Talk:John III of Portugal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
John III of Portugal is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] PLEASE HELP

We need to stop the "English monopoly" of featured articles regarding kings.
Let this article be one of them.
The article was lamely translated from Portuguese and help correcting it is needed.
Help from Portuguese speaking and English speaking wikipedians is needed also for correcting facts, adding info, adding images, maps, etc

List of improvements needed:

  • Image:Lisbon 16thcentury.jpg, Image:Portuguese flag 1495.gif, Image:Portuguese elm.jpg, Image:Macau oldmap.jpg have no copyright information.
  • There are no references besides the 1911 Britannica.
  • Too many language problems to be ready for FAC. It needs a good copyedit, preferably by someone reasonably proficient in Portuguese, as there are a number of sentences that are hard to understand
  • The paragraphs are too short throughout and need merging.
  • Linking needs to address the readers' information.
  • Non-standard use of italics. removed italic in quotation. more missing?
  • Ensure the first three paragraphs are a good summary
  • This is supposed to be a biography, yet the entire 'The_Empire' section looks like it should be moved to History of Portugal. So I propose the not to be moved but be integrated in the spirit of the article, as a characterization of John's reign.
  • Center the quotes in this article to a standard quote format.
  • Some links are missing - better red then none. From first few paras, I'd like to read on: Maria of Aragon, Portuguese theatre, Tomás de Torres, D. Diogo Ortiz de Villegas, Luís Teixeira, Isabella, princess of Portugal, Catherine of Austria...
  • Monarch infobox
  • Change the king's box at the end to the one used in Afonso I of Portugal.
  • Enlarge Culture, International relations and Problems of the Empire
  • More links using See also in the middle of the text.
  • Drastically enlarge the king's life. Impossible to say more...
  • Get more pictures
  • Create and improve links related to the king (wife, issue, close people, enemies and events)
  • Add a chronology or a timeline.
  • Add external links.
  • Add a map of the Portuguese Empire at its peak.--Gameiro 02:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Some inline references are needed.--Fenice 06:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mention translation as reference

Translated article usually have the following reference:

  • This article draws heavily on the corresponding article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia, which was accessed in the version of xxx, 200x.

--Fenice 06:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

    • That's true. But in this case it was not translated from the Portuguese wikipedia. It was translated from a text made by me a long time ago. I'm just making the adjustments and I'm getting it done for the Portuguese wikipedia by the end of the week. Thanks. --Gameiro 12:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q:Brazil as Asian possession?

The second sentence of the second paragraph indicates "During his rule Asian possessions in Portuguese hands were extended by further conquest and systematic colonization of Brazil." I don't think Brazil counts as an "Asian possession". I don't know much about the topic, so I haven't changed the sentence, but I think you're trying to say "During his rule Asian possessions in Portugese hands were extended by further conquest, and Brazil was colonized systematically." Actually, that version isn't very good, so you might want "John III oversaw the extension of Portugal's Asian possessions by continuing conquest, and the systemic colonization of South American holdings in Brazil." Have fun, -- Creidieki 03:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why there are two different templates

I don't think we need two different templates for his children and life. We need to merge both templates. --Pedro 10:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I think having two boxes completly destroys the looks of the article and attempts to improve it. -Pedro 11:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed this table and added here because it gave work and it maybe useful in the future. -Pedro 11:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

John III
Reign December 19, 1521 - June 11, 1557
Queen Catherine of Habsburg (1507-1578)
Royal House House of Aviz
Father Manuel I of Portugal (1469-1521)
Mother Maria of Aragon (1482-1517)
Issue Afonso (1526)
Maria of Portugal (1525-1545)
Isabel (1529)
Beatriz (1530)
Manuel (1531-1537)
Filipe (1533-1539)
Dinis (1535-1537)
John of Portugal (1537-1554)
António (1539-1540)
Date of Birth June 6, 1502
Place of Birth Lisbon
Date of Death June 11, 1557
Place of Death Lisbon
Place of Burial Monastery of Jerónimos (Lisbon)

[edit] Suggestions for the Introduction to the Article

Note: I do not speak Portugese, I have no knowledge of John III and little knowledge of Portugese history. My comments are simply based on reading the article critically.

Typically I would make direct edits or more specific suggestions, but I am not familiar with the subject, therefore I offer suggestions and ask questions which I hope are helpful.

"It was also during John's reign that Portuguese contacts with Ming-dynasty China and Muromachi-period Japan (Nanban) were established."

for

"It was also during John's reign that the Portuguese first contacted Ming-dynasty China and Muromachi-period Japan (Nanban)."

More active.

Regarding: "John III was responsible for the evangelization of the Far East and Brazil, partly through the introduction of the Jesuit missions."

The assumption is that "evangelization" refers to the introduction of Roman Catholic Christianity to the Far East and Brazil. The implication is that there was little to no evangelization or extant Christianity prior to John III's efforts and that it was his sole initiative to set up Jesuit missions there. Is that the case? Wether it is the case or no, this could be written more directly.

Related to the entire paragraph: "John III was responsible for the evangelization of the Far East and Brazil, partly through the introduction of the Jesuit missions. However, the Portuguese Inquisition was introduced in 1536, having disastrous effects on the commercial prosperity and social stability of the Empire. In the later years of John III's reign, Portugal fell into the stagnation that characterized the rule of King Sebastian, who succeeded him when John died of apoplexy in 1577."

The second sentance implies that there was a connection between John III's evangelization efforts and the Inquisition, the outcome of which was commercial and social instability in Portugal which affected China and Brazil. Is that the case?

Another implication of this paragraph is that "evangelization led to Inquistion led to instability led to stagnation which carried on into the reign of John III's successor". If these events are not related in this way they should be in separate paragraphs. If these events are interrelated then the paragraph needs to be rewritten to state that case clearly.

'General Comments on the Introduction'

I look to a biographical introduction to provide several things: common names by which the figure is known, when the person lived, where they lived, significant actions, events and effects credited to the individual -- their "place in history" in a nutshell.

Typically I read the introduction to understand if this is the person I want to know more about or to see if there is anything that piques my interest. I find with this introduction that I am moved to read on because I'm rather confused by the "actions, events ..." which look rather tangled.

I think this needs to be written less ambiguously. Normally I would take a stab at it, but I am completely unfamiliar with the facts of John III's life and while my prose might read more clearly I'm not sure it would be factual.

Best of luck.

Erraunt 21:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Be bold, edit the article!!--Pedro 23:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm usually very bold, but I don't know the *facts* so while I can make some grammatical changes, since I am not fully aware of the *meaning* in many cases it makes it very difficult to frame the words properly. I will try to find some other sources for the life of John III today and see if with that better understanding I can begin to edit. No offense, but the article is very confused. I've read enough things in translation and have read enough in other languages (not Portugese) to sense that there is sense "below" the words, but that someone struggled with the translation. Erraunt 13:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on "Life"

Regarding:

"Prince John's birth was connected to a masterpiece of Portuguese theatre: "Visitation Play or the Monologue of the Cowherd" (Auto da Visitação ou Monólgo do Vaqueiro) of Gil Vicente, played at the Queen's chamber. The young prince was educated by notables of the time, such as the astrologer, Tomás de Torres, and Diogo de Ortiz, Bishop of Tanger. One of his teachers was Luís Teixeira, a humanist educated in Italy."

The paragraph appears to encompass two topics: John IIIs birth and the influence of his educators.

Unless there is a thematic connection between the two topics this paragraph should be divided.

The first sentance is very confusing. It states that his birth is connected to a theatre masterpiece, and names the masterpiece, but does not explain the connection. Was it first performed to celebrate his birth? Did the masterpiece coincidentally mirror or parallel his life in some way? I recommend that this sentance be turned into a paragraph of its own and the connection between the masterpiece and the prince.

The notables who educated him as a list is only of mild interest. Are there some broad themes of the thought and teachings of these notables that elaborate on the events of John's life? Were his actions influenced them in a significant way? Or is it simply significant that he knew these famous people more intimately than most?

Erraunt 21:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

This passage is particularly troublesome to me:

"John's chronicler says that "Dom João III enthralled problems easily, complementing his lack of culture with a practice formation that he always showed during his reign" (António de Castilho, Elogio d'el-rei D. João de Portugal, terceiro, do nome)."

The quotation makes little sense to me. Was John "enthralled by problems" in that he found learning and intellectual challenges interesting and compelling? How is this compliment a lack of culture? Was it the other way around, in that problems engrossed him and he had difficulty working through them, so when he became King the number of administrative problems he faced overwhelmed him?

"practice formation" does not make sense to me either. To me "practice formation" would be something like an arrangement of items to see how things function as a group in a particular arrangement. Groping for alternate meanings "practice" could be "habitual activity" and "formation" a "development" and but that leaves me with "developed habits that complimented his lack of culture" and that seems strange. Can you help me understand so I could edit this? Erraunt 18:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What I tried to say was that when facing a problem, John is said to have used practical klowledge rather than theories learned during his education. Please change it to a more undestandable quotation. Maybe "enthralled" could be changed to "faced". Thank's for the support Erraunt. Gameiro 22:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I made a few minor edits to this section.

I am still having trouble with the quotation about his education.

"Dom João III faced problems easily, complementing his lack of culture with a practice formation that he always showed during his reign"

As you see I changed "enthralled" to faced, but I am very reluctant to do more as it is a quotation and I don't want to edit something that is quoted when I cannot read the original (regretably Portugese is not one of the languages at my disposal). Some thoughts to help in translating (assuming you have access to the original in Portugese):

"Enthralled" would still work. Something like "Dom João III found problems enthralling, ..." would make sense from what you say.
For the last half of the quotation I would suggest: " ... he balanced his lack of culture with pragmatism throughout his reign."
All together: "Dom João III found problems enthralling and carried this talent into his reign balancing his lack of culture with pragmatism." That's better but not quite *there*.

Could you send me the quotation in Portugese? While I can't read Portugese I may get enough sense from the common roots to help me.

I'm "worrying" on this quote as in articles it often seems that a quote or two can be the ray of light that reveals a theme and character. This quotation feels like it could be such. But it seems "out of character" with the rest of the article.


I'm also concerned about the phrase "religious fanaticism". It doesn't read like a neutral statement, rather judgemental. Further, from what I know of the history of that period, it sounds more like how a Protestant historian would describe him. Given his support of missions, the Jesuits, and the Inquisition, and that he was married into the Hapsburg line I'm surprised there isn't more included in the Article on his role in the Counter-Reformation (if he had one) as that seems like a serious theme of his life and reign.

That could earn him "fanatic" depending on his role. But in the quotation it sounds like he had a rather pragmatic leaning. Was his support of Roman Catholicism based on fanaticism or was he more pious than many of his day and seeing what was happening in the Germanies socially and politically, supported the Jesuits and the Inquisition as a means to political and social stability?

I read too in, I believe, the Encyclopedia Britannica on-line that he had some connection with Erasmus, but despite this still moved strongly into the Counter-Reformation camp. I think that would bear some mentioning. Erraunt 15:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This keeps making no sense : "was educated by notables of the time, including the astrologer Tomás de Torres and Diogo de Ortiz, Bishop of Viseu. One of his teachers was Luís Teixeira, a humanist educated in Italy. John's chronicler said that "Dom João III faced problems easily, complementing his lack of culture with a practice formation ..."
If he was educated by notables of the time how did he have a lack of culture?Seems contradictory.


[edit] Featured article

This article has been completely edited, copyedited, peer reviewed and has been biography collaboration of the week. I believe it's now time for it to be a featured article candidate? I'll wait until the end of the month. If there is anything you'd like to see improved in the article please say/edit until Wednesday, August 28. Thanks everybody for the effort. Gameiro 00:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't looked through the "featured article" materials yet, but my impression is that it needs more work. The writing does not feel polished. I wish I had more time to devote to working on this, but life has other demands on me. Just my opinion but while I think it has improved and progressed it still feels rough. It is a good looking article, but I think it needs just a bit more "flesh" before submission. As I can I'll give input, but I don't have the time for the research myself. I do find it an interesting topic and like that it is coming from "outside" the usual lines of history and biography. Just working on this the little bit I have has opened my perspective considerably.
I note that earlier in the discussion there is some mention that most of the "royal biographies" are of English Kings and such and this article begins to balance that. I'm glad for that as I like diversity. However, I would take advantage of the English orientation of so many contributors and readers in the following way: if memory serves wasn't John III one of the ancestors of Philip II of Spain? And didn't Phillip have designs on marrying Mary or Elizabeth Tudor? If so that is a "hook" I would make more manifest in the article as a kind of "marketing" by putting in links to articles that might be more "travelled".

Erraunt 15:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

A small list of things that need to be done in order for this article to reach FAC status.
  • Avoid one sentence paragraphs, try combining them to make a 4-5 sentence paragraph.
  • You go straight from Early life, to Decline, you need another section. This can probably be done by taking information from various parts of the article and making a 1-2 paragraph overview.
  • Introduction, seems overlinked for size. There are two many blue links, its distracting, try moving them elswhere in the article where they are more appropriate.
  • The lead needs to be three decent size paragraphs. I'm not sure how difficult that will be but it needs to so that it conforms with Wikipedia:Lead.
  • The red link Iberian Kingdoms needs to be linked somewhere, maybe here? [1]
  • The use of quotes seems to be overly used. Try finding away around some of them. Falphin 21:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] still many errors in article

There are still many small errors of fact and interpretation in this article that need to be removed or corrected. In correcting the dynastic crisis section the image got lost or at least it no longer comes up when the final result is accessed. Someone who knows how should get this straightened out. There was no dynastic crisis during John's reign. That came only after Sebastian became king and failed to produce any offspring. See his entry for more information. The early Brazil material has also been corrected, more or less. The previous presentation was flawed. The whole article appears to have been done by people who can't read Portuguese or who, if they can, are not aware of the latest research. Someone who can read Portuguese should get the Paulo Braga biography and use it to correct the whole article. Make it accurate and up-to-date, something that it is not now.

The statement that the head of the Inquisition always came from the royal family is DEAD WRONG and a good example of the ignorant writers here who don't know what they are talking about. I will let the author of this howler correct it himself. There are others of the sort in the article.

[edit] decline nonsense

The Portuguese empire did not decline under João III. If the revenues from Asia declined those from Brazil were rising. In fact at his death Brazil was just beginning its sugar industry, an economic boom that created enormous wealth in Brazil. The nonsense about the decline needs to be removed.

Manuel I is normally called the peak of Portuguese power, and thus the reign of John III must be one of "decline". This would be a perspective which I would guess is mostly found in older works, and generalist ones. john k 13:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the info re the income coming to the Portuguese Crown during the 16th century from the empire. It is in Harold Johnson and Maria Beatriz da Silva, O Imperio Luso-Brasileiro, 1500-1620 in the series Nova Historia da Expansão Portuguesa, vol. 1. The Portuguese Empire was just getting started under Manuel I. How anyone could think that is the "peak" is bizarre. Your statement is additionally silly in that there is NO reason why, even if Manuel I's reign was the peak, that the next reign had to be one of "decline." It could just as well be one of stability or continued success. I suspect you don't even read Portuguese, are not an historian, and really have no grasp of the subject.

[edit] decline nonsense

More idiocy re the decline. The Portuguese empire was NOT a gold empire until the 18th century with the discovery of gold in Brazil. It was a PEPPER empire in the early 16th century. And the idea that João III "drained" the economy of the empire to build churches is plain silly. The Jesuits and the Inquisition had no real effect one way or the other on the economy of Portugal. I have no idea what ignorant people are writing this nonsense. I suspect they know little history, probably can't read Portuguese, and have no acquaintance with recent research. It would be better if they kept their silly and wrong ideas to themselves. The article is now such a mess it needs to be thrown out and completely rewritten by someone who knows his stuff.