Talk:Pedro I of Brazil/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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

See discussion on Talk:Pedro II of Brazil.

Peer review

History of Portugal (1777-1834) is now being peer reviewed. Please, if you want, go there and state your opinion. Thank you. Gameiro 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to state that it is now a featured article candidate. You can support or oppose here. Thanks. Gameiro 01:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Siege of Porto

The article calls the Cerco do Porto "Porto's Wall", but I beleive "cerco" is meant as "siege". Is this a traditional english translation?... Wouldn't surprise me they like a strange transation, since in "Thelondon" they already like to call Porto "Oporto"... :) -- NIC1138 22:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutist

How can an Absolutist Monarchy be held by a Constitution? If it has a Constituition it's not Absolutist.

And more, how can a Prince called "The Liberal" be an absolutist emperor? Please this must be changed, here in Brazil discussions made about Pedro's I monarchy are all saying he made a Constitutional Monarchy, calling him an Absolutist is outrageous. And please don't take your texts based on portuguese Wikipedia, it sucks, it's empty of references and it's usually based on hour Basical History Learning that is being contested since the end of the XX century, and most of books are beeing rewritten to show some truth.

Independent Brazil has never had an Absolutist Monarchy, and the reign of Dom Pedro I is really similar to Presidentialist system, where the Chief of State is the Chief of Government.

I'm not signed on wikipedia, so if someone here wants to contact me i'll give my page on Orkut: http://www.orkut.com/Profile.aspx?uid=3184544641264841604

189.32.158.41 (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As no one has changed it or talked to me i'll change it myself. 189.32.158.41 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The reign of D. Pedro I was a constitucional Monarchy , because had a constitution.But in fact was a absolut monarchy. In the time of the Empire we had four powers.The tradicional 3 and one that hear was called "Poder Moderador" with this power D. Pedro I reigned without limits.Of course wasn't democratic in fact was a way that Pedro I found to reign without limits but was constitutional.It's complicated. 

  Augusto Fontes  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.160.122 (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Names in the header

Could the listing of names at the beginning of the article be changed? Looks completely ridiculous in the current form, and part of it is redundant with what is mentioned in the beginning of the biography. -- Imladros (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Returned to Brazil?

This article (and the one on the War of the Brothers) contends that Pedro "returned to Brazil" after abdicating in Portugal in 1826. This implies that he went to Portugal in the first place, which seems odd. He was king of Portugal for two months. I'm not sure exactly how long a voyage from Lisbon to Rio de Janeiro took in 1826, but I'd guess it would have to be at least a few weeks. So, did Pedro actually travel to Portugal in this time period? john k (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, he didn´t. He received an diplomatic envoy sent by his sister, then the regent of the Kingdom of Portugal, to tell him that he was now King. He immediately abdicated the crown. The time as King of Portugal, only two months, was in fact the time taken by that diplomatic envoy to reach Rio de Janeiro plus a week that Pedro I took to write the Portuguese Constitution. - --Lecen (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
So this should be corrected then, right? john k (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep. - --Lecen (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I tried to fix it, but I got a bit confused by the article on Isabella Maria. Did she continue as regent until Miguel's usurpation, or did Miguel himself at some point take over the regency? john k (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Soon as Miguel arrived in Portugal, he usurped not only the regency, but also the crown for himself. His niece and fiancé, Maria II, was on her way to the country. However, she went instead to Britain and later returned to Brazil. She returned to Europe with her father in 1831, and was once again aclaimed Queen in 1834. When I have time, I´ll try to fix the article. I´m now focused on the article about Pedro II. - --Lecen (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox heading & content

I see no harm to readers in having Peter IV of Portugal in the infobox heading & Peter IV in the content, relating to the Kingdom of Portugal. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you haven't joined discussion? I'll assume you reverted me per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You're making an arbitrary call. Peter IV[1] is far less known thatn Pedro IV.[2]
That you are the kind of editor who does not improve Wikipedia at all, I already know that. However, that does not give you the right to push your way through. Placing Pedro I as Peter IV is confusing. --Lecen (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't comment on contributor, please. It's not confusing. More importantly, let's relax & allow others to join in. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
If you do not you're going to make substantial changes to the article, you should ask others their opinions first. One thing is to add content, improve the text or similar, but changing the name requires at least a little chat first. And please, you may call your friends. I'd like to see a single one who cares about Portuguese/Brazilian history. --Lecen (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay, perhaps you could respond to Lecen's argument that says Pedro is more commonly used in literature than Peter. He`has made an argument for Pedro IV of Portugal and you have made no attempt at rebutting that argument. John Hendo (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Letting others have a chance to join discussion. We 3 will only go in circles. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I really don't mean to be rude, but you are the one who started this conversation. I think you should be replying to Lecen's points when he was only replying to you. It's a free world of course, but I don't think it looks good letting others reply to him when it was your good self that brought this up. Your choice I guess John Hendo (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Peter is still used, though less so. Thus I merely wish to add 'Peter IV of Portugal', in the infobox heading & just once in the content. Certainly not 'too much' to ask. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention that you will change his name to Peter at the infobox of John VI of Portugal if it is changed on this one, as you did earlier. As I understand it, and as I have been told before, this type of thing comes under WP:Commonname and an argument of it's "not too much to ask" doesn't at first glance appear to be a good argument. I am no expert on policy, or Portuguese/Brazilian royalty for that matter, so will bow out and let the experts in those fields take over if they wish. Cheers, John Hendo (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, myself & Lecen are haggling at Peter V of Portugal, concerning the Peter/Pedro discussion here. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Shout from the Ipiranga

Because the cry (or shout) was made from the banks of the Ipiranga River, the phrase "O Grito da Ipiranga actually has the meaning of "The Cry from the Ipiranga." As an example, if someone shouted something on the banks of the Swanee River in the US, we would say, "The Cry from the Swanee" -- not "The Cry of Swanee," which is nonsense. Moreover, in terms of a bold shout of Independence, "shout" seems much more suitable than "cry." Even if the mistaken translation has been used a few times in the past, it is not too late to correct this erroneous description.189.38.128.8 (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Progress of work

I know I've been improving this article for some time now, but it's taking longer than I imagined. Unfortunately, I just don't feel the same passion as before when I write this articles. There are two paragraphs missing on section "Constitutional Emperor": one that talks about the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly and the other that talks about the ennactment of the Imperial Constitution. I'll try to finish them soon. --Lecen (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Done with "Constitutional Emperor". --Lecen (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Finished "Portuguese dynastic affair". --Lecen (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

John IV

I was under the impression that the title "Duke of Braganza" for the heir to the Portuguese throne was akin to "Duke of Cornwall" for the heir to the British throne. In other words, the heir does not bear a numeral until they succeed to the throne. For example, is John VI really called John IV until he succeeds? Is Luís Filipe, Prince Royal of Portugal, really called "Luís I"? DrKiernan (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Only in terms of being the Duke of Braganza, as to refer to them as the Prince of Brasil or Prince Royal, then no. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Cristiano, I don't remember ever having seen João VI be called "João IV" as duke of Braganza, even more because this was no longer an hereditary title. That is, when João VI became King, his son Pedro did not become immediately Duke. Do you have sources, I mean, books, where they used numbers on dukes after the House of Braganza acceded to the throne? --Lecen (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I am putting them together, when I post them, you can find it at Template Talk:Dukes of Braganza. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed content

This section contains all removed sourced content from the article that might be useful to be used elsewhere. --Lecen (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese dynastic affair

The treaty required the Brazilian government to pay an indemnity of ₤2,000,000 (the equivalent of U.S. $10,000,000 at that time)[1] to Portugal.

[...to Portugal,] which was to "regain her previous status as a most-favored nation."[2]

It "was as though all the blood shed and all the sacrifices made since 1822 had been to no purpose, their value denied", said Barman.[3]

Even worse, Great Britain was rewarded for its role in advancing the negotiations by the signing of another treaty in which its favorable commercial rights were renewed (including a maximum tariff of 15% on British goods)...[3][4]

War and widowhood

In his May 1826 Speech from the Throne to the General Assembly (the Brazilian parliament), Pedro I said: "Ungrateful men who owe much to Brazil have risen against her and are now supported by the government of Buenos Aires [capital of the United Provinces], currently at war with us. The national honor requires that the Cisplatina province be retained, since we have sworn to maintain the integrity of the Empire."[5]

Endless crises

In an article he wrote for a newspaper, the Emperor said that slavery "is the cancer that is gnawing away at Brasil, and must be erradicated." And also stated that "I don't believe that men have any right at all to enslave another".[6]

He was attacked by the Liberals for his misdeeds, real or not, but incongruities were found in the Liberal Party, clearly exemplified in its main figures. Nicolau de Campos Vergueiro was born in Portugal;[7] Bernardo Pereira de Vasconcelos[8] as well as Evaristo da Veiga[9] were both hardcore advocates of slavery who openly attacked the Emperor's measures against it; Antônio Borges da Fonseca conspired not only to rip apart the Constitution, but also to topple the monarchy.[10]

Abdication

Pedro I was contradictory in character as he was in many aspects of his life. He was good humored and easily laughed,[11] but he could just as fast get anger. Maria Graham (later Lady Callcott), who worked in the palace in early 1820s, said that the Emperor was "subject to sudden explosions of violent passion," she wrote, "followed by a generous and frank civility, a readiness to do more than necessary to undo the ill that might have been done, or the pain that might have been caused in the moments of rage."[12][13] A British diplomat made a similar comment: "The improvident measures adopted by the Government are the result of the fits of passion to which he gives way, but no man regret more than himself the [resulting] quarrels ... when the fit is over."[14]

"Against me they argue that I was born in Portugal. I thought that twenty three years of existence in this land, of which ten were dedicated to the public cause, had given me the right to be Brazilian", would later say Pedro I.[15]

A little later he told the Council of State about his desire to relinquish the crown and depart.[16]

Death

Pedro disembarked in the Portuguese capital on 28 July[17][18] and went to his father's tomb, where he wrote: "A son murdered you: the other will avenge you".[19]

On 15 August the reopened Portuguese parliament confirmed the Duke of Braganza as regent during his daughter's minority, a position he already held in practice.[20][21]

...while he was given the honors of a general, not of a king, in his funeral.[22][23]

Some needed explanations

Neill Macaulay's Dom Pedro: The Struggle for Liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798–1834 only tells that Dom Pedro's remains were brought to Brazil in 1972. The information about being brought as a Head of State and with much fanfare came from several different sources. Perhaps not known for most foreigners, the Brazilian Military Dictatorship brought his remains to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Brazil's independence. His body was paraded through all capital of every single Brazilian state. I thought that there was no reason to add further sources because this well known and can be easily found anywhere. --Lecen (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Some needed explanations

Neill Macaulay's Dom Pedro: The Struggle for Liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798–1834 only tells that Dom Pedro's remains were brought to Brazil in 1972. The information about being brought as a Head of State and with much fanfare came from several different sources. Perhaps not known for most foreigners, the Brazilian Military Dictatorship brought his remains to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Brazil's independence. His body was paraded through all capital of every single Brazilian state. I thought that there was no reason to add further sources because this well known and can be easily found anywhere. --Lecen (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Please clarify "succeeding in reducing the impact of the most outrageous conditions". Does this mean "succeeding in reducing the impact of their more unacceptable demands"? DrKiernan (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --Lecen (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Landing unopposed and entering Porto

Costa says Pedro landed at Arnoso de Pampelido beach and then moved through Pedras Rubras entering Porto from the north in the early morning of 9 July. It would seem to indicate that the landing was not on the 9th itself, but a little before, and the landing was not in the city itself, but a few kilometres north. See also the wikipedia articles Mindelo (Vila do Conde) and Siege of Porto, which (though I appreciate they are not reliable) also seem to support this. This is the reason I separated the two events (landing and entering Porto) and gave a date only for entering the city. DrKiernan (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You're correct. They landed on 8 July and marched all night to Porto (Pedro made most of the distance by walking) reaching the town on the morning of 9 July (altough Pedro only entered it at noon). It was my mistake to use "landing" instead of "entering" in the article, leading anyone to errounously believe that Pedro's forces made an amphibious attack at Porto. I made the correction already. I really believe that mentioning the landing and the march to Porto unnecessary, whihch is why I'll leave them to whoever is willing to improve the article about the "Liberal Wars". --Lecen (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead / infobox image - blue/green hair - really?

I changed the lead/infobox image from File:Dom Pedro Duke of Braganza.png to File:29- Imperador Rei D. Pedro IV - O Soldado.jpg. Because it seems unlikely that the subject has green/blue hair, and the replacement image seems far more likely to be a good representation of the subject. This was reverted without explanation. Perhaps this could be discussed. (Hohum @) 00:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Green/blue hair? Please adjust your monitor. --Lecen (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I have a carefully calibrated monitor. The colour issue with the image is obvious. (Hohum @) 10:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
This version: File:Anônimo - D. Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG is even more superior, although a little dark, you can even see the brushwork on the face properly. (Hohum @) 10:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The images mentioned are different works derived from the same archetype, so the color choices may be partly due to artistic license. The existing image does have a slight blue cast, but it is not off-putting at the size used in the infobox (the hair comes closest to the "dark brown" ascribed to Pedro I and the image is a known work by John Simpson). The first alternative has a noticeable and overly yellow cast (the hair seems lighter than what the article describes and the image is of unknown provenance—the attribution to John Simpson likely will not hold water). The colors in the second alternative are much too oversaturated (the hair should not look so nearly black and the image and the image is an anonymous copy of the existing, original image by John Simpson). If there is a better image, I request that you discuss here before changing. The infobox image needs to reflect the text and references in the article. • Astynax talk 06:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

War and widowhood/noblewoman v. courtier

Terrific article! I noticed in the FAC review that other people objected to "widowhood" - it is technically correct in applying to both genders but not used very often and so is awkward in this context, as most people assume it refers to a woman. You have to read the section to find out that Pedro's wife died. Similarly, what I was trying to clarify in the earlier section by using "noblewoman of the court" for his mistress was that his affair was with a woman, as "courtier" is frequently thought of as a man, although it is increasingly applied to both genders. That was my first thought when encountering it in the Lead, and it wasn't until reading the article that I found out the scandal was with a woman, one of his many mistresses. I think "noblewoman" would be more clear in this context, or lady in waiting. Parkwells (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Parkwells. It's good to meet you. I'm sorry to disagree with you but your changes are redundant. How could someone believe that "widowhood" on this article is about someone else other than Pedro I? If he is the subject of the article it wouldn't mention in the section heading something unrelated to him. In fact, we have a section called "First marriage" and later, just after "War and widowhood", another section called "Second marriage". It's pretty obvious to me. Howevr, I added "female" to courtier in the lead. The use of quotes was also discussed in the FAC and they look too odd when used here. Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Featured article

Congratulations on the FA status. Anyways, is one allowed to make a 'minor' edit on an FA, or not? GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to ask the same question in several talk pages. Answered in Talk:Pedro II of Brazil Cambalachero (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox heading

We should have Peter I & Peter IV in the infobox heading, along with the Pedros. The Portuguese/English names idea is being done at John VI of Portugal. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 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 07:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is it alright to have English/Portuguese in one article's infobox heading (John VI of Portugal) & yet not alright to have Portuguese/English in this (and Pedro II of Brazil's) infobox heading? Furthermore, why can't I have Peter IV of Portugal in the content? see Britannica. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It would probably be fine to add a parenthetical "(English: Peter IV)" to the beginning of the second sentence, although it seems unnecessary as the article already equates "Pedro" with "Peter" in the first sentence. Although I have no strong objection, others may bridle at the repetition. • Astynax talk 07:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I've tried adding (English: Peter IV), months ago. But, this articles owner kept reverting me. GoodDay (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Because the infobox header is already burdened to some extent by having "Pedro I of Brazil/Pedro IV of Portugal", I prefer to avoid the over-crowding that would occur by including the English terms there as well. DrKiernan (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Quite frustrating, TBH, when you consider that this article & Pedro II of Brazil at the Portuguese Wikipedia, totally disregard Peter I/Peter IV. The English isn't good enough there, yet the Portuguese version gets prominance here, to the near exclusion of English version. GoodDay (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

External links

Is there any reason not to have a link to http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Peter_IV_of_Portugal ? I see it lasted 4 minutes when I added it last month. Cpupton (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't add anything to the biography of Pedro I. The "external links" section has a purpose. It's not a mere collection of random links loosely related to the subject. --Lecen (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
We generally do not link to other wikis, per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #12. DrKiernan (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Exhumation

Last year's exhumation of Pedro and his two wives should be mentioned.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? --Lecen (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Why not? It's pretty notable and it's a recent news on him. It's as notable as the exhumation of Richard III which happen around the same time. It adds another point to his life. His cause of death, his crushed rib cage which may have precipated his death, the fact he was buried as a Portuguese soldier, and his actual appearance which agrees portrait and royal flattery which by itself is not always the best. Also that his second wife was mummified and that his first wife had no broken bones disproving any rumors that he had kick her during a fight causing her death.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1) It isn't news that he was buried dressed as a Portuguese general. All biographies of Pedro I mention that. He requested to be buried as a Portuguese general, and to the people be allowed to take part in the funereal procession. I have no idea why newspapers were "surprised" by that. He was no longer a Brazilian Emperor nor a Portuguese king, but merely a Portuguese general fighting on behalf of Maria II.
2) Actual appearance? The only thing I read about it was that he was arounf 1.66 and 1.73m tall, which placed him as above average height (as can be seen on this Wikipedia article), but shorter to modern standards, as anyone back then.[3]
3) A mummified Amélia should be mentioned in her own article.
I added a recent article telling that Maria Leopoldina died of natural causes. --Lecen (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Books and writing can only tell someone so much. An exhumation gives an archaeological point of view on the subject. I was thinking the exhumation deserves more coverage in line with Timur#Exhumation. I don't think you believe it necessary so this message to any future editors who may want to add such a section.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The exhumation was carried on by request of a student for her master's study. I hope to see it published so that we may use it here. I dislike using websites, even more when we are talking about news websites, because they usually give poor coverage. Which is the case of Pedro I's exhumation. --Lecen (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Anybody else want to add the information about his exhumation?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Has it been published in a journal yet? • Astynax talk 08:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure though generally on Wikipedia that isn't needed and I don't see why news article aren't reliable sources. I am pretty sure information on Richard III's exhumation was probably added to Wikipedia with use of news sources before academic journals were published on the discovery. Since Lecen has been inactive for a while I thought another editors might be interested in adding information on the exhumation of Pedro and his wives in their respective articles.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Image width

The image width in the infobox was set to 200px in November 2011, but this was before the main image was updated recently. I have removed the constraint in favor of the default, but I don't mind if the old image width is retained. DrKiernan (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the default image width? --Lecen (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
220px. DrKiernan (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
In addition, I believe it relies on what each user sets in their Preferences and/or skin. If you haven't changed it there or don't login, the default is used. With all the small and huge screens being used today, it probably makes more sense today not to specify a size, other than for icon-sized images or for thumbnails. • Astynax talk 18:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead image

Present image
Google Art Project image
The two alternative images displayed side-by-side at the size shown in the article.

If we're going to use historic artworks to show him, we need to use as accurate as possible copies of those artworks, as they, in themselves, become part of the story of the person. File:Unidentfied artist - Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg is by the Google Art Project, who are noted for taking great care in getting colour balances accurate. File:Anônimo - D. Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG is from a site I've never heard of, so it doesn't have that reputation.

Now, the thing is, this painting is not a completely naturalistic interpretation, and no adjustment will make it so. 1835... hmm. That'll be the early romantic era... so, yeah, bright, vivid oversaturated colours were one of the artistic choices being played with at the time. So I'd say there's no reason to doubt the Google Art Project's colours.

We are, in the end, an encyclopedia. Do I like the artwork? Eh... it's alright. Rather over-vivid for my tastes. But tastes don't matter: we can't mislead he viewer by changing it to suit our tastes, without reason to think it's wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with "over-vivid", but the more contrasty, saturated version also does not fit with contemporary descriptions or with other images of Pedro I. Aside from any license taken in the original painting, we have to be concerned that the image source (whether a photograph, printed image, etc.) may not accurately reproduce the original. Filtering it may make a crisper image at smaller sizes, but when the image starts to disagree with the text in the name of looking better (and it does look better, assuming that it matched the historical description) we get into OR territory. I cannot recall another contemporary depiction of Pedro I that presents him with near-black hair and tanned skin. • Astynax talk 04:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
As I said, the Google Art Project is noted for its accuracy in the depictions of the artwork. What you're saying is that you don't like the artwork, and think it has inaccuracies. But you're presumably using the artwork because it's a notable depiction of him, and because it's a notable depiction, that means we need to be true to that painting.
Given the date of the painting (c. 1835), it would appear that it was likely finished after his death. That would explain inaccuracies.
Your arguments may be excellent reasons for not using that as a lead image - but they do not justify modifying a notable artwork, particularly when it's being presented as the original artwork. And if it's not a notable artwork, why is it the lead?
If you're worried about inaccuracies, I'd suggest File:Antônio Joaquim Franco Velasco - Dom Pedro I, Imperador do Brasil.jpg would be a better lead image, and this post-mortem painting, could be moved to legacy, with a note stating it was finished c. 1835, and may post-date him. It wouldn't be the first time a painter was commissioned to paint someone after their death.
But it's now a hundred and seventy years after he died. We're arguing about really fairly subtle details of someone who existed before colour photography. One thing I can say after having worked in art a while: It's pretty easy to tell a slight blue cast, and the old image certainly appears to have one. It gives the whole thing a really unnatural look that just looks completely wrong once you're used to it.
If there is something wrong with this painting, my suspicion would be that the levels are perfectly accurate, but the saturation might be very slightly on the high side - but probably not very much at all. But on the old version, they're unnaturally low, to the point of ruining the painting: Look at the ribbons: Those are very bright colours. Now compare the older image - in that one, all the colours outside of his face are very dead looking, very unnatural - in an attempt to get a standard Caucasian face colour, literally every other colour in the painting looks dull, and dingy. Would you really pull all attention away from his medals, in a portrait commemorating him, by using washed-out colours?
Is this a completely naturalist painting? No. Merely looking at it long enough will find plenty of stylizations and shortcuts. But it's a painting, We shouldn't try to guess at what it should have been painted like by changing the colours any more than we should try and digitally fix that I'm pretty sure his neck is too long (a fairly common stylization), and his left arm (on the right side of the painting, of course) is quite questionable (it's in shadow, so the artist skimped on it...), and that his hair has pinkish highlights (in both versions - I've got nothing). Paintings aren't photographs, they aren't 100% accurate, and never will be. But we're a hundred and seventy years too late to do better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

File change.

This is a higher resolution file, that I added. The current is 1,714 × 2,135 pixels - the new is 3,213 × 4,001 pixels, exactly the same file, but is from the Google art project and much more detailed, and of superior quality. Hafspajen (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If the picture is to be nominated for featured picture, it is necessary to be the best quality as possible. Hafspajen (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Great for you. But the color makes no sense. --Lecen (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • We want to nominate the picture as a Featured picture candidate. If you keep reverting it it will not going to work. The Google file is coming scanned directly from the museum, so it is 99% of the cases is the the best quality file and closest to how the picture actually looks like. Have you seen the picture personally at the museum yourself? Hafspajen (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I mean, the difference is in when you click on the picture. You can notice a great deal more of details on the google file. Brushwork, cracks in the surface and such. Hafspajen (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
[redacted] --Lecen (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
"Olive-skin" does not mean "non-white". For many whites, one of the complexion tones they have or seek is "tan" -- isn't it possible that Dom Pedro happened to have one at some time in his life? The days are, hopefully, past when it is an insult to suggest that someone is not fair-skinned. Hafspajen didn't create the portrait, he's simply admiring it. FactStraight (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Gosh, no, of course not, I meant that he was not pink but tanned. And I think our exchanges so far were rather on the unpleasant side so far, User:Lecen. This comment out of the blue calling me ignorant racist - well it is rather embarrassing. Is this the way of trying to discuss things on Wikipedia? Have you heard of WP:POLITE? We actually try here to add to an excellent article a featured picture as well. Like a set. At least that was my idea... Hafspajen (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The reworked image with increased contrast looks almost impressionistic to me, which is wrong for the period. This looks like a side-effect of editing filters. Pedro I had brown hair, not black, more in keeping with the other images on the page, and would not have been depicted as tan-skinned (regardless of exposure to the sun). The darkening of skin and hair is perhaps partly the fault of the original image, but the darkening effect on hair and skin is definitely enhanced in the new version. Perhaps there is a better image out there we could use? The colors in this image better match descriptions of Pedro I's coloring, but does not show him in imperial regalia. • Astynax talk 03:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
My comment was a response to this The man looks yellow. Dont try to impose it. No, we don't have any that could do. The painting of the google file does show a man with brown hair and light complexion. You might be an expert on GAs and FAs. I am an expert on FPs. That would be Featured Pictures. I have until now nominated 54 featured pictures. I am familiar with the requirements. Adam commenting below has more than a hundred. I tried to add a file that had a fair fighting chance, because I know how pictures are judged and what it takes to became a FP. The former picture that was in lead would get quickly Oppose votes for a number of reasons. The only thingh you guys did until now was Leache treating me with animosity, refusing to discuss in a civilized way and - it looks like you still don't understand what I was trying to do. It is about how pictures are judged. Maybe we should just give up trying to nominate this picture as a Featured Picture. Hafspajen (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Forget it. We don't nominate any more Pedro I of Brazil as Featured Picture. Hafspajen (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This is meant to be a featured article: WP:OR about paintings has no place here.

The Google Art Project image is from a place with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The old one is something grabbed from some random site. You can't do that in a featured article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not Google's photographic representation of this particular image is accurate is not indisputable. In fact, the jpg image file appears to have almost no metadata to indicate authorship, etc. (not that this would necessarily establish much, as such information can be subsequently inserted or changed) that would provide even circumstantial that the photograph has not been subsequently tweaked in an image editing program. The smudged appearance of some areas appears to be the result of image manipulation, with less detail than the image originally used. We do not know whether the photograph (if not a scan) was taken under ideal lighting conditions by museum staff, etc. In any event, this image is being used to illustrate an article on Pedro I—it is not an article about the painting—and it is more important, to me at least, that whatever illustration used reflects the historical record. There have been attempts in populist revisionism to adjust portrayals of fair-featured popular leaders to make them look more like the general populations of today. There is no reason to perpetuate this sort of misimpression, and if a different image with more accurate colors exists, then perhaps that would resolve this. Until then, and as I said, this is an article about a person rather than this painting. • Astynax talk 19:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The Google Art Project file is very clearly not a good representation, color-wise or contrast-wise, of the original painting in the Pinacoteca. You can visit the gallery online at google's own site at https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/asset-viewer/pinacoteca-do-estado-de-s%C3%A3o-paulo/ogFzI8ChtO96vg. At the start of the tour, turn around 180° and go down the corridor ahead of you. Go through the first door on the right -- this is the Braganza room. The portrait of Pedro is facing you on the opposite wall. It is obviously much lighter than the Google Art Project file and there is very clear contrast between the hair, the uniform and the background that simply is not shown in the Google Art Project file. DrKiernan (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Box picture erased

Original version from Pinacoteca
Version currently in use
Modified by DrKiernan
File:Dom Pedro I edit.JPG
"Anonimo" version
Original version from Queluz
Cropped version

I was astonished to see the level of bullying, harassment and abuse of administrative tools. The picture used in the infobox was erased by one of the parties. We are going to report the two editors behind that. For the mean time the article won't have a main picture. --Lecen (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I was also unpleasantly surprised by the insulting charges leveled by the closing admin, who ignored both the keep consensus and the keep arguments raised. I have appealed the deletion at Wikicommons. • Astynax talk 18:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
A new image has been uploaded to commons: it's the version from Queluz and it's from the Google Art Project, so there can be no doubt of its authenticity or any complaints about the color balance this time. DrKiernan (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Here and here a photographs of the original painting by John Simpson, kept at the "Museu dos Coches" in Portugal (roll down until you find them). Here is a copy of that painting which is now kept at the Museu Nacional de Soares dos Reis. Here and here are photographs of the copy kept at the Pinacoteca, Brazil. First of all, it is noticeable that John Simpson's portrait is the most copied portrait of the Emperor/King. Second, and important to the painful and endless debate brought to fore by a single individual, the photographs show a man after "years under a tropical sun, his complexion was still light, his cheeks rosy." The Google project version, although of exceptional quality and very high resolution, clearly has issues with the colors and contrast. It is too dark (see the two amateur photos of the same painting above for comparison). I took DrKiernan's modified version and added a little blue and used as the main picture here, but it's still has little similarity with the actual painting. We could ask someone able is photo editing to fix it, perhaps. I'd like to hear your thoughts as well. --Lecen (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Of the currently available images, which I've put in a gallery here for easy comparison, I agree the original version from the Pinacoteca is too dark—details are lost in the shadows. I think the "Anonimo" version has lost details in the face and is lower resolution, and the version modified by me has a greenish-tinge to it to my eye. Of the Queluz images, I think the cropped version is better than the uncropped version because it focuses more on the sitter and removes the border, which is a slightly different shade. Since the Queluz image is quite flat in comparison to the Pinacoteca version, the version currently in the article is my favorite. DrKiernan (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. --Lecen (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The erased file was restored on Commons. Although no longer in use, nonetheless a fine accomplishment. --Lecen (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Princess Paula's picture

Until yesterday there was a picture of Princess Paula within "Issue" chart. Now it has been replaced with another. I believe that none should remain, for the following reasons: the first picture was a cropped version of File:Maria Leopoldine of Austria Family.jpg. The author died less than a 100 years ago, which means that it's still not in public domain in the US; the second picture is even worse, since it has no source, nothing that tells who was the artist, whether Paula is the person depicted in it. I made a search through Google and I found a version of that picture in the website "Geneall". Other than that, however, I couldn't find any reliable source that could identify the picture as representing her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecen (talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 July 2015‎ (UTC)

The first picture was painted before 1923, so is probably fine copyright-wise; however, I still agree with its removal because the artist was born 40 years after Paula's death, and so it cannot be a true likeness. DrKiernan (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed passages

Despite her lower rank by birth,[24][25] he was stunned by her beauty after meeting her in person.[26][27]

In June 1828, Irish and German mercenaries mutinied in Rio de Janeiro.[28][29] Discontented with the harsh conditions of military life in Brazil, the foreigners readily accepted bribes from the United Provinces to not only rebel, but to also capture the Emperor so that he could be held hostage as a bargaining chip.[30][31] The mercenary mutiny was put down with much bloodshed.

In the months following 7 September, João VI was still recognized as the rightful ruler of the independent Kingdom of Brazil.[32] Brazil's independence movement was not directed against the King, who was regarded as merely a figurehead dominated by the Cortes.[33] The prince regent was only later persuaded to accept the Brazilian crown as emperor, not king. Pedro, however, made it clear that, if his father returned to Brazil, he would relinquish the throne.[34]

It was promulgated and solemnly sworn on 25 March 1824.[35]

The situation came to a head when Pedro I, on the grounds of inappropriate conduct, dismissed Bonifácio and his brother Martim Francisco de Andrada from their ministry portfolios.

Although the Emperor had once regarded him as a mentor, Pedro I began to chafe in the subservient position of neophyte to Bonifácio's role as schoolmaster.

Property owners were protected from having their lands confiscated, and no citizen could thenceforth be arrested without a written warrant, unless caught in the process of committing a crime. Suspects could no longer be held for more than 48 hours without being charged and were entitled to representation. Torture, secret trials, and inhumane restraints were also abolished.(Macaulay 1986, p. 96)(Sousa 1972, Vol 1, pp. 231–232) Pedro I had envisioned this union since 1822 and had attempted to convince Miguel to return to Brazil. The Emperor wrote to him then: "There will be no shortage of people who tell you not to leave ... Tell them to eat shit. And they'll say that with Brazil seceding you're going to be King of Portugal: tell them to do it again"(Macaulay 1986, p. 118) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecen (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Barman 1988, p. 128.
  2. ^ Barman 1988, pp. 140–141.
  3. ^ a b Barman 1988, p. 141.
  4. ^ Macaulay 1986, p. 186.
  5. ^ Barman 1988, p. 139.
  6. ^ Macaulay 1986, p. 147.
  7. ^ Macaulay 1986, p. 217.
  8. ^ Macaulay 1986, pp. 216–217.
  9. ^ Macaulay 1986, p. 246.
  10. ^ Macaulay 1986, pp. 244, 247.
  11. ^ Macaulay 1986, p. 172.
  12. ^ Macaulay 1986, p. 175.
  13. ^ Sousa 1972, Vol 2, p. 187.
  14. ^ Barman 1988, p. 134.
  15. ^ Sousa 1972, Vol 3, p. 113.
  16. ^ Sousa 1972, Vol 3, p. 127.
  17. ^ Sousa 1972, Vol 3, p. 270.
  18. ^ Macaulay 1986, p. 290.
  19. ^ Sousa 1972, Vol 3, p. 272.
  20. ^ Macaulay 1986, pp. 303–304.
  21. ^ Sousa 1972, Vol 3, p. 301.
  22. ^ Sousa 1972, Vol 3, p. 309.
  23. ^ Costa 1995, p. 312.
  24. ^ Lustosa 2006, p. 284.
  25. ^ Sousa 1972, Vol 3, p. 7.
  26. ^ Lustosa 2006, p. 285.
  27. ^ Sousa 1972, Vol 3, p. 15.
  28. ^ Macaulay 1986, pp. 207–210.
  29. ^ Costa 1995, pp. 121–128.
  30. ^ Costa 1995, pp. 126–138.
  31. ^ Calmon 1950, p. 173.
  32. ^ Viana 1966, pp. 13–14.
  33. ^ Barman 1988, p. 95.
  34. ^ Lima 1997, p. 404.
  35. ^ See:

Improvements

When I wrote this article years ago, I did not have the experience in writing I have today. I made some much needed improvements in it, mainly sticking to a "three paragraph per section" rule. Superfluous information, that did not add to context, but was nonetheless useful to expand our opinion of Pedro I's character, was turned into footnotes. His second marriage, and his relationship with Amélie are now in a single section. --Lecen (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I also trimmed down the sections dealing with the independence. The reason they were so detailed was because we lacked, and still lack, a decent article about the Independence of Brazil. Hopefully, that won't be a problem one day. --Lecen (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I reverted Grenzer's last additions, for the following reasons: Dom Pedro's musical talents, including his apprenticeship with Marcos Portugal is already told in "Marriage section", including what type of instruments. Also, the additions looked as a random collection of trivia. The article is already heavy, and I shortened many parts to make it straighfoward as possible. I plan to remove some of the footnotes as well, once related articles are improved. Example: when I write Leopoldina's article, I'll move the passage about Pedro's allegedly physical aggression to there. Same with the explanation of what horse he employed, once I'm done with Independence of Brazil. I hope Grenzer's can understand that. I appreciate his help, but the article doesn't need more, but less. What we need is to work on other articles. --Lecen (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

TFA reruns

Any objections to throwing this article into the current pile of potential TFA reruns (currently being developed at User:Dank/Sandbox/2)? Any cleanup needed? - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

As this article ran more than five years ago as WP:TFA, it is eligible again. Does anyone have any views? It seems in pretty good shape.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

João & John

Why do we link to John VI of Portugal using a redirect João? It would make more sense to avoid the redirect & just use John. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Image provenance

Featured articles must follow criterion 3 of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, which includes compliance with Wikipedia:Image use policy#Required information: "Origin (source)". DrKay (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the history of that many Brazil-related uploads by the editor who contributed this image, it's obvious that it's simply an oversight that the source isn't listed for this one file. But hey, I know a losing battle when I see one. EEng 23:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I can't see that. Where are you looking? DrKay (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe you should start doing some actual contribution and write an actual article, instead of engaging in an edit war at a FA that is stable for years. --Lecen (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Man, are you ever confused. And I remind the honorable gentleman of the answer I gave some moments ago. EEng 00:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@EEng: I'm quite confused with your statement. If you recognize that there is no source on the image, no matter whether this is because of an oversight or not, how can you so strongly defend the image while not knowing its provenance by any measure. Even a simple google image search only produces image copies added to unscholarly sources which make no reference to the image's origin. I'm sure you're edits are in good faith, but there have been numerous cases before (in my personal experience) where images have been uploaded claiming to be of famous historical personalities (two Portuguese queens and a Californian governor in my experience), without sources. In the case of the queens, those images were easy to tie to a historicist Flickr account which made edits to historical images of English queens while adding Spanish and Portuguese icons to pass them off as images of people from those countries. In the case of the Californian governor, it was harder to determine its validity, as the image was very much a real engraving of a historical figure, but certainly not of this Spanish governor (as California was a backwater at the time and nearly no images exist of the 18th century Californios). By chance months later, while cleaning up some Wikicommons categories, I found an engraving of a 19th century Spanish general (who never served as a colonial administrator) and immediately remembered the governor's page, where I soon realized his "portrait" was merely the Spanish general's image, but flipped from left to right and with the engraving title cropped out of it. I share my story to explain why it is so important for real, scholarly sources behind images, as we have no idea whether this is an official portrait of Infanta Paula from a contemporary artist, a 21st century historicist portrayal of her by an interested graphic designer, or possible even worse, such as an image whose claimed subject is blatantly false. Best, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Add an image

Emperor Pedro I of Brazil with his second wife (Empress Amélie) and eldest daughter (Queen Maria II of Portugal), just a few months before Pedro's death

I believe, this image, was the good choice and worthy as I said: this's a painting of historical value because it is probably the only pic (up to the present time) that shows his daughter (Queen Maria) beside him! And why is it not allowed to put in this article?? Huelam987 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You are attempting to add the image to a Featured Article. Adding material that has not been reviewed can trigger a review and/or removal of its FA status. If you wish to add the image, I would recommend first going through an image review to make sure that it has no issues. Even better, go through the Featured Image process to establish its eligibility. • Astynax talk 17:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Against: Terrible quality image, especially for a featured article with so many high quality ones. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Block quotes

Blockquotes should be used more often in this article (in accordance with the MS), in order to make the structure clearer and easier to read. So, I will add some block quotes. Best --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedro_I_of_Brazil/Archive_1&oldid=1137076429"