Talk:Pedro II of Brazil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	Brazil Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Brazil on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Pedro I of Brazil is a title of the portuguese king Pedro IV of Portugal! 2 Should Dom Pedro be known as plain Peter? 3 Wikipedia standards for exceptions to monarchs' names 3.1 Discussion copied from User talk:Jao 4 Documenting moves to Pedro I of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil 5 Backup of photos with long captions before moving the long captions to the Image page 6 what does reinterred mean 7 Illegal coup d'etat?

[edit] 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 The rule of Brazil was not temporary - he only abdicated in Brazil because the arrangements originally made for his daughter to marry her uncle and for them to share the throne had been up-ended by Miguel's assumption of the throne on his own behalf, and because of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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wikipedia standards for exceptions to monarchs' names

[edit] 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)

---

[edit] 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)

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

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)