Peter II is the heir of throne of Brazilian Emperor, since his father has abdicate in favor of his, to return to Portugal, where he was King of Portugal as Dom Peter VI of Portugal.

I justify all my changes... thank you... and I expect that we all have good edition. Sincerely, --Fernandoe (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Brazilian nobles with dom: marquês da Cunha, marquês de Maceió, marquês de São João da Palma, et al.
• Portuguese nobles with dom: D. João de Lencastre, duque d'Ávila e Bolama, duque de Viseu, duque de Bragança, duques do Cadaval (this list is really long).
• For sure, one must read a minimum to give any sort of opinion about this subject, even more to understand what is considered a "surname" among nobility. (just in time: Peter I of Brazil was IV in Portugal, not VI……) --Tonyjeff (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tony, the first three articles had been edited by you... you add the honorific title of Dom in this three Brazilian nobles, and you should know that it's wrong. Now... let's check the other "nobles" that you mentioned...

• João de Lencastre - As we can see, in the page of editions, a user, calls Lgrave, add the honorific title of Dom to João de Lencastre, and I'm sure that this user made a historical mistake, maybe he didn't have suficient nobility knowledge. but... as you can see, JOÃO DE LENCASTRE IS NOT MEMBER OF NOBILITY, he didn't had titles of nobility, and he is not descendant of nobles. He certainly was a really important man... he was an general-governor of the Colonial Brazil, that was an REALLY important post, and he hold other importants posts! But, as we can see, if we are going to edit in base that all the Brazilian nobility, the Portuguese nobility and the Spanish nobility can use the Dom, we are going to make an historical mistake! Because João de Lencastre was not member of nobility and we are going to add the Dom to all the important people, PLEASE.
• Antônio José de Ávila, duque d'Ávila e Bolama - In his article, in the Wikipédia Lusófona, he is not mentioned with the honirific Dom, and he doesn't want, because nobles not related(parentesco muito próximo) close to the royalty, are unauthorired to use this honorific title.
• Fernando de Portugal, duque de Viseu - Fernando de Portugal, was a son of a Portuguese King, and therefore, member of the royalty. He was an infante(princes not heirs to the throne of Portugal and Spain). Son of the King Duarte I de Portugal (Wikipédia Lusófona) (in the English Wikipédia: King Edward I of Portugal). He was a Condestável of Portugal, that is like a supreme commander of the army and the navy. Besides, Duke of Viseu and Duke of Beja. He is authorised to use the honirific Dom, because he was a member of the royalty, he was son of a King, and descendant of various nobles and royaltys familys.
• Afonso I, duque de Bragança - was a son of a King too, his father was the King John I of Portugal and he was the first Duke of Braganza, the "founder" of most important Duchy of Portugal... He was member of the royalty too.
• Duques de Candaval - The title of nobility was created in favor of D. Nuno Álvares Pereira de Melo. He was a descendant of Nuno Álvares Pereira, that was Saint Nuno of Saint Mary, Condestável of Portugal(Supreme commander of the Army and the Navy), count of (Barcelos, Arraiolos and Ourém) and father of the first Queen of the Braganza Dynasty. The father of the first Duke of Candaval had an decisive part in the Portuguese restauration in 1640, when the Kingdom of Portugal, gain "independence" of the Habsburg monarchs. In the page of Dukes of Candaval, is write that the House descended of D. Álvaro, 4.° son of D. Fernado, 2.° Duke of Braganza, and Fernando, 2.° duke of Braganza was grandson of a Portuguese King. The dukes of Candaval have ancestors in the royalty.

Please, based your theory in concrete evidences! Now, we can see that the Emperor Pedro II of Brazil have the honorific Dom, because he is member of the royalty. Because all the people that are members of the royalty of Brazil, Portugal and Spain, or that were related closed(parentesco muito próximo) to the royalty, and that belong to the titled nobility too, have the honorific Dom.

Sincerely, --Fernandoe (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Fernandoe, I am not so dishonest as you to simply put some people that I "Believe" that were Dons. Let's see:

marquês da Cunha, marquês de Maceió, marquês de São João da Palma, et al.

Appart from Cadaval and Bolama, who were not of Royalty (no matter they have "ancestors in royalty, it does not guarantee the right to be of it), I can cite D. Vasco da Gama (yes, he earned it!), visconde das Canas, viscondessa de Aljezur. Also, Afonso de Albuquerque earned a title of Dom, apart from what you state above.

Pedro II was Dom because he inherited it, just it. The more you try to understand about nobility, the worse you cause to the project, based on you wrong understandings... Try to read Boulanger's book before talk about Dom and Brazilian nobility, please... "Dom" could be given, by the King's wish, and many people were eager to have this honor (even paying for). --Tonyjeff (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, there is a story in Pedro II's biography written by Heitor Lyra about a British widow who maintained by herself a cemitery for protestants due to her late husband. The emperor was so moved by her story that he granted her the right to use "Dona". No more, no less. She got no title of nobility. Only the right to be called Dona. But I know that Fernandoe knows nothing about nobility and that's why I avoided discussing with him about it. Waiste of time. --Lecen (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right, Lecen: titles could be given, no matter one's ancestry, and Dom was just another title in fact. Peter I ensured the use of Dom to his bastard siblings, and the Saxe-Braganza branch still uses Dom (the correctness of it may be argued). "Dom" has some special rules concerning the succession, but it is another matter. There were lots of Brazilian people who earned titles of Dom, fidalgo and others, appart from coat of arms, and they are not part of the "entitled nobility" (baron, viscount, count, marquess, duke). In Portugal, they were hundreds.

To our luck, English Wikipedia is not like Portuguese Wikipedia, where someone with almost no knowledge may write what believes about something. --Tonyjeff (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tony, you offend the Wikipédia Lusofóna! Ok? You are proveing your bad faith. --Fernandoe (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Empty Sections

• Should the empty sections in this biography just be removed? Rex Imperator (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. If you notice, all of them are linked to articles that focus on every aspect of Pedro II's life: from his birth until his death and even after (Legacy). Right now I am working on them. One (early years) has been raised to GA. Another one (decline and fall) is being reviewed and might become GA. Once all are written and are considered GA I will work on Pedro II's article itself based on those focused articles. Of course if someone else wants to do that on my place, he or she can fell free to to it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

National Assembly

The article contains at present 8 references to "National Assembly". No political body existed by that name in the Empire of Brazil. The Brazilian imperial parliament was called "Assembléia Geral" (General Assembly). The General Assembly was a bicameral legislature, comprising the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies (see Political Constitution of the Empire of Brazil, arts. 13 and 14). Accordingly, I propose that references to "National Assembly" should be changed to references the General Assembly. Wikipedia should not invent names for the political institutions of a country--189.122.211.125 (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC).

When creating a section in an article's talk page, you should do it at the bottom.

The name "Assembléia Geral" can also be easily translated to National Assembly. There are authors who use "Regulating Power" but also "Moderating Power" in reference to "Poder Moderador" and sometimes is not the best to make a direct translation. The other articles about Brazilian imperial history also use the translation "National Assembly". --Lecen (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have found both "National Assembly" and "General Assembly" used in references. "National Assembly" seems to have a long history in 19th century English-language press and other accounts. I assume that "National Assembly" was used to distinguish this assembly from other types of assemblies (i.e., not the national legislature) for the benefit of their English-language audience. I have introduced the Portuguese title for the assembly at the points where it would first be seen by readers. Readers can decide the translation for themselves. • Astynax ^talk 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Speech from the Throne paining

In the painting by Pedro Américo (called Speech from the Throne), the Emperor is portrayed not actually delivering the Speech, but standing, before seating on the Throne to deliver the speech. So I propose that the caption of the painting should not say that the emperor is portrayed "delivering" the Speech, but "about to deliver" it. However, given that prior edits on this point have generated confusion, I will post this proposal here and wait until tomorrow. If there is no objection then I'll make the change. It seems to me that the editor Lecen had finally agreed that the use of "delivering" in the caption did not reflect the reality of the painting, but now another editor (Astynax) has again resorted to the use of that language when making an edit intended to reduce the size of the caption. I agree with Astynax that the mention "in the opening of the General Assembly", can be suppressed, but I submit that to return to the word "delivering" is misleading. --189.122.211.125 (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

One more time: when you create a section, you must do it at the BOTTOM of the talk page. There is no reason to be so precise about the caption of the image. It is not necessary to have him holding a piece of paper in the picture to have the right to write "delivering". What matter is that he was dressed in regalia due to the Speech of the Throne. That's it. If there is a painting of a boy with a book opened but he is not reading it yet does not mean that we can not write its capiton as "Boy studying". If you do want to help Wikipedia, start writing other articles related to Brazilian imperial history. There are plenty that have few to no info. Also, the wording used on this article and several others related to it - tha are rated Good Articles - on Assembléia Geral is National Assembly. It can not be written "General Assembly" on a caption while everywhere else on the article is written National Assembly. --Lecen (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Good. Now we are talking politely. I still consider that there is no problem in saying that the Emperor was "about to deliver" the Speech. I see no reason why that minor edit should be reversed when, clearly, he is not "delivering" the Speech. As for "National Assembly", maybe that innacurate wording is used in this and other articles only because you decided to use that term in the articles you wrote, instead of opting for the accurate term. I appreciate that you made a great contribution to this article, but that does not mean that the article is perfect; or that it can only be edited with your consent; or that imprecise names of political institutions shouldn't be replaced (in all instances in which they occur in the article) by the true name of that political institution. In any event, I think Astynax's solution of including the Portuguese term "Assembléia Geral" once at the first occurence of the term National Assembly was a good compromise solution to the question of the name of the legislature. Best regards,--189.122.211.125 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not accuse me. You came in here and added information that was not according to the sources used and did not bother to create a section to discuss in here with other editors who contribute. These articles were all abandoned before I came in here. I, and also Astynax, had a great work to make them look as they are. That does not mean that we own any of them, but we can not let editors ruin articles. Also, is not merely "about to deliver", is about you trying to push the wrong date (1873) and wrong age (46). If you can't help, don't get on the way. Also, if you want to be so precise about what he was doing, first, you should get a good source, second, you can do that in an article about the painting itself (there are many articles about painting around) or in the description page of the painting. The image is in here only to show Pedro II in regalia. That's all. More important than saying that he was "about to deliver" is to tell that beneath him can be seen the Duke of Caxias, the Viscount of Rio Branco, João Alfredo and other politicians or that the Count d'Eu and the Empress can be see in the balcony - but we did not. --Lecen (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Start class

Start class for this article? I don't now well, but I think that is at least c (or b) class. (sorry for the bad english) Senhordopoder (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

We've nominated it to good article and waiting for reviews. After that, we will nominate it to featured article (the highest grade). Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Marriage by proxy

I today restablished correct and sourced information on the marriage of the Emperor that took place by proxy in Naples on 30 May 1843. That information is found also in wikipedia's article on Empress Teresa Cristina. Accordingly, the Nuptial Mass of 4 September 1843 was not an actual "wedding", but merely the occasion for the ratification of the vows and the grant of the nuptial blessing, in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church's praxis related to proxy weddings. The references to the proxy wedding in Naples are supported by several sources mentioned in the article. Please note also that the version of the article that mentioned a wedding on 4 September, but that failed to make reference to the proxy wedding in the article narrative, was not only misleading, but it also contradicted the bottom part of the article (the "issue" section), in which a brief reference is made to the proxy wedding and its date (when mentioning that the issue was born of the marriage to Teresa Cristina that took place by proxy on 30 May 1843). --Antonio Basto (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I know that all of that because it was I the one who wrote this article as well as the on on Teresa Cristina. --Lecen (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. And this article on Emperor Pedro II is an excellent article. Congratulations. I even nominated it for GA status. But not all passages of the current article are necessarily perfect, and that's why this talk page for discussing improvements to the article exists. Now, you and I both know that the marriage took place by proxy, and "your" article on Empress Teresa Cristina contains a very well written passage describing that marriage. But wikipedia is written for people who may not yet "know that all". It is written for people who might want to learn about Pedro II from scratch. And, up until recently, one who read the article on Emperor Pedro II without already knowing that he was married by proxy on 30 May 1843 in Naples would be mislead into thinking that the marriage contract took place in Rio de Janeiro on 4 September 1843. What happened in Naples on 30 May 1843 was a Church wedding, fully valid under the Catholic Church's canon law, and on that point, by proxy, Pedro II was married to Teresa Cristina, and she was the Empress of Brazil. Now, canon law requires that a ceremony known as "Nuptial Blessing" (that is not an essential part of the Sacrament) be withheld when a marriage by proxy takes place. That's why, once the newlyweds meet in person, they need to receive the "Nuptial Blessing", and that's what happened on 4 September 1843, in a ceremony that was not technically a wedding and that merely ratified an earlier fully binding marriage. Also, please note that whole context of the article's passage (on Pedro II's displeasure with the looks of his wife and on the necessity of hours to convince him to go ahead) changes once it is known that, juridically too, the marriage was already a done deal. That's why I believe that an insertion copying some sentences from "your" article on Teresa Cristina (sentences that detail the marriage by proxy that took place in Naples) would actually benefit and enrich this section of this present article on Pedro II, and that such addition would also make this article (especially the marriage section) more informative and accurate. I therefore submit that the language of my edit should be re-instated. --Antonio Basto (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Marriage details can be found in Consolidation of Pedro II of Brazil. Details can be found there. If you want to write about marriage customs or whatever, do it on a proper article, not in here. Where the marriage happened and who represented Pedro II is not important. Duke of Caxias, Marquis or Paraná, Viscount of Rio Branco are not mentioned here, why should a brother of Teresa Cristina? And I hardly care if you nominated for Good Article. You did that while I was still working on this article with Astynax, and did not even bother to help in the nomination procedure.

In other words: this article has passed through an extensive and exhaustive process of review in the FAC nomination. It took us a long time to deal with many reviews of it. If this article is regarded as one of the best in Wikipedia, it is for a reason. --Lecen (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I understand your point. However, I personally believe that a detailed explanation should go into the sub-articles. As was mentioned during the FAC review process, the article is long already, and various editors will always like to expand certain points. Doing so defeats the purpose of having subarticles, both by making the article again too big, and by making the subarticles themselves redundant. Major additions also have the potential for exposing the article to challenge of its FA status on the basis that they were not reviewed and may not come up to FA criteria. Perhaps the words "wedding celebration" could be wikilinked to a fuller explanation within Consolidation of Pedro II of Brazil#Marriage or Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies#Marriage. Eventually, we would like to see subarticles themselves get to GA or FA status, and some of the details in your comments would be valuable if cited in both of those articles. • Astynax ^talk 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Astynax, understood and agreed. I take your point on the length of the article. In its version as it stood two days ago, the article's text didn't even mention the proxy wedding of 30 May 1843, only a "wedding" on 4 September (reference to the proxy wedding only occured in the "issue" list, not in the main body of the article). So the article appeared to have an internal contradiction on that point, and it also appeared to contradict Teresa Cristina's article (because, while Pedro's article mentioned a wedding on 4 September, Teresa Cristina's mentioned a wedding on 30 May; this could lead someone not familiar with the biographies of the people in question to believe that wikipedia was contradicting itself) That has been improved in the last 48 hours, thanks to an observation between parenthesis added by the editor Lecen. I don't think an observation between parenthesis is ideal, because the paragraph appears not well organized. I think the paragraph in question would be of a better quality if it were re-written so as to integrate the information about the proxy wedding in the narrative, instead of having it placed in the end in brackets. That's why I reversed Lecen's edit. But, now that he re-reversed, I will not insist on my version of the paragraph. And I agree with Lecen that the name of the person who acted as proxy is not a necessary piece of information. So, even if the paragraph were re-written, some details used in my version could be eliminated. But I will not insist on that point any further, because I don't think it is a major thing. So, basically, I yeald to your arguments and agree to the current version of the text. Lecen, I don't understand the reason for your hostility. Even if you disagree with my edits or with my observations in this talk page, we can discuss things in a civilized manner. And there is no need to remind you that, even if this is a FA, it is still subject to edits, and that even if I were a newcomer to wikipedia or a non-frequent editor, I could still edit this article legitimately, provided that my information was sourced. So, basically, it is absurd for you to tell me to go find another article to edit or write, as if this article was your property, or as if each and every edit to this article needed your approval. You may be a great contributor - and, once again, I congratulate you on an excellent article - but you are not the owner of the article. In editing it, I have acted in a civil manner, by posting my observations and concerns on this page, so there was no need for your bouts of rudeness in your replies above.--Antonio Basto (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Decadence" and Brazilian Positivism

In the section titled "Decadence" it is stated that "Positivism" spread among Brazilian military officers and led to opposition to the monarchy. However, the link does not lead to any discussion of "Positivism" in this Brazilian sense, only to the philosophy of Positivism, to Legal Positivism, etc. If there is no link, more information on Brazilian positivism should be provided in the article, since it is cited as one of the main factors leading to the overthrow of the Emperor. Tgcnow (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"Greatest Brazilian ever"

How is it possible for something that has just gone through FA to conclude its lead para with something as slangy, ahistorical and cite-free as "and he is usually ranked as the greatest Brazilian ever"? 87.224.74.143 (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence back to the form it had when the article had GA status. Not every change made during even a FAC review represents an improvement. As for the statement's historicity and citations, please read on down for the well-referenced statement that this is a position assigned to Pedro II by historians. The introductory section of Wikipedia articles simply summarizes the more detailed and cited information which follows in the body of the article. • Astynax ^talk 20:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a propaganda of the monarchy

As a brazilian, I have to say that these article is like a propaganda of the monarchy. Who read Machado de Assis knows that. People knows that there were several opposition newspapers during the Second Empire, many intelectual in favor of Liberalism, and the end of the monarchy was a relief (the proof is that the emperor did not continue living in his "beloved country", but soon fled to Portugal). It says that Pedro II is a hero for Brazilians. Oh, really? I believe our ancestors at the time much more glorified Marechal Deodoro and the hope of a new time; also there was a recent referendum and no Brazilian would back the monarchical system. In conclusion, I think the article is not impartial. This is just an outburst by a well-known user who had made significant editions in the Lusophone Wikipedia. NandO ^ta_lk! 14:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I also think that some anglophone wikipedia editors were deceived by a Brazilian user who (I don't know why) loves the monarchy... NandO ^ta_lk! 14:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm also Brazilian, and I disagree with you. This is a very well written article, backed by solid third-party sources. Lecen spent a considerable amount of time and effort editing the article and has done an amazing job. I have many of the books cited in the article (As Barbas do Imperador is an exceptionally well written and detailed biography of Pedro II) and can attest that the article follows the views that most historians have about Pedro II and his reign. If you (Auréola) or any other editors don't agree with parts of the article, then find other credible sources and re-write it. Limongi (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is very clear that despite being a respected and beloved Emperor, Pedro II made whatever he could to destroy the monarchy from inside. That is even more detailed in Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil. Read that article and you will see that not only he did not care for the end of the monarchy by a coup, but he also had been hindered for at least a decade any chance of his daughter succeeding him. I also suggest Legacy of Pedro II of Brazil to see the general view toward Pedro II from 1889 to the present day. And please, try to read a little more. The Positivists despised Liberalism. Positivism is very similar to Communism and Nazism, two ideologies that are completely opposite do democracy and capitalism (the political and economical branches of Liberalism). Lastly, Pedro II was so respected, that even his "enemies"(if we can dare to call them as such) wanted him to become the first dictator in their Positivist republic. P.S.: Machado de Assis was a monarchist, so you should search for another example. P.S.2: Being a monarchist myself would be a little odd, since the article is quite clear in saying that the Brazilian monarchy fell because there were NO heirs. The House of Braganza was extinguished with the death of Pedro II and Isabel. There are no more heirs. And please, spare me of pointing those "Orleans-Braganza". --Lecen (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain why we should be spared from pointing out the Orleans-Braganza? Isabel herself was recognized as her father's heir during the life of the monarchy, and her sons were recognized as in line for the throne. How in the world were there no heirs? As far as I'm aware, there was never any kind of Salic law in either Portugal or Brazil, and the Orleans-Braganza are not some kind of distant indirect line - they are direct descendants of Pedro II. As far I understand it, there are still Brazilian monarchists today who support the claims of one or the other of the Orleans-Braganza pretenders, although obviously not very many of them. The fact of Isabel being a woman may have weakened the monarchy, but it certainly didn't mean that there were no heirs. john k (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It means little. Although there was no Salic Law, since the very first Portuguese King, Afonso Henriques, all monarchs (with the exception of the Spanish usurpers) were their descendants in the male line. The Orleans-Braganza are not. They could be regarded as heirs by the law, but in practice that meant nothing. If Pedro II had had a son, even if illegitimate, the monarchy could have been saved (João I, King of Portugal, was an illegitimate son of Pedro I, and became King so that a woman did not inherit the throne. The Braganzas are male line descendants of the first Duke of Braganza, an illgitimate son of João I). No wonder that in Brazil there was never a powerful monarchism, but instead, nostalgia. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Saxe-Coburg-Braganzas might disagree with you there. Furthermore, whatever the case of João I, two women did hold the throne in Portugal in much more recent times - Maria I (who also ruled Brazil) and Maria II (who was Pedro II's own sister!). And João IV claimed the throne, as I understand it, more on the basis of his legitimate descent from a granddaughter of Manuel I than his illegitimate descent from João I. You seem to be cherry-picking to prove your point. The fact that Isabel was a woman may have weakened belief in the monarchy's future, weakened support for the monarchy, and weakened Pedro II's own will to continue the monarchy. The idea that there were no heirs, when Isabel acted as regent for long periods on several occasions, when she was explicitly recognized as her father's heiress and given the title of Princess Imperial, and so forth, can't really be credited. Most deposed monarchies in this period inspire more nostalgia than powerful monarchism. I'd think the fact of Brazil's status as the only monarchy in the Americas had more to do with things than Isabel per se in dampening monarchism. john k (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As to the article, I'd say there are some questions of tone where it does seem slanted in favor of Pedro II and the monarchy, but that I don't have enough expertise to say whether or not this represents a bias in the article or simply represents the current consensus. Lecen's claim here that Brazilian Positivism (a subject which does not seem to have its own wikipedia article) is akin to Nazism makes me a bit doubtful of his neutrality, but the article is mostly cited to what appear to be reliable sources. If Auréola has problems with specific statements, he should bring them up here and give citations and quotes to explain why the article's take is biased. Auréola's own statements here, I'll add, give even less confidence in not only his neutrality, but his knowledge of the subject. john k (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Maria I was married to Pedro III, a Braganza (younger brother of José I, father or Maria I). Maria II was supposed to have married to Miguel I (yonger brother of Maria I's father, Pedro I or IV). Miguel's betrayal ans subsequent war led her to marry a non-Braganza, an excepetional case. My point at saying that the need to be a descendant in male line was not picked out of my head, but is what historians say. Simple like that. Brazil status as the only monarchy was never an issue, in fact, was always a motive of pride.

It is not I who s sayng that Brazilian Positivism is similar to Communism, but historians. See Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil. The reason why I used more than 30 different books was to avoid accusations of "taking sides". --Lecen (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You compared positivism to Nazism, which is not the same as comparing it to communism (or fascism). Beyond that, I understand that there may have been a sense, in both Brazil and Portugal, that the monarch should come from the male line of Afonso Henriques. Such a feeling did not prevent members of the House of Saxe-Coburg from becoming Kings of Portugal, though, and I have trouble thinking that such feeling was the main reason that Isabel and her descendants were prevented from becoming emperors of Brazil. And to say that there were no heirs is clearly wrong. There were no male heirs, but Isabel's succession was perfectly valid under the constitution, and she actually ruled Brazil on several occasions in her father's absence. It would be one thing to say that Manuel II of Portugal had no heirs - he basically didn't, as the Miguelist line was excluded and the other lines descended from the Coburgs and Braganzas were not Portuguese. It is quite another to say that Pedro II had no heirs when his own daughter was the acknowledged heiress-presumptive and had full rights of succession under the constitution. john k (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He had heirs according to te constitution: his daughter, followed by her children, and Leopoldina's two eldest sons. In practice, no one ever cared about that. Pedro II did not want the crown, Isabel did not want the crown and her eldest son, Pedro, also did not want the crown. I don't have plans on writing about Brazilian monarchism, but know that while thousands of Brazilians were dying in the 1890s fighting to restore the monarchy, the Imperial family never bothered to help them, not even sayng words of support. As historian Roderick J. Barman said in his Pedro IIs biography: Pedro II was the main responsable for his overthrown. If you want to see the fall decadence and fall of the monarchy through the eyes of the ruling circle, I'd recommend José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco. --Lecen (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the monarchy fell because the dynasty was not particularly interested in continuing to rule is a very different proposition from the idea that it fell because there were no heirs. The former argument can arise whether or not there were heirs. john k (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue of neutrality was raised prior to and during reviews of this article. The article reflects not only the positive assessment of the references, but the overwhelming consensus of international scholarship over the last century. I will note again that Wikipedia's guidelines only allow a summary reflecting the references regarding subjects—personal viewpoints of editors and fringe viewpoints should not come into play here. Because Pedro II upheld free speech and constitutionalism, there indeed were critics, and they were even more evident during his reign than afterwards. Many of these criticisms involved minor issues which would be too granular for an encycolpedia article (readers who want to know about disagreements over the routing of a rail line can find that information by researching, but it is too detailed for a summary), and others are already noted in this article (such as criticism over the abolition of slavery). That he did not attempt to sway things through secret police, censorship and other repressive tactics—as was increasingly the case in other monarchies of the period—bolsters his high reputation, rather than impugns it. The article as it stands is a fair summary of current scholarship. A new sub-article recounting negative views of Pedro II would a fine addition, but I am unaware of any good sources which could be used to support such a project. • Astynax ^talk 20:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Secret police, censorship, and other repressive tactics were increasingly the case in other monarchies between 1840 and 1889? On what basis can you claim that? Russia was repressive throughout the period, and Britain and Belgium were constitutional throughout, but most every other monarchy evolved towards greater liberalism and democracy in this time period. The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Sardinia all became constitutional monarchies in 1848, and remained such thereafter. Prussia and Austria never quite became real constitutional monarchies, but certainly were far more democratic and liberal in 1889 than they had been in 1840. What exactly are you referring to? I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I'm very suspicious when the people assuring me that this article is following a long-standing historical consensus are themselves making very questionable factual claims. john k (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Europe is not the only place where there were monarchies. Less with the Eurocentrism, please. Ottoman Empire, Iran, China and Japan could hardly be considered "democratic". Not even Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia could attempt to be called the same. And the existence of democratic monarchies in Europe is mentioned in Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil#Republicanism. Since you still did not bother to read the article, of which this one is a summary, is quite hard to have a decent discussion.

And careful with accusations. --Lecen (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

But I will leave the answers to Benjamin Constant and Deodoro da Fonseca, the two main leaders of the republican coup. On 11 November 1889, they both met (this is mentione briefly in Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil#The last year to decide on whether they would or not lauch the coup. Deodoro asked, still on doubt and after hearing from Constant the reasons to go on with the plan: "What about the old man [the Emperor]?" Constant replied:

"The revolution absolutely can not stop respectifuly before his throne; but if we win, I garantee you that he shall be treated will all attentions deserved by his state of health and age. [...] Besides, it is not he the one who rules this unfortunate contry, so worthy of better luck; but these courtiers without patriotism, who have as goal, at all cost-without scruples and without caring for the needs- take control and stablish their domain in the 3rd reign [Isabel's reign], this monstruosity, that to our honor, the majority of the monarchists themselves, the most honest ones, are angrily against because it will be the ruin and the eternal shame of our Fatherland." (I added the bold to the letters)

Source: Silva, Hélio. 1889: A República não esperou o amanhecer. Porto Alegre: L&PM, 2005, p.90 ISBN 85-254-1344-5

You don't like the reasons to why the monarchy fell? Well, you can complain to the dead, then. --Lecen (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The leading text of this article is written from an extraordinarily monarchist point of view. The whole text distorts history and includes statements that are objectively false. It is quite silly to picture the reign of Pedro II as a paradise of human rights and say that those in favor of a republic were very few and all of them wished to establish a dictatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.23.20.241 (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article's text. And is quite hard to advocate monarchism with an Emperor who regarded himself as republican and who wanted more than anything to see the monarchy extinguished. Nowhere it says that all republicans were in favor of a dictatorship. What it says is that the military officers who were positivists wanted a dictatorship. And according to several historians, republicans, even the ones who desired a parliamentary republic or presidential republic were a very small group. --Lecen (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

....on your main page article, and an interesting read. I shall look forward to reading what Pedro's detractors have to say in the upcoming sub-page.... Amandajm (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Name translation!!!

I find utterly stupid to translate a full person name into English, whatever the status. A name is a name and it must remain as in the original, there is NO English version, not even in the case of the Pope. It is an accepted custom, but it should NEVER be sanctioned in an enciclopedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.81.79.234 (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Change for discussion in red -

His name in full was Pedro de Alcântara João Carlos Leopoldo Salvador Bibiano Francisco Xavier de Paula Leocádio Miguel Gabriel Rafael Gonzaga (English: Peter of Alcantara John Charles Leopold Saviour Vivian Francis Xavier of Paula Leocadio Michael Gabriel Raphael Gonzaga)

It's referenced - but does it improve the article? In my opinion, it does. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

See Frederick III, German Emperor. It's another featured article. Don't like it? You can complain with the manual of style guys. --Lecen (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, it's bullshit. And very American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.81.213.161 (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

How polite are we, isn't? Gotta love one-purpose IPs... --Lecen (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Lecen. And also, pray tell me, how is anglicizing a name "American"??? I'd love to hear your brilliant explanation for that one... Ruby2010 (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Anglicized names are used in some, mostly older, references. So it is appropriate to include them just for that reason (someone may be searching using the anglicized version). I have more a problem with using anglicized names in titles, which this article does not (see the list of Portuguese monarchs), even when references use both Portuguese and anglicized versions. • Astynax ^talk 05:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Why don't we use File:Pedro II of Brazil - Brady-Handy.jpg as the infobox image instead of the current one? This one is better quality image of him. Spongie555 (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Strong intro claim ought to be moderated

I made an edit moderating some extreme statements in the article introduction, and was reverted by User:Lecen. I'd like to discuss one such statement:

"The reign of Pedro II thus came to an unusual end—he was overthrown while highly regarded by the people and at the pinnacle of his popularity, and most of his accomplishments were soon brought to naught as Brazil slipped into a long period of anarchy, dictatorship and economic crises."

Most of Pedro II's achievements weren't soon "brought to naught". This implies a polar opposite situation, and it was not the case. Many of his achievements, like national unity, the emancipation of slaves and most political freedoms, were upheld. The article itself quotes a historian who says "Rarely has a revolution been so minor", so there isn't room for such a dramatic statement as outlined above. And Brazil most certainly did not slip into a "long period of anarchy": quite the opposite, it fell under authoritarian military rule, quelled insurrections and shaved off foreign interference.

The other statement I edited is that "[Pedro II] is usually ranked as the greatest Brazilian," but apparently there are reputable sources in print, so I won't dispute that for now. Missionary (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In "a little more than a century of existence, the Brazilian Republic faced twelve states of emergency, seventeen Institutional Acts, the National Congress dissolved six times, nineteen military revolutions, two presidential resignations, three presidents prevented from assuming office, four presidents deposed, seven different Constitutions, four dictatorships, and nine authoritarian governments." Source: Vasquez (2003), p. 91 (in Vasquez, Pedro Karp. O Brasil na fotografia oitocentista. São Paulo: Metalivros, 2003. ISBN 85-85371-49-8)

A country that had, from 1889 until 1989, four dictatorships (Deodoro da Fonseca's, Floriano Peixoto's, Getúlio Vargas' first rule and the Military dictatorship), seven constitutions (1891, 1934, 1937, 1946, 1967, 1969 and 1988), several presidents deposed, not counting all the rebellions can not be themed "stable".

And I did not mention the economy. Between 1889 and 1995 Brazil had eight currencies (old Real until 1943, then Cruzeiro, Cruzeiro novo, Cruzado, Cruzado novo, again Cruzeiro, Cruzeiro real and lastly, Real), unacceptable high inflation (2,000% per year in 1991), etc...

Yes, unless someone in here can last as long as a turtle, 100 years of all this is considered a "long period of anarchy". And you answered yourself when you wrote that "quite the opposite, it fell under authoritarian military rule, quelled insurrections and shaved off foreign interference". A nation that had authoritarian military rule and insurrections is not stable. --Lecen (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

But Lecen, authoritarian military rule is generally stable, at least as long as it lasts. And Missionary said that it quelled insurrections. However, you are convincing all the same. The reign of Pedro II thus came to an unusual end—he was overthrown while highly regarded by the people and at the pinnacle of his popularity OK so far? / most of his accomplishments were soon brought to naught again OK I think. / Brazil slipped into a long period of anarchy, dictatorship and economic crises. This I think is the problematic part. It somehow suggests to me that all three happened at once. How about a rephrase that emphasizes the plural, something likeBrazil slipped into a long period of weak governments, dictatorships, and constitutional and economic crises? I'm sure that this could be improved though. -- Hoary (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoary, you could add that. In fact, I just did it. I removed the "economic" word because, although true, nothing of it is mentioned in the main text. P.S.: A Military government who had to impose 2 constitutions in 21 years of rule while at same time having to deal with communist insurgence shouldn't be regarded as "stable". However, Brazil was far more (faaar more stable, in fact) stable than it's Hispanic-American neighbors. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I much prefer the new phrasing, as it was mostly the term "anarchy" that was bugging me. Anarchy is different from instability, and Brazil never really fell into anarchy since independence (came close in Pedro I's reign and in the Regency period). This has been an interesting discussion. Thank you. Missionary (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

He didn't speak "Tupi-Guarani"

Tupi–Guarani is a family of ca. sixty languages. He certainly didn't speak all of them, and probably not more than one. Do we know which one he did? (Lingua geral, maybe? Old Tupi? they comment on this misuse of the term.) If not, it might should be worded "a Tupi–Guarani language". — kwami (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of the sources are clear on that. All they say is that he spoke Tupi (which means that it was certainly not the 16-18th centuries Língua Geral language). It is known that he spoke Tupi-Guarani with captured Paraguayan soldiers during the Paraguayan War and he considered the Paraguayan Tupi-Guarani (or simply Guarani) quite similar to the Brazilian Tupi-Guarani. That means that it was a language still spoken by Brazilian Indians in the 19th century. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly Old Tupi. I think that's what "Tupi" would normally refer to at that time. — kwami (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Should names be translated?

It's quite common the anglicization os names (translation of one's native name to its English counterpart) in royalty. Nicholas II or Russa, Wilhelm I of Germany, etc... Recently a discussion in Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil arised over whether the same should be done with Brazilian royals or not. I will repeat here what another editors said about it: "It is not alleged in the text that the Prince is known as "Alphonso" in English; the reference is used just to indicate the correct version of his name in English, that's all".

I created a thread here since I believe that this is probably the "main" article within the Brazilian royalty universe and other editors will be able to give their opinions on this subject. --Lecen (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, to make it clear: I see no issue on simply translating the name to English. --Lecen (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The point of adding alternative names to the lead is to present the reader with other terms for that specific individual that have been used by the individual or in reliable sources talking about that specific individual. This presents relevant information to the reader and provides alternative names that can be used in searches. The addition of a so-called "translation" is pointless and unnecessary. At best, it is trivia. At worst, it is misinformation because readers can be misled into thinking that it was a name used by that person or in the literature. Typically, modern English sources do not "translate" foreign names. The person's real name is used. For example, we don't translate Pedro Almodóvar, Pedro Álvares Cabral, etc., and Pedro is a very familiar name. It is questionable whether translations are even valid as translations because names derived from Romance languages are common in the English-speaking world, see for example Pedro Gomez (journalist), Pedro Collins, Pedro Rodriguez (NASA), etc. We should only provide alternative forms when they are in use. DrKiernan (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don’t see a problem with having a translation of the name. I do find it frustrating when the main title of the page has a name that is not in use or is a simple translation of the name, we had a discussion about this before, here. In this sense I do agree, I would rather have the name in the native language, like we see in modern sources. Paulista01 (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've provided reasons why there should not be a so-called "translation". No-one has yet provided a reason for including questionable original research, misinformation and trivia. DrKiernan (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn`t clear enough: I was talking about Brazilian royals only. I'm not talking about José Paranhos (Viscount of Rio Branco), Luís Alves de Lima e Silva (Duke of Caxias), even less any of the people mentioned above (Pedro Gomez (journalist), Pedro Collins, Pedro Rodriguez (NASA), etc...). I'm not even talking about translating surnames. How wold I translate the surname "Paranhos"? Ridiculous. Brazilian royals did not have surnames. The "Pedro de Alcantara Bibiano Leopoldo, etc..." is not his first name followed by surnames. All of them are his "first" name. Since there is a growing confusion about Portuguese/Brazilian royal names in Wikipedia since there is no standard naming (some are Anglicized, others aren't), I thought it would be a good idea. There is John VI, son of Maria I (herself daughter of Joseph I), but father or Pedro I and Miguel I. We must make it clear when is in Portuguese and when is in English to avoid unnecessary confusion. Translating the name "Pedro" to "Peter" is not original research, nor trivia and even less misinformation. I dare any Brazilian or Portuguese here to say that "Pedro" isn't the Portuguese version of the English name "Peter". In fact, if we take DrKiernan's logic in account, I wouldn't be able to use any Portuguese book as source. Anyone could claim that everytime I translate a piece of text from such book to English, it would be "original research, misinformation or trivia". Anyone could say that since there is no English translated edition, I couldn't translate it by mself or else, it would be original research. --Lecen (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated that we can present alternate forms found in reliable sources, so if Peter II is used (which it is) then it can be included, if John VI is used (which it is) then it can be used. If, however, "Prince Imperial Alphonso" is not used, then it should not be included; if "Princess Mary Emily" is not used, then it should not be included; if "Empress Theresa Christine" is not used, then it should not be included. The latter three are original research, misinformation, confusing, trivial, and unnecessary. The issue is not one of translating texts, but of names. There is simply no need to translate names. They can be understood as they are, whereas text usually needs to be translated to be understood. We don't need to translate your name to Licinius[4] in order to understand what your name is. The same holds for Afonso, Maria Amelia and Teresa Cristina. The purpose of providing "Peter II" and "John VI" to readers is not to provide a translation; it is to provide alternative forms of the name that are found in reliable sources. DrKiernan (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Greatest Brazilian??

"he is usually ranked as the greatest Brazilian"??? I've never seem anything like that! Please present reliable source or remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.37.26.164 (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Read the article. --Lecen (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Kind of biased. Brazilian Monarchy fan boys seem to be at large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.37.26.164 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This whole article is super-biased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.150.25.244 (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, read the article. The statements follow Wiki policy in reporting what reliable sources (in this case, historians who cover the subject) say. If you have a WP:RS that says Pedro II was "the worst Brazilian" then that would also have been included. No one is advocating monarchy, though in this case Pedro II's reign coincided with and fostered the consolidation of Brazil as a nation and was a period of great stability and prosperity (particularly when compared with the decades which followed). If anything, the charge of bias exposes a great deal of unfamiliarity with how historians view the period and the man. • Astynax ^talk 18:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is clear that Pedro II was not the greatest Brazilian, but someone whom historians generally regard as the greatest Brazilian. It doesn't even mean that all historians see him like that. As far as I know, and I might be mistaken, there is another historical character who is also generally regarded as the greatest Brazilian: José Paranhos, Baron of Rio Branco, who earned that fame during the early Brazilian republic for securing Brazil's territorial limits. Unfortunately his article is quite awful now and I don't have plans to work on it. --Lecen (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Pedro II of Brazil - Brady-Handy.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Pedro II of Brazil - Brady-Handy.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 15, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-11-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 17:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Emperor of Brazil Pedro II was the second and last ruler of the Empire of Brazil, reigning for over 58 years. Born in Rio de Janeiro, his father Pedro I's abrupt abdication and flight to Europe in 1831 left him as Emperor at the age of five. Inheriting an Empire on the verge of disintegration, Pedro II turned Brazil into an emerging power in the international arena. On November 15, 1889, he was overthrown in a coup d'état by a clique of military leaders who declared Brazil a republic. However, he had become weary of emperorship and despaired over the monarchy's future prospects, despite its overwhelming popular support, and did not support any attempt to restore the monarchy.Photo: Mathew Brady/Levin Corbin Handy

Featured article

Congratulations on the Featured article status. Anways, is one allowed to make a minor edit on an FA or not? GoodDay (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you know that. Being featured does not mean anything if a specific detail was not considered or adressed before, FAC is not a tacit support to the current state of the article in relation to any dispute that may arise. If there is a disagreement on how to write a name, then discuss here the reasons, advantages or disadvantages for either way. Cambalachero (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned now. Both of us have had our edits reverted (two of mine) by the same editor. One gets the impression that nothing will be added to or deleted from here or Pedro I of Brazil without that editor's permission. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The way to fix it is to start a thread talking about this. In the best scenario, he will join the discussion and you may come to an understanding. In the worst one, he may refuse to discuss and insist in reverting, in that case there are other steps that may be taken... but let's hope that they are not needed. Start a thread, say what you want to change and why, and let's see what happens. Cambalachero (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your past couple edits have served no improvement to the article and thus were reverted. I have no doubt that if you contributed a good constructive piece of information that it would stay on the article without backlash. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk)

Reverted, yes. But not because they served no improvement. Anyways, I've no time to get into a dispute with the custodian (Lecen) & so won't be pushing for my edits restoration. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've re-darkened the English version of Pedro's name, in the intro, aswell as the intro at his father's article. This has been done so that they match the Portuguese monarchs intros (of which his father is). GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

While "Peter II" is used in a few older references, anglicization of the name has always been an exceptional usage. Today, "Peter II" is obsolete. Even contemporary English sources used "Pedro". Thus, the intent in using "Peter II" was not an attempt to establish this as a significant alternative name, but rather only to show an English equivalent of the name "Pedro". • Astynax ^talk 08:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea who bolded the (other equivalent) names of the Portuguese monarchs in their articles but there is no rule, obligation, tradition or whatever on Wikipedia that says that it must be done. Nothing of the kind occurs with French, Spanish, Italian, German and other monarchs. And I do remember that when I tried to move the name of those articles from John and João (which is the name used by Historians) arguing that Brazilian and Portuguese monarchs were closely linked and that they should follow the same standard GoodDay and others of his friends who advocate "unpollution of the English language" (their own owrds) mocked and dismissed my claims. Now he is trying to argue that in here? No way. --Lecen (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"...so won't be pushing for my edits restoration". What a blatant lie. --Lecen (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you're so sensative about my alterations. Afterall, the English version of the names are already there. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

On further reflection (after re-reading your 9:58 post), I do understand your opposition. You're against the alterations merely out of spite. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to believe that I opposed it "merely out of spite" that's your problem. Except for the Portuguese monarchs, no other similar article has the name in parenthesis in bold. Maybe someone in the Portuguese articles thought it was nice to have them, I don't know. But there is no reason to be there. Having made that clear, I'd like to point out that I don't like users like yourself who don't make any real and effective contribution for Wikipedia. People like you don't write articles, don't copy edit, don't help with the graphic area, don't do nothing at all except for going from article to article making small and useless edits that won't do any good. Or who are eager to create or take part in pointless discussions like this one. Go back to the move request area. --Lecen (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a gnome. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

DrKiernan & myself, have agreed that italicizing the alternate names here & at Pedro I of Brazil is acceptable, since it's done for monarchial bio articles across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

DrKiernan can talk for himself. Show me the place that says that the name "Peter" has to be there and where it says that it should be in italics. If there is such a rule that demands doing it ,then I won't resist any longer. --Lecen (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Show me the rule that demands the 2 articles-in-question must be the exception. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that both are Featured Articles, both were Today's Featured Articles and no one has even complained about it? When you'll start writing an article, BTW? I'd like to see that. --Lecen (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

While you're busy putting your ribbons on the wall, I'll wait for DrKiernan's reply. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought italics might be acceptable as a compromise because it's a text format half-way between bold and plain text, alternative language names in parentheses are often formatted in italics, and one could argue that italics are permitted in this case because it's a case of WP:WORDSASWORDS, i.e. it's like writing "Peter II is an English translation of Pedro II". DrKiernan (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I see your compromise was implimented, briefly. GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

While I see what Lecen did was quite nice to do it out of respect for another editor, in my book: comprise is never acceptable, and only a sad result. I find no reason why that the english name must be italicized. I see your reasoning for alternative language names in the parenthesis, but this language in the parenthesis is english. Also per the arguement that this article has been featured for time now and such and it has not been talked about at all shows something, no? Well whatever it shows, should all three of you agree that it must be italicized, I will not stand in the way, but for now I must present reason's arguement. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem in here, Cristiano, is that GoodDay is the only editor who wants that. The one good thing about the Brazilian articles is the total lack of petty disputes. They are stable. And that's why they are often Today's Featured Article (Both Pedros, Teresa Cristina, Maria Amélia, Empire of Brazil, etc, etc...). GoodDay asks for a compromise. Tell me, Cristiano, do you remember him when we asked for the move request on João VI of Portugal? Compromise was not in there for sure. On the contrary. What makes me angry is that he is an editor who knows absolutely nothing about Brazilian history and he isn't trying to improve these articles. What he wants is to make somehow the names in English appear prominently. --Lecen (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather the article titles themselves in English (examples: Peter, Emmanuel, Charles), because this is the English-language Wikipedia, but let's not go down that road again :) GoodDay (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we're all familiar with that bullshit. Now go back to the move request area and go hunt those trying to "pollute" (the word you often used) the all-American Wikipedia. --Lecen (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait until we hear from DrKiernan, again. GoodDay (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm always disappointed when I read comments, such as some of those above, that are so clearly confrontational, even on the occasions when the comments are my own. Whether the English-language name should be bold, italics or plain text is essentially a very minor style choice and it's surprising that it's generated so much heat. Given that there is no absolute and inarguable guidance either way, I see nothing wrong with coming up with a compromise solution that all sides can accept. Indeed, accepting a compromise would be a way of trying to rebuild a working relationship, or if that is too much to hope for, then a way of drawing a line under the incident and moving on. I don't currently see any other way we can find a middle ground other than the one I've suggested. DrKiernan (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to "Peter" being italicized, as there is a twist of logic that could be argued for it being a foreign, non-standard usage. "Peter" was never used in either contemporary English-language sources, nothwithstanding the too precious and too confusing efforts among some academics a century ago to impose English equivalents on every non-English personage, or in reliable histories. "Peter" is not an alternate name for the the article title, and thus I find bolding to be unacceptable. • Astynax ^talk 20:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I accept italics, too. Even though Peter is the English version. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)