Talk:Pedro II of Brazil/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removed content

Teresa Cristina, wife of Pedro II, at age 24, 1846

Removed content that will later be moved to Paraguayan War:

• He would have no memory of his mother apart from what he was later told about her.
• ...and kept contact until her death in 1873.
• He would wake at 06:30 and begin his studies at seven, continuing until 22:00, after which he would go to bed. Great care was taken in his education to foster values and a character different from the impulsiveness and irresponsibility which had been displayed by his father.
• The Brazilian people also supported lowering the age of majority, as they considered Pedro II "the living symbol of the unity of the fatherland"; this position "gave him, in the eyes of public opinion, a higher authority than that of any regent."
• There, in the afternoon, the young emperor took the oath of office.
• The idea had received support from both main political parties. It was thought that those assisting him in taking the reins of government would be in a position to manipulate the inexperienced youth.
• Those advocating the immediate elevation of Pedro II to majority passed a motion requesting the Emperor assume full powers. A delegation was sent to the Palace of São Cristóvão to ask whether Pedro II would accept or reject an early declaration of his majority. He shyly answered "Yes" when asked if he desired the age of majority to be lowered, and "Now" when asked if he would prefer that it come into effect at that moment or would rather await his birthday in December.
• This interdependence and interaction did much to influence the direction of Pedro II's reign.
• He was diligent in appointing only highly qualified candidates to positions in the government, and sought to curb corruption.
• The Brazilian national political system resembled those in other parliamentary nations. The Emperor, as head of state, would ask the leader of either the Conservative or Liberal Party to form a cabinet. The other party formed the opposition in the legislature, a counterweight and check on the party in power. If support for the party in power diminished greatly, or if the cabinet resigned, the Emperor could call on others from either party to form a new government. "In his handling of the two parties, he needed to maintain a reputation for impartiality, work in accord with the popular mood, and avoid any flagrant imposition of his will on the political scene."
• His ability to recall passages which he had read in the past was notable.
• Pedro II early realized that he had an opportunity to put the knowledge he was accumulating to practical use for Brazil's benefit.
• Education also helped toward his goal to create a sense of Brazilian national identity.
• Brazil's Armada (Navy) prepared for imminent conflict, purchase of coastal artillery was ordered, several ironclads were authorized and coastal defenses were given permission to fire upon any British warship that tried to capture Brazilian merchant ships.
• There was a general belief that the war was near its end and that the surrender of López was imminent.
• More than 50,000 Brazilian soldiers had died, and war costs equalled eleven times the government's annual budget. However, the country was so prosperous, that the government was able to retire the war debt in only ten years. The conflict was a stimulus to national production and economic growth.
• The diplomatic victory over the British Empire and the military victory over Uruguay in 1865, followed by a successful conclusion of the war with Paraguay in 1870, ushered in what is considered the "golden age" and apogee of the Brazilian Empire.
• In 1823, slaves formed 29 percent of Brazil's population, but this figure had fallen to 15.2 percent by 1872.
• The main consequence of the crisis was that the clergy no longer saw any benefit in upholding Pedro II's throne. Although they abandoned the Emperor, most eagerly awaited the accession of his eldest daughter and heir Isabel because of her ultramontane views.
• To avert a republican backlash, the government exploited the ready credit available to Brazil as a result of its prosperity. It made available massive loans at favorable interest rates to plantation owners and lavishly granted titles and lesser honors to curry favor with influential political figures who had become disaffected. The government also indirectly began to address the problem of the recalcitrant military by revitalizing the moribund National Guard, by then an entity which existed mostly only on paper.
• The measures made by the government alarmed the civilian republicans and the Positivists in the military corps. They saw that it would undercut support for their own aims, and were emboldened to further action. The reorganization of the National Guard was begun by the cabinet in August 1889, and the creation of a rival force caused the dissidents among the officer corps to consider desperate steps. For both groups, civilian republicans and military, it had become a case of "now or never".
• Riots in protest against the coup occurred, as well as pitched battles between monarchist Army troops and republican militias. The "new regime suppressed with swift brutality and total disdain for civil liberties all attempts to launch a monarchist party or to publish monarchist newspapers."
• There was significant monarchist reaction after the fall of the Empire, which was thoroughly repressed.
• The package, which contained earth from every Brazilian province, was duly placed inside the coffin.
• He never ceased being a popular hero, and would gradually become, once again, an official hero.

A minor change to improve this article and keep it more focused on the Emperor. --Lecen (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

When Astynax and I wrote this article back in 2010, there was a huge void in relation to 19th century history of Brazil on Wikipedia. All articles were stubs or badly written. We were forced to write "Pedro II of Brazil" as mostly a stand-alone article since there weren't others that could help form an interconnected universe. Three years later and a lot has changed. That's why I took some time to review this article and remove a lot of unneeded stuff. Some of them were taken off because other articles explained the subject far better, such as Empire of Brazil. Others were removed to tone down some of the sentences and try to diminish the overly positive view toward Pedro II (an issue relating to this historical figure due to an overwhelming historical positive view toward him). However, I also added a little bit more of info to two subsections to better explain why so many politicians did nothing once the monarchy fell. I also added a few mentions to some of the great characters of his era, such as the Marquis of Paraná, the Duke of Caxias, the Viscount of Rio Branco, etc... Overall, this is the article as I intended to write since the start. --Lecen (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

As a Brazilian, I should tell the article is STRONGLY biased towards a good image of Pedro. It sustains he "steadfastly pushed through the abolition of slavery" (not quite so), was overthrown by "coup d'état that had almost no support outside a clique of military leaders" (woefully innacurate: the coup had support from all ranks of the military, most of the farming oligarchy and the catholic church) and that he was weary of power regardless of strong public support. This article does not deserve a feature title at all.

"Historians have regarded the Emperor in an extremely positive light" (WEASEL). Who?? He did do a lot of great things to Brazil worthy of mention, but this is just too much. In order of comparison, in a recent (2012) voting for who was the most significant brazilian of all time, Dom Pedro came 27th, after, for instance, his daughter Princess Isabel, who was the one that actually signed the slavery abolishment bill. User:jeihot 05:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The claim of NPoV has been raised and examined before, including on these pages, during the GA process and during the FAC process. What you describe is indeed a PoV based in scholarship, and the article is firmly based in both English and Portuguese sources. Had you read past the summary, you would have found reliable, mainstream references to back up the statements you quote. Current popularity polls really are not relevant to how Wikipedia articles, or histories themselves, are written. Wikipedia policy requires that articles summarize the views of mainstream scholarship with citations to back up the text. If you have better references which include material which is at odds with statements in the article, please do cite them here for possible inclusion in the article. I am removing your premature tagging, as no WP:V-based reason was provided. If you wish to make your case against the FA decision, there is a process to follow to ask for a reexamination. • Astynax ^talk 06:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Only two civilians knew that the coup would occur: Rui Barbosa and Quintino Bocaiuva. The coffee planter, disgruntled with the end of slavery, supported the coup once it happened. There were no priests involved and not a single member of the clergy spoke well of the coup. The reason it's obvious: the Republicans were Positivists and opposed the Catholic Church. And even if the coup had "the support from all ranks of the military, most of the farming oligarchy and the catholic church" it would still be a small minority. But certainly its great supporter was Pedro II himself, who was republican and gave express orders to staunch monarchists like Admiral Tamandaré (the "Protector" of the Brazilian navy) not to retaliate.

"Who?" "...Dom Pedro II, who should be ranked among the ablest rulers of his century and among the finest historical characters of modern times" (p.vii of Williams, Mary Wilhelmine. Dom Pedro the magnanimous...). This is one fine example. And I didn't even use it on this article. A few other examples below:

1) "It is with natural pride that in here we shall study the figure of Mr. D. Pedro de Alcântara—name by which our monarch was born and died—the greatest and the best of all Brazilians." (p.125 of Almeida, Antônio da Rocha. Vultos da Pátria: os brasileiros mais ilustres de seu tempo. v.1...)

2) "The Second Reign, that is, the period in which our Emperor was D. Pedro II, lasted fifty-eight years, from the abdication of his father, D. Pedro I, in 1831, until the proclamation of the republic in 1889... Even though, this is the most extensive historical period of influence one a sole rulers, in this case the one who is fairly regarded the Greatest of the Brazilians." (p.467 of Viana, Hélio. História do Brasil: período colonial, monarquia e república...)

3) José Paranhos, Baron of Rio Branco (regarded one of the greatest Brazilian historians and the greatest Brazilian diplomat) "...regarded as the two greatest Brazilians, dom Pedro II and the Viscount of Rio Branco." (p.8 of Ricupero, Rubens. Rio Branco: o Brasil no mundo...) or Rio Branco's precise words: "...the greastest of all Brazilians was D. Pedro II; and after him my father." (pp. 36 and 447 of Cardim, Carlos Henrique. Rio Branco, a América do Sul e a modernização do Brasil...)

4) "...our eyes to Pedro de Alcântara João Carlos Leopoldo Salvador Bibiano Francisco Xavier de Paula Leocádio Miguel Gabriel Rafael, Dom Pedro II, the greatest of all Brazilians..." (p.97 of Fonseca Júnior, Eduardo. Zumbi dos Palmares...)

I can provide more if needed. --Lecen (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox heading

We should have Peter II in the infobox heading, along side Pedro II. The English/Portuguese names idea is used at John VI of Portugal. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The infobox header would not be the place to display an anglicized version. "Peter" is not common in references dealing with either Pedro I or II (either in 19th century contemporary accounts or subsequent histories). An anglicized name may still appear in some older works, but it would be both undue weight and a mischaracterization of modern sources to put an anglicized version in a header. Even during their lifetimes, these men were referred to as "Pedro" in English language newspapers, books and other sources. • Astynax ^talk 07:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter I is excluded from the infobox heading at this subject's article at Portuguese Wikipedia, aswell. Quite the double standard indeed. GoodDay (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? If he was Portuguese and the Wikipedia is in Portuguese, why should it have his name in English? Should they include his name in German? Or in French? Perhaps in Arabic as well? Maybe in Latin! --Lecen (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Why the double standard? This is English Wikipedia, not Portuguese-English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Better photo

Pedro II
Emperor Pedro II at age 50, 1876

Some people said that this is a great article. I don't say no, but a great article need a great photo and the community said that the better photo of Pedro II is this. More big and with more quality and one of the better photos of Wikipedia. Not reasonable that a photo with this pedigree is not in its own article.--EeuHP (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Although the image above is fine, it is already being used in Apogee of Pedro II of Brazil. There are many images of Pedro II and thus no reason not to employ a different image for each article. I personally see no compelling reason to change the current image of the Emperor at his maturity. • Astynax ^talk 18:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Fully agree with Astynax. --Lecen (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If your argument is this, Astynax, I have a proposition for you. You can see this now.--EeuHP (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A simple exchange.--EeuHP (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil (FAC)

Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil is a Featured Article candidate. We need reviewers at the nomination page. Anyone interested, please take a look. Thanks, --Lecen (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Bias

The opening paragraphs, lauding the emperor's ability to govern as some sort of saviour are very biased, are not backed by any source and not in line with what most of brazilian public opinion and mainstream historians think. They should be considerably changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.245.132 (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If you read through the article, you will find the statements are all cited within the body of the article. It is not necessary to cite statements in a normal lead section, which is supposed to be a summary of the material found on down in the article body. Claims of PoV and hagiography were addressed and resolved both during the reviews this article received prior to being given FA status and in previous talk threads here (see the links on this page's header for those discussions), so there is no reason to retain the recent tagging. • Astynax ^talk 17:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo

Portrait in 1876

This is a "featured photo", meaning it's high quality, but I can't find a good spot for it. Perhaps it should be the main one? OrganicEarth (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This article has several sub-articles. This picture is used as the main infobox photo for Apogee of Pedro II of Brazil. • Astynax ^talk 19:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! OrganicEarth (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly insertion of unsourced claims

An editor has repeatedly inserted the claim that Pedro II spoke a Hebraic dialect of Occitan. The problems that he used a primary source and now a website. I won't support the inclusion until he finds a credible secondary source that supports his claim. --Lecen (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Clearly not a reliable source. A blog? @Knoterification: Your edit has been disputed with credible reasoning—you are expected to discuss here instead of edit warring. If you persist inserting this information into the page, you will be reported for edit warring and you may be blocked from editing. --Laser brain (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have inserted a source from a university paper from PUC Rio de Janeiro, written by "Anna Olga Prudente de Oliveira" from the literature department, which says the following: "Em 1891, o imperador traduziu para o francês poesias hebraico-provençais do Ritual Israelita Comtadin" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Some explanation

Years ago, when Astynax and I wrote this article, Pedro II was an almost unknown historical figure. There was no article about the Empire of Brazil, even less about the Brazilian monarchs or some of its statesmen. People didn't know that Brazil had been an empire, in fact. To be assured that everything we wrote was correct and based on reliable sources, we added reference to every single sentence, even after commas. Almost ten years later, Pedro II is well known by anyone with a little interest in history, has been seen in games as Civilization V and now Civilization VI. Things are better. I wish I had more time to finish all the other articles, but I lost years struggling with awful editors with spurious agendas and dealing with the ineffective and mostly incompetent Wikipedia administrators. Having said that, I moved all reference to the end of each sentences, allowing for a better and more pleasant reading. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Distance of Eastern countries

The Ottoman Empire, as well as Persia, China and Japan are treated as "distant" in the text because they were regard as such by Brazilians in the Nineteenth Century. Brazil had close relationship with the countries in the Americas and Europe, but nations from Middle East and Asian were seen as distant. The point is to show how far the emperor's respect reached. That countries like Japan showed deference to him means that his accomplishments were heard far away. --Lecen (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Why I removed reference to "distant"

• Firstly, the funeral was held in Paris. Any reader reading that paragraph is focussing on Paris as a geographical point of reference, in interpreting a statement such as "... governments ... sent representatives", which refers to a physical act of travelling to the funeral, i.e. physical distance. So after citing "the Americas" to then cite the Ottoman Empire as "distant" is preposterous". Equally preposterous is to now hereinabove refer to the Ottoman Empire as part of "nations from Middle East and Asia". Then the editor makes matters worse by referring to "how far the emperor's respect reached", picking Japan to illustrate the point, a clear reference to the distance involved.
• Secondly, this is an encyclopaedia written in this century for readers of all countries living in the present era. It is not written for Brazilian readers in the nineteenth century, so readers are not expected to know that Brazilians regarded the Ottoman Empire as distant because they had no relationship with it. Never mind that the Ottoman Empire was one of the countries that Pedro visited during his travels.

Therefore, if it is the editor's intention that the term "distant" stand for "countries with whom Brazil had little or no contact", then that is what it should say. Right now, as it stands, it alludes to distance, nothing else.

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article's introduction is ridiculously biased and not neutral at all, it reads more like a propaganda piece and is full of non-enciclopedic terms and adjectives like "grim and lonely childhood", "he grew into a man with a strong sense of duty and devotion toward his country and his people", " he knew only brief moments of happiness", as well as a lot of unsourced claims such as "he was overthrown while highly regarded by the people and at the pinnacle of his popularity". I had honestly never seen an article on Wikipedia that was so biased. --CHUI372 (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There are no unsourced passages, on the contrary. The lead has no sources because it's a summary of the main article, which is fully sourced with the best scholarship on the topic. --Lecen (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

As Lecen has pointed out, you should read the sourced material in the body of articles before concluding bias. Should you have reliable sources which differ from what other scholars have written (e.g., that his childhood was not "grim and lonely" or that he was not overthrown "at the pinnacle of his popularity"), you are welcome to add material backed by reliable mainstream scholarship to the main body of the article, and the lead section will be changed to reflect the varying views. What you have purported as bias has been discussed and double-checked during the articles assessments. It would certainly be non-encyclopedic to leave out mainstream academic consensus and/or significant reliable academic views in favor of introducing an imposed neutrality that does not reflect the sources. There are plenty of low quality articles here that are not only overtly promotional, but which also do not use, and in some glaring cases disregard, reliable sources, so I applaud your skepticism even though I disagree in this case. • Astynax ^talk 17:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk about POV pushing. The slavery part in the intro made me throw up in my mouth a little. After the first sentence, the intro is ENTIRELY four long paragraphs of unsourced hagiographic propaganda. It's NO EXCUSE to say "you should read the sourced material in the body" - when what's actually sourced, e.g. slavery was abolished in his 56th year of his reign, by his daughter, while he was abroad - totally contradicts the unsourced statement that Pedro "steadfastly pushed through the abolition of slavery. The simplest way would be to reduce the intro to one paragraph, cut the fluff about his lonely childhood and frankly falsehood about his "progressiveness", and let the documented facts speak for itself. This issue is more than academic because there's a bunch of Orléans-Braganzas running around in public in today's Brazil, and much of their credibility, such as it is, comes from Pedro II's historical capital. Huangdi (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. In your message, you showed that you’re politically motivated. This is an objective encyclopedia. The introduction is merely a summary of the article, which is fully sourced according to the best sources available. --Lecen (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You are already violating WP:AGF while I have made no such assumption about you. I made the last comments to indicate that we should ensure that no one - regardless of politics - should benefit from a POV page. For example, if you owned a well-known business and someone edited that page favorably - I think we all agree that would be concerning. Your other point that this intro has been "stable" for a year is not relevant. There's always inaccurate and unsupported content on Wikipedia - the fact it's been uncorrected for a long time is hardly reason for its perpetuation. That's ludicrous. It's also untrue they've been unchallenged: almost a year ago CHUI372 pointed out this page is "ridiculously biased and not neutral" - and you did nothing. And as I discussed earlier, before editing the page, I am removing WP:PUFFERY, unsourced claims that are unsupported by sourced evidence in the body re WP:SUBSTANTIATE, and I edited slave trade info to clarify the facts in response to a constructive comment by DrKay. If you have any *facts* to present to alter my changes, I welcome them. Huangdi (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the current content dispute but can we please discuss here instead of edit warring? Huangdi, your edit was challenged so normal WP:BRD process would be to discuss instead of continuing to push it. Featured articles are also normally given more leeway to maintain "status quo" since they have undergone considerable review by other editors. --Laser brain (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that bit of clarification. Clearly a lot of hard work has been put into this article. My main is that much of the intro expounds a thesis that is not really supported by the body and its cited sources (as well as some idiomatic turns that are not typical in professional American or British English). I am surprised this disconnect was overlooked when nominated for a feature article in 2010 - presumably for the significance of the subject. Also, just from a quick browse, it appears concerns have been raised periodically in the past re:NPOV and have been brushed aside. Huangdi (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I should note that I reviewed this article in 2010, and initially opposed it partially over concerns with the tone. However, I always found Lecen and Astynax to respond with reason when they are approached with reason. They explained the tone used and in some cases provided me with background reading for better understanding of the sources and material. I'm completely neutral here, without any background in or connection to the history of Brazil. --Laser brain (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the background. I've listed the reasons for my edits below, and I am presenting the edits in smaller blocks. Regarding tone - which you also noticed issues with - it may be that certain sources are effusive in their praise of Pedro II. It's still a problem. Perhaps it's an language issue or "Anglosphere" issue, but no encyclopedic or academic work in English would use some of the phrasing used here. The personal essay style is understandable with just one or two authors, but needs "toning up" still. Even if the President was Lincoln I wouldn't write "he's the best ever". A lot of issues go beyond tone and I've explained in detail above and below. Thanks for your attention. Huangdi (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Huangdi: I'm definitely not impressed that you're continuing to push the changes before establishing consensus here. --Laser brain (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Explain precisely what is wrong with the article in here, instead of edit warring. --Lecen (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's fix this intro

Like the unnamed administrators above, I agree that this is among the subjects "for which Wikipedia should have corresponding high-quality articles" and we should be WP:BOLD in improving it. I have outlined the reasons for my edits above, and also inline on the history page. I will be more precise here, to make a record, and that so no one can plead confusion:

A) "Inheriting an Empire on the verge of disintegration..." - This phrase belongs more in a personal essay WP:PES and lacks an encyclopedic or formal tone WP:TONE. This extreme description is also not supported by evidence in the body WP:UNSOURCED. It would be more objective and supportable and and less "movie trailer-ish" to say "inheriting an Empire beset with problems" or "plagued with instability".

B) "A savant in his own right..." Again, we have a similar problem: lack of formal TONE, as well as unnecessary exaggeration WP:PUFFERY & NPOV. I have left in that he was admired and respected by famous notables, which is laudatory enough, that's ok I suppose. But was Pedro II a "savant" (in the broad sense) like Mozart or Michaelangelo? I don't see any support for this. Please note that the more precise definition of Savant syndrome might get the Emperor confused with Rain Man.

C) "Although there was no desire for a change in the form of government among most Brazilians..." and "had almost no support outside a clique of military leaders" - We should leave this out because public opinion here is simply unverifiable and inapplicable, esp in a nation where the number of Brazilians who could vote in the 1880s was miniscule - like 3 or 4%. It's also a WP:SOURCE and POV issue. There's probably a more supportable phrase, like "many" or "a majority" but we'd have to see the evidence. So we simply begin with "The Emperor was overthrown in a coup d'état by clique of military leaders..."

WP:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and these claims here are quite maximalist. I've removed a very limited number of sentences, given my reasons, and now the burden is on the proponent to provide evidence for the ones that are verifiable, which some are not. WP:BURDEN

Huangdi (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• You seem to be pushing your own POV regarding both the subject of the article and what you consider to be "encyclopedic" This subject has been brought up several times during this article's reviews. As the review histories show, some actually bothered to consult scholars in the field of Brazilian history, who agreed that rather than the tone being hagiographic, it rather represents the bulk of academic consensus. The article does include more than a little material that presents Pedro II's personal and political flaws. Your first item (i.e., that the article body does not present referenced support for the lead's statement that the empire was on the brink of disintegration) is wrong, as most any reader with no axe to grind should readily detect. Your second item asks for OR interpretation to discount a sourced statement. Your third point which quibbles with the term "savant" is also invalid: he was specifically called that by his contemporaries and subsequent historians (Barman's Citizen Emperor [pp. 119, 282] mentions that Pedro II was regarded as a "savant" during his lifetime and afterward; Aiton's The Rise of the Latin American Nations [p. 62] explicitly notes his reputation as a "savant"; Williams' Dom Pedro the Magnanimous, Second Emperor of Brazil [p. 263] notes that, regardless of the definition one holds of the term savant, "he deserves to be classed with the most learned people of the nineteenth century and with the best-educated rulers of all time."). A bit more familiarity with the sources is in order before pushing changes or making unsupported charges of bias. • Astynax ^talk 22:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I would like to comment that points “A”, “B” and “C” are discussed in the main body of text and are sourced. They are based on what most historians have argued. Unless it is proven that historiography has a different perspective, it stays the same. --Lecen (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Ten years

Ten years ago, this is the article I found, when I started research on Pedro II and started working here, in order to improve it, with Astynax. This is a remarkable example of what dedicated editors can accomplish, if allowed to work. --Lecen (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Missing decorations/honours

Hello, just came across this: Pedro II was also made a Grand Cross of the Saxe-Ernestine House Order in 1864. --103.51.163.98 (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• He also received the Baden House Order of Fidelity (https://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/blbihd/periodical/pageview/1877588) and Berthold the First Class of the Order of the Zahringer Lion (https://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/blbihd/periodical/pageview/1877602), both in 1888.--103.51.163.98 (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"Of Brazil Pedro Ii" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Of Brazil Pedro Ii. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Pretender status

@Lecen: The term "pretender" has been thrown about on Wikipedia in a very lazy and over-broad way traditionally, but that's changing. See Talk:Heads_of_former_ruling_families#Requested_move:_-->_Heads_of_former_ruling_families . A pretender is not merely somebody who happens to have royal blood or been in a hypothetical deposed line of succession (the definition Wikipedia seemingly used in 2010). It is somebody who is actively making a play for the throne. If there was truly a political movement to put Pedro II back on the throne (not merely admirers of Pedro II), then he might still qualify, but his daughter certainly doesn't seem to qualify based on her article, as would other later members of the line. Head of a former ruling family if you want to track the House of Braganza, sure. Pretender to the throne, not without a source that explicitly says that they were attempting to retake the throne. Again, per your own article you've written, it makes it appear as if Pedro II was at peace with leaving the throne and did not make any attempt to reclaim it, saying he wanted to go rest. Thus... not a pretender. SnowFire (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

From 1889 until as late as 1914, there were monarchist rebellions in Brazil, trying to restore the Bragança to their former throne, first fighting for Pedro II and later for Isabel. After 1920, monarchism in Brazil became solely political in nature (with no active attempts to restore by force). Perhaps the major monarchist movement from 1920 until 1945 was the authoritarian patrianovismo ("newfatherlandism"). After 1945, monarchists became very, very, very small, until 1988, when politicians declared that in 1993 a plebiscite would occur regarding Brazil's form of government (republic won). Monarchism became a visible and stronger movement in the past five years. Now, going back to the question raised at first: Pedro II's lack of interest in restoring his throne never meant a renunciation. He always declared (quite naively) that if Brazilians asked him to return, he would accept it. When he died, all Brazilians present in his deathbed formed a line to kiss his daughter Isabel's hand as sign of recognition as the new monarch. Isabel was equally uninterested in plots and armed uprisings, but she never declined her position as head of the Brazilian imperial house and kept in close touch with monarchists, including by warning them that her son Luís (after 1908) should be seen as the natural leader on her behalf (due to her age). Could we have an article about Brazilian monarchism? Sure. We still need many articles about Brazil's topics. But, I simply don't have any interest on contributing for Wikipedia anymore. --Lecen (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Eh, that kind of passive "if people want to make me ruler, I'd accept!" statement isn't unusual, and doesn't necessarily rise to being a pretender. Political factions who supported the House of Braganza enough to revolt might be a different story, I'll grant. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, you're certainly not obligated if your heart isn't in it anymore, but articles on pro-monarchist unrest (or other unrest that happened to also suggest restoring a monarchy) would certainly be a useful addition. I'm just saying that based on the current article, all of what you said above can be true, and it still might not be a "pretender" in the usual sense if there was no active movement and no attempt by the former rulers to regain power even despite kissing Isabel's hand. Maybe Luís would be closer if Isabel was recommending him to monarchists, but it really doesn't sound like Isabel had interest in returning to rule herself based off her article and even what you said above, so that makes me very skeptical she's really a "pretender" by anything other than a very broad definition. Would it be fair to just call her the head of the former ruling house with whatever clarification you feel fits? SnowFire (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

POV issues & recent lede edits

Hello again User:Lecen. I don't know who those IP addresses are, but I'm inclined to agree with User:Susmuffin that the language in the lede (and elsewhere) is over-the-top, and toning it down is not vandalism. Nobody, not even acclaimed saints, gets treatment quite like Pedro II gets in this article. You say this is the summation of the sources; do you have a "neutral" source (book, journal article, etc.) you'd recommend to skeptics like Susmuffin and myself to show that no, really, every historian actually agrees Pedro II was such a fantastic hero adored by all? I'd be happy to withdraw my objection after reading up more myself. (Preferably English-language source, of course, I don't read Portuguese alas.) SnowFire (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Simply read the entire article, click on the footnotes, and check each page which is there. It's that simple. Regarding the authors, I simply used the ones that are regarded as the best biographers of Pedro II, which are all considered among the finest historians in Brazil: Pedro Calmon, Heitor Lyra, Hélio Vianna, José Murilo de Carvalho etc. --Lecen (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You can say that a particular person has praised him, but the article should should be impartial. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly discussed in the past, including during the article reviews which led to its FA designation and subsequent front page appearances. The lead reflects both the article's body and the consensus view of scholarship, not some inserted hagiographical bias. You can find these discussions both in the archives here, as well as those for the review. • Astynax ^talk 13:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I looked up these discussions per your suggestion and found that bias concerns have been raised on this talk page no fewer than eight times (sections "Greatest Brazilian ever", Its a propaganda of the monarchy, Greatest Brazilian??, NPOV, Bias, Neutrality, Let's fix this intro). Users who have complained about the neutrality include Auréola, John K, CHUI372, Huangdi, numerous IP editors, and now SnowFire. Where there's smoke, there's fire, and if something is repeatedly discussed, as you say, the concern is very unlikely to be entirely groundless. Surtsicna (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You’re simply repeating what Astynax said. Could any of you demonstrate that the information presented in this article is not faithful to what historiography about Pedro II portrays him? Could you identify in any of the footnotes, any element of unfaithfulness to what it said according to the sources used? Simply saying “it’s not neutral” and making changes based on your subjective opinion is not helpful. Give us specific examples of passages in this article that have no basis in historiography. It’s actually that simple. --Lecen (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No, unlike Astynax, I am saying that the frequency of this complaint points to a real problem. A dozen people over the course of ten years cannot be imagining things, can they? I quite understand that historians may be in agreement about his extraordinary prowess as a monarch. The end of the lead section makes that somewhat explicit, which I think is a good idea. I disagree with this edit summary but toning things down a bit is not the worst of ideas. Surely not everything needs to be amplified with an adjective or adverb or two. And even if every sad thing that happened to Pedro was so sad and every good thing he did was just so good, the impression of bias can still be greatly reduced by avoiding talk of romantic, subjective concepts such as destiny. Surtsicna (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind toning down something, if it's clearly an issue, but what I've been asking is for people to show clearly where is the problem. Saying "it's biased, it's laudatory etc" isn't enough. Make a list of what may be wrong, so we can discuss them. --Lecen (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not doubt that the appraisal of Pedro reflects academic consensus. My complaint is that the article strives not just to inform readers about Pedro but to evoke in them a sympathy for Pedro. Pedro did not just ascend a throne but was placed upon it by destiny (a romantic idea); his childhood was not just grim and lonely but also devoid of happiness and friends (saying the same thing in other words to evoke emotion); he was not just devastated by losing sons but also suffered as a father (again, repetition to evoke emotion); and so on. Surtsicna (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Lecen: I don't doubt that, for any one citation, there's a source supporting it. (Although you largely turned down my request / offer to look into the sources more thoroughly... saying "read the article" isn't helpful, yes, I've read it, and I still have concerns). That's why this article has persisted so long in this form - you have put in genuinely good work on this. The problem is an overall one of tone, as Susmuffin said above. The tone is obviously, obviously wildly pro-Pedro, and yes, to a hagiographic degree. Pedro is written as if he's the best parts of Augustus Caesar, Abraham Lincoln, and Jesus all in one - founding a mighty, respected, and peaceful empire; freeing the slaves where every push forward came personally from Pedro, and every bit of resistance came from implaceable evil "others"; then refusing to split the country in civil war, nobly walking away and sacrificing himself instead. Even if we grant this is all true, the article is so over-the-top in its lavish praise that it actually weakens the effect. Put things another way, Wikipedia strives to cover hated people professionally and neutrally - that if they're really so bad, let their villainy stand for itself, and a "hit piece" would actually read more weakly, because it sounds as if the author is biased. The same is true for loved people - I think a professional and impartial tone will make Pedro II's good sides, of which there are clearly many, stand out moroe.

The other potential problem - which I will get back to you on - is if the sources consulted is really the full balance of high quality, neutral sources. I'm sure, because there has to be, that there is a current of pro-Republican thought in Brazil. Are these historians views' included? In the same way, I'm honestly skeptical of the way the article goes to such pains to show that Pedro II was a vanguard abolitionist with all of the resistance coming from others, and Brazil was a leading light of the era. Brazil was the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery. Was Pedro at least a mild abolitionist? Sure. (Although he also happily invited former Confederates into Brazil where they could keep their slaves...) But I really wouldn't be surprised if there are historians more willing to hold Pedro, the leader, to account for Brazil's slow progress here. Now, like I said, I need to hit the books - maybe they will convince me that Brazil really was so fervently pro-slavery that it'd have lasted until 1920 without Pedro's intervention, and he deserves all the credit the article gives him, and the resistance wasn't an exaggeration. But it's something that's difficult to assess for an outsider. Again, I'm not ragging on your fine work here, you're clearly an expert, but we've had experts present incomplete or overly shaded tales before elsewhere on Wikipedia - I'd like to double-check that's not the case here for my own sanity if nothing else. SnowFire (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• In agreement with others here. This article did indeed morph into a love letter of sorts. I've had concerns about a few other related Brazil & Portugal royalty bios as well. But, wasn't overly interested in getting into another dispute on the topic. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry to pile on, but I'm bound to agree, at least to an extent. I'm not sure if I've ever read the article top to bottom in one sitting, so maybe that's why I don't see there problem as strongly as others here, but the tone is certainly at least somewhat off. And I say this as someone who has much admiration for the subject. EEng 15:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Could anyone provide a list of specific passages in the text that are not based on what sources mention? All I’ve seen are vague complaints about bias. --Lecen (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  It's not bias, it's tone. It's not a question of whether the facts presented are grounded in sourcing, it's the presentation itself and (possibly) what's not presented. EEng 16:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  That’s my whole point. All I hear is tone, bias etc. It’s vague. Show me a list of passages that may be problematic, so at least I know to what I should react. --Lecen (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  Well, for starters, the entire lede and Susmuffin's edits. She attempted to adjust the tone to be more neutral, and you called it vandalism. Would you complain about reinstating these edits? I think they improve the article, for one, and they certainly aren't vandalism. SnowFire (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  I will repeat myself again: the lead is simply a summary of the text found in the article. Whatever its tone may be, it's a mirror of what is said in the actual article. I'm asking again to provide specific examples within the article, that either uses sources that aren't reliable or that do not represent the majority among historians, or that goes against what sources say (for example, if the tone of the article is "laudatory," this would mean that is not backed by sources, then). Once that is done, then we can go back to the lead to change whatever it's needed, to better reflect the changes in the main body of text. --Lecen (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  "(for example, if the tone of the article is "laudatory," this would mean that is not backed by sources, then)" - no! This is exactly the locus of the dispute and misses the point of what we've all been saying. This statement is factually incorrect. A sentence can be backed by sources and still non-neutral in tone. A paragraph or section, even more so. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone. The article's slant is written to be "in favor" of Pedro, all of it. Like I've said before - I have no doubt that everything in the article is backed by a source, somewhere. The question is A) Is this really a summation of all the sources, and B) are these sources presented neutrally. It's fine for historians to have a positive view of Pedro. The Wikipedia article itself should be more circumspect. For example, the abolitionism section goes to great pains to make clear that all opposition to abolition of slavery goes to others, and all credit for removing slavery should go to Pedro, and never mentions that the rest of the Americas had abolished slavery decades ago (aside from indirectly blaming the Paraguayan War / War of the Triple Alliance for Pedro being distracted from the problem or the like). The tone is clearly pro-Imperial. SnowFire (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  "The question is A) Is this really a summation of all the sources, and B) are these sources presented neutrally" Then, check source by source, and come back here, showing us whether you found anything wrong, if the article indeed presents a "summation of all the sources" and whether "these sources [are] presented neutrally." Your mere subjective opinion that something might be wrong, isn't enough. "It's fine for historians to have a positive view of Pedro. The Wikipedia article itself should be more circumspect." You're wrong. If historiography has a "positive" view of Pedro II (in your opinion), this is how he should be portrayed in the article. It's not up you, me or anyone else move on the opposite direction. The purpose of this encyclopedia is to portray information according to mainstream scholarship."For example, the abolitionism section goes to great pains to make clear that all opposition to abolition of slavery goes to others, and all credit for removing slavery should go to Pedro..." Pedro II was the person behind the Law of the Free Womb of 1871, he was not involved in the Golden Law of 1888. I believe you're confused. His actions from 1868 to 1871 were strongly opposed by slave-owners and politicians who felt he was crossing the line as head of state. The 1888 Golden Law was a result of popular activism, combative journalism and his daughter's involvement. "...and never mentions that the rest of the Americas had abolished slavery decades ago." Feel free to add that on pertinent articles, such as the one about Slavery in Brazil. I have no idea why we need to mention the abolition of slavery in other countries in the biography of a Brazilian monarch. "The tone is clearly pro-Imperial." And here you finally showed your true colors. I'll be glad to discuss any issues regarding the reliability of sources or of how the information found in them is portrayed in this article, once they are specifically pointed out. --Lecen (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  (de-indent) "showed my true colors?" What? I was saying that the article was pro-Pedro from the start... Anyway, I don't see how this is hard to understand. You don't need to be an expert on a topic to tell that an article is slanted in favor of said topic by an admiring fan, even genuinely acclaimed topics. I actually agree with you that reading the sources is important (although your response earlier on this was less than helpful...) and I personally wasn't going to push this until I saw the squabble where you reverted IMO beneficial edits as "vandalism." I just don't get how you don't see that the Wikipedia article itself is taking Pedro's side in many parts, rather than letting him stand on his own. This is a matter of neutral, encyclopedic-style writing. Yes, I do plan on checking the sources, but there's fixable stuff right now that doesn't even require that. SnowFire (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Are you (Lecen) the lone or major architect of this article, up until these last few hours? GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I fear that there might be ownership issues, on this & related Brazil & Portugal royal bios articles. But, I'll leave others to decide if my concerns are warranted or not. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Lecen has, I believe, built this article up from almost nothing, and an excellent job of it he's done. This is is exactly the sort of subject (19th-c leader of a non-European nation) on which you'd normally expect some crappy article with two disjointed sections plus a list of pop-culture references; instead we have this engaging, well-sourced treatment with good images. We must never lose sight of that. But it can be improved, and that can be an uncomfortable process. EEng 23:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how much effort & time an editor puts into one article. It doesn't give that editor a veto on said article. @Surtsicna:, @SnowFire: & others, are free to make whatever changes on this article, they see fit. They don't need someone's permission. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Calm down. No one said anything about vetoes or permission. You apparently haven't read my other comments in this thread. EEng 01:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I want to add something. Some years ago I came across the following, written by one of the three towering figures of the modern presidency of Harvard, Charles William Eliot [1]:

Thirty years ago I spent a long day in showing Don Pedro the Emperor of Brazil some of the interesting things in the laboratories and collections of Harvard University. He was the most assiduous visitor that I ever conducted through the University buildings, intelligently interested in a great variety of objects and ideas. Late in the afternoon he suddenly said with a fresh eagerness. "Now I will visit the tomb of Channing." We drove to Mount Auburn and found the monument erected by the Federal Street Church. The Emperor copied with his own hand George Ticknor's inscriptions on the stone and made me verify his copies. Then, with his great weight and height, he leaped into the air and snatched a leaf from the maple which overhung the tomb. "I am going to put that leaf," he said, "into my best edition of Channing. I have read all his published works, some of them many times over. He was a very great man." The Emperor of Brazil was a Roman Catholic.

I'm not entirely sure what Eliot meant by that last bit, but I'm guessing it was to show the small-c catholic nature of Pedro's intellectual interests – a large-C Catholic praising a leading Unitarian theologian. But more to my point, Eliot was not given to undeserved flattery; Pedro must have made a great impression indeed (though not enough to keep Eliot from getting Don and Dom mixed up, but who can keep track of these swarthy foreigners with their exotic titles?) and I remember that after reading the above I set out to learn more about him. He was indeed an extraordinary person and does deserve to have his qualities and achievements reflected in the article. But of course he wasn't a saint, and the article needs to reflect that too.

Here's a small example of the tone problems that need addressing: the article says

The trip was "an unalloyed triumph", Pedro II making a deep impression on the American people with his simplicity and kindness.

You know what? I have little doubt that's true. But as someone said above, it weakens the power of a statement like that to put it in Wikipedia's voice; in fact it's almost cringeworthy. It would be so much better to quote (and attribute) one or two scholars. EEng 23:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC) P.S. Here's [2] an interesting sidelight on Pedro and slavery.

The big problem with this article is that it ignores the views of at least half of the historical community in favor of just the narrow pro-monarchist viewpoint. The "legacy" section is especially bad, since it includes not one critical sentence on the monarchy, despite the divisions within the historical community. As historian Emilia Viotti da Costa writes in The Brazilian Empire: "A monarchist and a republic version of the fall of the monarchy emerged… The republican version was in some ways more objective, although still inexact and incomplete. For the Republicans, a change in government was the only way to eliminate the vices of the monarchial regime – abuse of the emperor's personal power, election of senators for life, excessive centralization, and electoral fraud that gave the government total control over the ballot. The republican movement had answered national aspirations; together the Republican Party and the military had carried out the will of the people. Under the widespread influence of positivism, some chroniclers portrayed the monarchy as an institution condemned by history…" The book goes on to explain that the monarchist and republican viewpoints are still prominent in Brazilian historiography today, but I only see the monarchist viewpoint in this article. Since then, new schools of thought have been developed, though many of these are also not favorable to the monarchy. As da Costa points out, many prominent historians of later decades felt that the republican movement was progressive, while the monarchy was "stagnating and backward… paying little attention to the needs of important segments of the population…" This Wikipedia article doesn't summarize the lively disputes that continue to exist among historians about whether the monarchy under Pedro II was benevolent and popular or corrupt and despised. Instead, it's just a one-sided piece of pro-monarchist advocacy journalism. No one familiar with the scholarship on this subject could ever say that this article comes even close to fully reflecting the scholarly consensus. Handy History Handbook (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This last comment is simply terrible and it's a prime example of what happens when someone who knows nothing of a subject tries to place himself as an specialist after reading a few pages of a book that is over 30 years old. But, I'll go piece by piece:

1) "The 'legacy" section is especially bad, since it includes not one critical sentence on the monarchy..." The legacy section is about Pedro II, and not about the imperial era or the monarchy as a form of government. Being true to historiography does not mean showing equally negative and positive aspects.

2) "...despite the divisions within the historical community." What division? Of Pedro II's biographers, going from José Murilo de Carvalho, passing through Roderick J. Barman, Heitor Lyra, Pedro Calmon, Mary Wilhelmine Williams and many others, which one has a negative view of him or claims that there is (at least) a minority of historians who have a negative perspective of him?

3) "A monarchist and a republic version of the fall of the monarchy emerged… The republican version was in some ways more objective, although still inexact and incomplete." Are you purposefully misleading others? It's quite obvious that Viotti da Costa was talking about historical view SOON after the end of the monarchy, and Pedro II's reputation, as the legacy section reveals, was slowly restored, and his person was used by both monarchists and republicans, especially after 1910. Nevertheless, you jump from the conclusion that historians in Brazil or about Brazil are either monarchists or republicans, which is ignorant.

4) "...goes on to explain that the monarchist and republican viewpoints are still prominent in Brazilian historiography today..." Please, show us where, in a book published in the 1980s, which is a collection of essays published in the 1970s (I read it in my first year of the PhD), says that historiography in Brazil was, almost 40 years ago, divided among monarchists and republicans.

5) "...Pedro II was benevolent and popular or corrupt and despised..." Please, show me the historians who claim that Pedro II was corrupt and/or despised by contemporary Brazilians.

6) "...Instead, it's just a one-sided piece of pro-monarchist advocacy journalism." This is the problem I have with a discussion as pointless as this one. You have someone, who never edited an article about Brazilian history, using a 1988 (!!!!!) book, which is not even about the monarchy, but about slavery and abolitionism (see here) and he insults both me and Astynax, by claiming that we were somehow influenced by political goals, to restore a monarchy that is over since 1889 (!!!), despite the fact that all we did was to use the MAIN historians and MAIN books, especially newer ones, with the latest developments within historiography,.

You waste my time. I haven't seen one person bring a decent, healthy arguments based on solid examples. Show me Pedro II's biographers who have a negative portrayal of him or any discussion among historians that claim that at least a minority of historians share a negative view of him. --Lecen (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone here isn't wasting your time because what you are asking for (a negative portrayal) isn't what everyone here is asking for, they are asking for neutrality. I was just reading some parts of this article and the tone immediately felt off, too personal, too praising and extremely one sided. I came here to the talk section specifically because I expected a giant discussion about tone here, it didn't disappoint. Let the magnificent Pedro speak for himself, you praising him makes the article feel disingenuous. Dondville (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Your having a "feeling" about the article's neutrality is irrelevant. As in other such cases, the point is that Wikipedia policies require that articles reflect what reliable sources present - nothing more and nothing less. The request is reasonable that you provide reliable sources that present a viewpoint that contradicts or is more in tune with your view of what is "neutral", rather than raising a dispute based on your personal perception. Again, this issue has previously been raised, the sources consulted, and even discussed with the input of historians. If you have new sources that shed a different shade on either the entire topic or certain statements, they are welcome. • Astynax ^talk 15:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

There may or may not be additional sources that should be drawn on – I don't know. What I do know is that an article is more than a spreadsheet of enumerated facts; an article is a presentation of facts, and the presentation in this article, including its tone, is seriously off. See my earlier comments. EEng 15:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless someone can show that article "does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources" then tag bombing this article is completely unwarranted. One's opinion is not enough to deface a stable article that has gone through FA review, where this specific issue was raised and resolved. Again, what you regard as "tone" represents the consensus of scholarship, both positives and negatives, and callouts to highly regarded individual authorities have been used to avoid the appearance that their assessments are those of Wikipedia rather than those of academics. Where is your backing for asserting POV bias? If you have high-quality reliable sources that reflect significant alternative viewpoints in the literature that should be included in the article, let's have them. Otherwise, since charging POV seriously challenges the article's long-standing FA rating, I suggest there is a less disruptive process for that. • Astynax ^talk 16:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This is gonna be a long drawn out fight, ain't it :( GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Well, there doesn't seem to be anything happening on the 'neutrality' concerns. It's up to you guys, as to whether you want the article tagged or not. It's out of my hands. On a side-note, I hope the title of this article won't be next on the WP:PRECISION group's radar screen. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing other than EEng edit warring the tag into the article. I've removed it and request that specific examples and suggestions for improvement be posted here, not just vague ideas about the neutrality. I won't hesitate to seek page protection and/or edit warring sanctions if the disruption continues. --Laser brain (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

What a lot of nonsense. The purpose of the tag is to attract further discussants. The discussion above makes it clear there's widespread concern, but there's WP:NODEADLINE. I'll just remind everyone of my earlier comments to the effect that there's great value in the work that's gone into this article, even if much remains to be done. EEng 22:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Provide a list of problems or just edit the article. Be explicit about what needs to be done. As far as I can tell, you've been asked as far back as mid-July and you're still just in here blowing smoke. The onus is on you to rationalize the banner. --Laser brain (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

People have tried to address these problems by editing the article, and got labeled vandals. Unfortunately there aren't enough eyes on this article to overcome the longstanding ownership problems (or, for that matter, the drive-by administrative intervention). EEng 01:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any administrative intervention here—what are you talking about? If you're suggesting my involvement here is "drive-by", I helped this through FAC ten years ago (in fact, I initially opposed the nomination) and have been involved with maintaining its quality ever since. Feel free to ping me when you've compiled something substantive. --Laser brain (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Hello! I added a WP:POPCULTURE section which was reversed. The section included the topics below, citing Pedro II appearances in media products notable enough to have their own english wikipedia pages and included sources which are reliable, as far as I know. I would like to know what are the issues other editors found on the section so I can improve it. Thank you very much.

• Pedro II was played by Fabio Ricardo Junior in the 2002 miniseries O Quinto dos Infernos.
• Pedro II will be played by Selton Mello in the upcoming telenovela Nos Tempos do Imperador.
• Pedro II has been featured as a playable leader in the games Civilization V and Civilization VI.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludovico Castelo Branco (talk • contribs) 17:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• The sources merely confirm that these works exist and the Pedro is depicted in them; there must be many hundreds if not thousands of such depictions. What we need is something explaining how these depictions increase the reader's understanding of Pedro or his place in popular perception. EEng 06:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

New Image

File:Pedro II of Brazil - Brady-Handy.jpg (pictured) is a featured image and of better quality than the one currently being used. Why not replace the current one with this one? FredModulars (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I now realize that User:Lecen and User:Astynax have challenged the addition of this photo into the article in the past. But, even if the Apogee of Pedro II of Brazil uses this photo, why not just replace it? The photo is accepted as a featured photo, was a POTD, and is used on the French and Portuguese Wikipedias amongst others. With the many available images of Pedro II, it would be easy to replace the photo on his apogee and implement the featured photo on this page. I feel the question is why not get the best image available for Pedro II, even if a different article happens to use it? FredModulars (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

"few Brazilians opposed slavery"

Re this, I think that the old wording is misleading as clearly a lot of Brazilians who were slaves were not happy with the arrangement. My suggestion was to add the word "free" to make it clear that the statement describes the attitudes of free Brazilian citizens. Happy to consider other ways to make it clear. Alaexis_¿question? 09:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

That is your subjective (personal) opinion. The articles uses the tone and information in the sources. Even if slaves, who were not Brazilians under the law, we’re considered, the wording wouldn’t change, since they were a little more than 10% of the population when Pedro II started moving against slavery. Minority, then. --Lecen (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Which source says this? Could you provide a quote? Alaexis_¿question? 13:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Pardon me, but if slaves weren't "Brazilians" in the legal sense of the word, then it would be pointless to add "free" since they wouldn't be considered in the first place. I'm not sure if you can even say slaves were entirely unhappy with the actual practice of slavery; here is a sourced piece from the Empire of Brazil article: "Many emancipated slaves went on to acquire slaves and there were even cases of slaves who had their own slaves." It seems like even slaves and freed slaves partook in the institution. I'm no expert in this, but I don't see the point of adding free, just leave it how it is. FredModulars (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Evidently our opinions differ but it shouldn't matter. This statement is sourced to Carvalho, Barman and Olivieri. What exactly do they say? Could you provide relevant quotes? Alaexis_¿question? 11:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Kind reminder FredModulars, Lecen Alaexis_¿question? 11:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

On Carvalho's biography of Pedro II: "And, as Joaquim Nabuco wrote, slavery did not hold race prejudice. Even freedpeople [former slaves] used to own slaves, and there were cases of slaves owning slaves. Witness to the strength of slavery is the fact that none of the rebellions during the regency asked for its general abolition. When the malês rebelled in 1835 they sought freedom only to their kindred in the Muslim faith." The author goes on through several pages explaining the views concerning slavery until the Law of the Free Birth. I won't translate several pages to appease an anonymous reader. --Lecen (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the quote. The statement in question is "In 1870, few Brazilians opposed slavery and even fewer openly condemned it." The excerpt you quoted does not support this statement. If it's not said explicitly by Carvalho then probably it's improper synthesis. If you don't agree with this and there are no other sources let's have an RfC to get feedback. Alaexis_¿question? 13:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, the author goes on for several pages explaining about the prevailing assumptions concerning slavery until 1871, I just didn't bother to translate several pages to appease you. Feel free to open a RfC. You'll waste time and still lose. If you cannot find sources claiming that most Brazilians supported abolition in 1870, then you're wasting everyone's time. --Lecen (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not a matter of winning or losing. You can provide the relevant quote in Portuguese, there is no need to translate it. Alaexis_¿question? 14:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Support of slavery

Should we say that the majority of Brazilians supported slavery? Or should we say that the majority of free Brazilians supported slavery? Alaexis_¿question? 14:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it a majority either way? It would seem that the qualifier free is only necessary if the slaves and free Brazilians who opposed slavery outnumbered the Brazilians who supported it. DrKay (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Slaves were not Brazilians, even if they were born there. They were not citizens. Thus, claiming that "free" Brazilians did support slavery would give the erroneous impression that slaves were citizens. --Lecen (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Which source makes this statement about the majority of Brazilians? I've requested it before and haven't got an answer. Alaexis_¿question? 16:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - the current wording seems fine to me ("In 1870, few Brazilians opposed slavery and even fewer openly condemned it. Pedro II, who did not own slaves, was one of the few who did oppose slavery"). It's explaining the widespread political opposition Pedro faced, so I think the context makes it clear it's referring to enfranchised Brazilians (it's also quite a generalised statement, suggesting sentiment rather than statistics). I don't think adding "free" is necessary here, or even appropriate, per the points made above about following the sources and whether slaves were considered Brazilian at the time. Saying only "free" Brazilians didn't oppose slavery would by SYNTH unless there's a source for it. None of the 3 inline references provided are readily accessible for verification, but I'll work on the presumption they're being accurately cited, particularly as the article went through a FAC (there was no source spot-check, but several reviewers indicated they independently read sources and found no issues). I think the quote provided by Lecen above, "witness to the strength of slavery is the fact that none of the rebellions during the regency asked for its general abolition", while not enough by itself, does partly support the statement "few Brazilians opposed slavery and even fewer openly condemned it". If similar points about the strength of slavery as an institution are made on the following pages, as Lecen says is the case, then I think it's adequately supported. Also, "few opposed" (the article's wording) ≠ "majority supported" (the RfC question) – I think this RfC's opening statement is a bit leading. Jr8825 • Talk 01:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

  I second what Pincrete has said below, they've done a better job of summarising the issue than me. Jr8825 • Talk 15:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  The problem is that the provided excerpt from the source doesn't support this statement. If it's some editor's personal conclusion from a whole chapter, wouldn't it be an improper synthesis. Could someone check the provided sources? Alaexis_¿question? 15:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think that would be synth, see WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not summary/WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not explanation. Jr8825 • Talk 16:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I suspect that non-free Brazilians did not support slavery. GoodDay (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Current wording - the current wording seems fine to me ("In 1870, few Brazilians opposed slavery and even fewer openly condemned it. Pedro II, who did not own slaves, was one of the few who did oppose slavery"). By phrasing in terms of relatively limited opposition (which current text does), one avoids many of the problems implied by the RfC question. The present text says nothing about how many people were indifferent or acceptant or too young (or for some other reason) to have much say in the matter. There was limited active opposition and we don't need to conjecture too much about whether the non-free is Brazil were too exhausted, too dispirited, too dispersed, too cowed, too inarticulate, or whatever to mount much active general opposition. Nor do we need to define who a 'Brazilian' was or was not. The proposed 'fix' looks to be making a point rather than solving an actual problem in present text. There is all the difference in the world between "few opposed" and "the majority supported". Pincrete (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support current wording it may be assumed that the enslaved did not support slavery. Laurel Lodged (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support current wording - seems to sound better, less obtuse. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support current wording for the reasons I mentioned in the thread above. I'm a little tired of you consistently trying to justify your point. Was it really necessary to open two threads, request comments, and ping people on an FA for one word? You also dismiss logic and reason and just retreat to the sources. When I replied it seemed as if you didn't care about what I had to say and just asked me for sources I didn't have. (Caring this much about the article I thought you would realize I only edited it once.) You won't stop until you get all three books to verify you're victorious, which you aren't, Alaexis (talk · contribs). But to reiterate what I previously said, enslaved Brazilians weren't legally Brazilians in the 1870s, so in that context "Brazilians" excludes those enslaved, technically. And even if you wanted to include them how could you say they were disappointed with the institution when some owned slaves themselves? As I said I'm no expert, but I support the current wording. FredModulars (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't he in the Portuguese line of succession?

Clarification required. How was he removed as second-in-line to the Portuguese throne? Wasn't he ahead of his sister Maria, in the succession? GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

See his father’s “issue” section. It explains that. Pedro II was born after Brazil’s independence in 1822 and even after Brazil and Portugal signed the treaty acknowledging Brazil’s independence. His sisters who were born between 1822 and 1825 were also excluded. Only Maria remained. This is why nowadays a descendant of Miguel I is the Portuguese claimant, and not a descendant of Pedro II. --Lecen (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarify: Do you mean that he & his younger siblings were disqualified from the Portuguese throne, because they were born in another sovereign state? GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Pedro II is the youngest child. --Lecen (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

But the eldest son of the Portuguese heir-apparent, at the time of his birth. We should clarify in this article, that his location of birth barred him from the Portuguese throne. Unless, Portugal had adopted the eldest child rule, long before Sweden (in 1980) & subsequent countries, adopted it. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

What a dumb request. Can’t you be useful once? Just for a change? Do something positive around instead of going into articles written by other people and annoying for ridiculous and unnecessary changes? --Lecen (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to be rude. I'll wait for somebody else's response to my concerns. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It won't be necessary to elaborate on the exclusion. As mentioned, his birth taking place in Brazil and after Brazil's independence, barred him from the Portuguese throne. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Assassination attempt

Hello folks, I've translated Pedro's assassination attempt article from Portuguese and I've noticed this article does not mention it, while the article in Portuguese does. I think it is an important event that should be mentioned here, but I'm not sure if I'm qualified or allowed to edit this article considering it is a featured one, so I'm leaving this here.Torimem (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Because this article is an overview of the reign, and because the assassination attempt has only a tenuous tie to republicanism, I do not see where this could fit into this article's narrative. However, I do think it may merit a mention and a link within the more detailed Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil article and have added a mention in "The last year" section. It would be more noteworthy if there are sources that detail how this may have influenced Pedro's thinking or the subsequent course of events. • Astynax ^talk 03:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

[3] EEng 06:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the edit, however, the language still implies a tie to republicanism and/or the subsequent overthrow of the monarchy. The gunman was not an adherent of the republican cause, nor was he endorsed by those holding republican views. As mentioned, there is also nothing suggesting that Pedro II noticed or was influenced by this incident, and thus I still see no reason for this minor event (drunken immigrant with no political ties letting off a shot) to be placed within this main article. • Astynax ^talk 15:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, without further sources to guide I'm not sure it's worth discussing. EEng 00:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Severe neutrality issues

The introductory paragraphs are ludicrously biased in favour of him and have no citations. Please someone change this, it reads more like a fan page than a serious historical perspective. Who even writes this stuff, jeez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.21.39 (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The Lead section of an article does not require citations because the purpose of this section is to summarize information from the article's Body that is already cited; you need only read down in the section of the Body which covers any statement in the Lead to find the corresponding citation(s). The allegation of bias has been previously raised, examined, and resolved both during previous article assessments and here on the talk page. Articles are to reflect the overall consensus of the most widely respected scholarly sources, including significant dissenters. If you have new reliable sources that disagree with something stated in the article, you are welcome to contribute that alternative viewpoint. • Astynax ^talk 16:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

When the introduction defenitely does need citations, and if their so easy to find, no issue in citing them twice in the same article. Right now the introduction of this article is a joke 89.23.235.49 (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The introductory lead summarizes the body of the article which provides not only details and context, but the citations on which the statements are based. Again, if intrigued by a statement, simply read the article for this information. In many cases the summarized material relies on multiple statements and their multiple sources, which only leads to repetitive bloat of the references section to no purpose (or worse, confusion as to what source supports what portion of a summation statement). • Astynax ^talk 16:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)