Talk:Pedro II of Brazil/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not merged - Clearly the majority of contributors oppose the merge, a few made strong arguments based on WP:Article size. (non-admin closure)--Estar8806 (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

---

The following pages:

• Early life of Pedro II of Brazil
• Consolidation of Pedro II of Brazil
• Growth of Pedro II of Brazil
• Pedro II of Brazil in the Paraguayan War
• Apogee of Pedro II of Brazil

should be merged into the main article of Pedro II because these articles have information that should be included on the main article and were probably split by choice of the creator but to be separated from the main article is unnecessary. All this information can fit on the main article about Pedro II under the respective sections. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Strong disagree that these articles are “unnecessary”. This format has precedent for particularly prominent historical figures, such as here: Template:Abraham Lincoln series. Your proposal makes no actual argument for the consolidation of these articles, just calling them unnecessary. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

And yet it's information that's perfectly capable of being on the main article. The Lincoln series articles have more weight by being separate from the main one. And no, for Pedo II it does not fit the precedent of such articles. If the information is necessary to be on individual articles then it should contain information that can't be entirely placed in a single section on the main article. Where does it say that all leaders should have an Early life article about them? Take a look at the Growth article. The lead sentence should be enough to convince anyone that this has no merit in being on its own: "In the life of Pedro II of Brazil, growth in both his personal and public roles took place in the decade beginning in 1853. At the start of this period, he was still struggling to find his way. But by its end the Emperor was a mature and steady leader, and Brazil was united and on its way to unprecedented national prosperity and prestige." Not very encyclopedic or informational. We also have repeated information such as the Patron of arts and sciences section. This is why these articles are unnecessary. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Article size. This article is already 100kB long and the sub-articles are expansions of the sub-sections at this article. DrKay (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  You're confusing the source size (96k) with the prose size (83k). The latter is what the guidelines (completely arbitrary as they are) refer to. EEng 22:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The rationale for creating sub-articles was both because of article size (as mentioned above), and because the sub-articles encompass subject matter during this long reign that could be greatly expanded based on available sources. • Astynax ^talk 17:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Clear reason for split. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment A bit of quantitative data might be useful before people start digging in to their positions.
  • Let's put the Early life subarticle aside, because it's extremely long.
  • The word counts of the other subarticles under discussion total 6100: Consolidation (1400), Growth (2300), Paraguayan War (1600), and Apogee (800).
  • The word counts of the corresponding sections of the main article total 4500.
  • The difference is 1600. Thus a raw substitution of the text of those four subarticles, in place of the summaries in the main article, would (apparently) increase the size of the main article only modestly, from 7500 to 9100. And that's perhaps an overestimate since, likely, some fraction of each subarticle is devoted to context-setting that could be eliminated in a merge.

In other words, the four summary sections in the main article aren't doing their job very well, since they're almost as long as the subarticles, yet are presumably less comprehensive. So I modestly suggest that either (a) the subarticles be simply transferred to the main article, or (b) the summaries in the main article be pared down to be briefer and therefore more useful as, well, summaries. EEng 22:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support - these sub-articles are mostly small, redundant, and it's unclear why the periodization was chosen as it is. It's plausible that this or that article may be justifiable (e.g. Early Life) but that doesn't mean a distinct article for every single period of life is sensible. --TocMan (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Background information: I'm the original creator of this article (at least, the one who did the research, wrote it, digitized the photos in it, and nominated for FA status). My idea when I created the sub-articles was to expand the information in each section, to provide readers with a fuller picture of the emperor's life. Years passed and I became disenchanted with Wikipedia, especially with the pattern of Wikipedians (with no experience in the article's subject) suggesting or making unnecessary, confusing, misleading or self-serving changes (like this merge proposal). If the goal is to combine this article's text with the sub-articles' text, then I oppose the proposal. It would increase the size of the article and make it too detailed. This article is effective as it is because it covers a long reign in an objective, clear and succinct manner. --Lecen (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - some of those other pages should be deleted. But, I'll leave that up with others to decide. Is it possible that too many articles, have been created for one individual, who lived in the 19th century? GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment regarding whether there are too many articles: Pedro II's 58-year reign spans the formative period of modern Brazil as well as the emergence of the other independent nations of South America. There were 17 U.S. presidents during that time. Napoleon Bonaparte's reign as emperor spanned barely 11 years, yet his article references 30+ sub-articles. Certainly the same era in the U.S. covered everything from the emergence of Jacksonian populism to the country's westward expansion to the Civil War to the Robber Baron era, and Napoleon packed in a rapid-fire series of Euro-centric events into his time in power, however Pedro II's lifetime was also a time of ferment both in his personal development and the issues he influenced and/or triggered. As mentioned, these sub-articles have potential for future expansion. • Astynax ^talk 18:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Excellent point made by Astynax. The fact is that this merger proposal is based in a belief that this history is simply no relevant or important enough to have the same dedicated structure and resources as literally every single U.S. president's article does. This is a nonsense proposal at its finest. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not at all accurate to say that every US President has a similar structure. There may be articles for specific events, e.g. Inauguration of Chester A. Arthur but we do not have an article for arbitrary 10 year slices of Chester Arthur's life, or for most Presidents, not even close. --TocMan (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The main article is at the right level of abstraction and a good length for readability. The issue is that the sub-articles fail to go into more depth. In some cases, the section in the main article is as long as the sub-article, and it would seem there is little value to merge in. Dhalamh (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Wikipedia:Article size as noted above. Some of the articles in the Pedro II series have a non encyclopedic tone though, perhaps because they're old at this point, but I don't think this is enough reason to merge them. Torimem (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am concerned about Pedro II of Brazil's article

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Hey, all. Looking for some help as I'm not nearly experienced enough to deal with this. Basically, though Pedro II of Brazil is a featured article, the sourcing is entirely biased. It literally says "Historians agree Pedro II is the 'greatest Brazilian'". It's entirely written from sympathetic nationalistic, monarchist sources.

I swear, this entire article reads like his living relatives paid a PR agency to write it. I am very concerned that this is not at all representative of Brazilian historiography. Some sentences portray this biased point of view very clearly:

"The Emperor considered education to be of national importance and was himself a concrete example of the value of learning"

"Pedro II was hard-working and his routine was demanding. He usually woke up at 7:00 and did not sleep before 2:00 in the morning. His entire day was devoted to the affairs of state and the meager free time available was spent reading and studying."

"The Emperor respected the prerogatives of the legislature, even when they resisted, delayed, or thwarted his goals and appointments. Most politicians appreciated and supported his role. Many had lived through the regency period, when the lack of an emperor who could stand above petty and special interests led to years of strife between political factions. "

The wording is very clear. The article has great things to say about a monarchy, but somehow hates the republican "dictatorship" (actually a presidency).

Pedro II (...) zealously guarded freedom of speech, respect for civil rights, vibrant economic growth, and form of government—a functional representative parliamentary monarchy.

There was no desire for a change in the form of government among most Brazilians, but the Emperor was overthrown in a sudden coup d'état that had almost no support outside a clique of military leaders who desired a form of republic headed by a dictator.

There is some commentary that is plainly apologetic:

Sometime around 1850, Pedro II began having discreet affairs with other women. The most famous and enduring of these relationships involved Luísa Margarida Portugal de Barros, Countess of Barral, with whom he formed a romantic and intimate, though not adulterous, friendship after she was appointed governess to the emperor's daughters in November 1856.

He was a conscientious adherent of Catholicism, which he viewed as advancing important civilizing and civic values. While he avoided anything that could be considered unorthodox, he felt free to think and behave independently.

There is some stuff that, without much critical thought, looks reasonably well-sourced, but seems highly dubious, such as:

Slaves were used by all classes, from the richest to the poorest.

I would like some guidance because I really feel that this article is biased enough that its value in accurately informing readers is quite low, insofar as, while it may portray many real things, it does so in a specific light, conspicuously hiding an opposing view that is about as important and comprehensive as the view it presents.

Best regards, ~Dr Victor Vasconcelos de Souza (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dr Victor Vasconcelos de Souza, I recommend pasting this comment at Talk:Pedro II of Brazil. If talk page discussion there doesn't result in any improvement on the issues you bring up, it may soon be a candidate for a featured article review. I'm pinging the FA nominators @Lecen and Astynax. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

End moved portion. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The article should report what historians consider negative features:

• Slavery: Brazil was the last major country to abolish slavery (in 1888), keeping a deeply oppressive and inhumane institution for extra decades. sooner.
• Autocracy: consolidation of power in the monarchy, limited the development of a more representative and democratic government and built up discontent & instability.
• He impeded economic growth by his conservative policies & overreliance on agricultural exports, esp. coffee.
• His social reforms were modest compared to other major nations esp regarding growing inequality .
• The people saw the problems better than he did and his popularity declined as republican sentiments grew. The people's response was downfall of the Brazilian monarchy.

Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you, Rjensen, Firefangledfeathers and Nikkimaria. @Rjensen: That is precisely what I'm talking about. I tried to add tags to show that these views are {{dubious}}, {{POV statements}}s but my edit was almost immediately reverted with the notes "this is all given in the article proper, where it's sourced", which does not deal with criticism I specifically mentioned in my edit notes.

  These are my notes:

  Introduction lacks sources even though statements are clearly liable to be challenged (please see WP:CHALLENGE). There are also WP:POV (particularly WP:UNDUE, as a single view is being represented, and MOS:LABEL) and MOS:WEASEL problems. Even when sources are provided, some words will still need to be changed (e.g. "near disintegration", "greatest Brazilian").

  For reference, my edit's diff to the current version.

  Finally, to be clear, my concern about a PR agency writing the page was not a hyperbole. Two branches of the Bragança family have claimed the Brazilian throne in a monarchist movement that has gained some limited traction between 2017 and 2022. ~Dr Victor Vasconcelos de Souza (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The issue of purported bias was raised and addressed during the FA process, as well as subsequently. I will remind both of you that this is an article having to do with Pedro II, who was not an absolute monarch and whose power was limited (first by a regency, then finding himself constrained by governmental factions representing powerful interests). The article is based in well-regarded academic U.S., British, and Brazilian sources, unlike the supposed issues raised here. I cannot imagine how one could conclude...

• that Pedro II was responsible for slavery: The article details why slavery continued, despite his clear opposition. What reliable sources accuse him of this?
• that Pedro II was an autocrat who squelched a movement toward a more representative government "and built up discontent & instability". The Brazilian constitution did not give the emperor a free hand, and the article details the constraints under which he operated. The reign was stable until the military coup, which could be argued slowed progress toward wider representation and freed special interests to have an easier time in dominating the government for decades longer.
• that Pedro II "impeded economic growth" ignores the fact that Brazil at the beginning of the reign was a severly underdeveloped nation with a colonial economy, and that it experienced one of the best records of economic growth in the Western Hemisphere during his tenure.
• that "social reforms were modest compared to other major nations" is a vexed statement when comparing 19th century nations. Which "other major nations" and what constitutes a "major nation" to? Which sources support such comparisons?
• that the "people's response was downfall of the Brazilian monarchy" again begs a source. The monarchy transparently fell because of a military coup, not because of any popular uprising.

Finally, the accusation that some cabal of monarchists has written this as a PR piece might be insulting to everyone who has contributed or done the work of verifications were it not so ridiculous. The process of producing good articles here is arduous (a good thing), but it seems so easy to trash them. • Astynax ^talk 17:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not have the time to answer properly now, but I should indeed apologize to those who have edited in good will. However, you speak of my suggestion with ridicule, fallaciously using the term "cabal" in an attempt to equalize it with discredited conspiracy theories, as if the facts being discussed were not common occurrences in Wikipedia. As if right now there had not been specific rules in place in response to that exact thing happening. As if the family was not engaged in an Internet media campaign for monarchism in Brazil which includes the propagation of false news (see https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/estudos/article/view/9113/6785).

Moreover, I do not understand how you can argue the fact that the article has been criticized numerous times for partiality as if it were a good thing. I will also remind you that the burden of proof is not mine for arguing that there are unsupported claims in the article. It is yours for adding them to the article.

While it is indeed easier to criticize bad work than to do good work, that is no excuse for keeping bad content in the article either. If there are claims that are the result of bad work, instead of keeping them because no good work can supposedly be done, they should be removed. Again, the burden of showing that it is good work lies with the person who adds them. It's not mine to show that better work could supposedly be done.

Finally, if Pedro was not responsible for the negative things that happened with relation to the topics at hand due to not having the power to influence them, then he should not be considered responsible for when those things ended in positive outcomes either. At the very least, these should be reported as opinions by historians or contemporaneous commentators, with equal representation of the negative opinions, and not as fact.

Best regards, ~Dr Victor Vasconcelos de Souza (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

the burden of showing that it is good work lies with the person who adds them – I'm the one who removed your tagging in the lead, which I did -- as I said in my edit summary -- because all the material you tagged was sourced in the article proper, thus prima facie meeting the burden. If you have other sources giving competing views, say what they are. EEng 00:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Astynax and I are the original contributors for this article, but I should stress that I haven't edited on Wikipedia in years. Honestly, the claims that are made by a couple of editors are so ridiculous that I see no point in addressing them. It's clear that they lack any real knowledge of Brazilian history. If they wish to discuss historiography, I'll be happy to do that, but I won't waste time with personal opinions. --Lecen (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox photo (this article and Apogee of Pedro II of Brazil)

Previous discussions: Better photo, Photo – both over 8 years old; similar talk page post 2 years ago received no comments (New Image).

I think it would be a good idea to swap c:File:Pedro II of Brazil - Brady-Handy.jpg into the infobox of this article; simply put: it is high resolution, high quality, a Brady, and a Featured Picture. The current image (c:File:Pedro II circa 1887b transparent.png) is theoretically ok, but the Brady is better in all aspects, particularly resolution. The Brady is currently present in the Religious Issue section, so would be bumped up. As Apogee of Pedro II of Brazil uses the Brady in its infobox and this has been mentioned in previous discussions, I think it should thus be swapped out of that article and replaced with another image from c:Category:Pedro II of Brazil in the 1870s (perhaps c:File:Delfim da Câmara - D. Pedro II. 1875.jpg or its edit, which fits into the height of their prestige aspect of the Apogee and is almost entirely unused on en.wp). As this is a featured article and the primary article in this series, it's my opinion that it should thus have the best image available in the infobox, especially when it's an FP. Curbon7 (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

As there has been no response for several days, I have been bold and done this. Feel free to revert if you want, but do please discuss per WP:BRD. Curbon7 (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources/References Entirely Absent from Introductory Paragraphs

The entire intro isn't written in a neutral tone rather, one that venerates the subject, and there are no sources cited throughout the entire intro. Should this be flagged for needing sources? JoshhhYo (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• To the extent the lead summarizes the remainder of the article, it doesn't need sources. EEng 16:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)