![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Why was Image:BrazilEmpireFlag.jpg removed from the article? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 18:42, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The part leading to the Independence could be made into a separate article.
Also consider splitting the article into four smaller articles (Independence, First Empire, Regency, Second Empire). Then the original "Empire of Brazil" article could be restored as a short summary of the whole Empire, with pointers to the last three pieces.
All the best,
Jorge Stolfi
04:36, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I really don't have the time to work on this article. In the interest of historical correctness, however, I must point out that this piece has some problems in terms of the correct division of the Brazilian emperial history.
There is no such thing as a "First Empire" and a "Second Empire". Historians are pretty much unanimous to agree that only one empire existed, the Empire. That is divided in two periods: The First Reign and the Second Reign. The former ends with the abdication of Peter I. The latter begins immediately after, but it is divided in two periods: Regency (which is itself divided in two periods: "Regency of One" and "Regency of Three" - would have to double check the English translation for that though) and Peter II's personal rule (which is interrupted in two ocasions: the first and the second regencies of HRH Princess Isabel, during two extended trips that the Emperor took).
Finally, concerning the grammar, if I'm not mistaken, names of monarchs and saints must be translated. Therefore, since this article is in English, "Pedro" should be translated into "Peter", as I have written above ( e.g.: In Russia: Peter, the Great).
Regards,
Redux 07:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks to 172 for fixing the whole "empire/reign" issue. I would point out that Jorge Stolfi has been renaming many articles concerning Brazilian monarchs to match the "Peter instead of Pedro" issue, a problem I had pointed out a while back in this exact article. Ironically, this seems to be the only article that has escaped Stolfi's effort to correct the names. Maybe someone else who is involved with this article could take care of this?
I will, however, insist that this article still has problems regarding the info. I have noticed some factual errors and incomplete data that sometimes change the actual meaning of some facts. Here is an example:
This problem is at the end of the "Pedro as regent" segment. Peter's decision to stay in Brazil in defiance of the Côrtes orders was brought about by influence of José Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva, his friend and confidant, and the prince's wife, princess Leopoldina. They united to convince Peter to stay, and to accomplish that, they played on Peter's formation as an absolutist prince (and future King), they argued that his father, John VI, had returned to Portugal "in chains", as they put it, and if Peter returned, a similar fate awaited him, and only by staying would he be able to "fulfill his destiny" as an absolute King. That was the basis for Peter's decision to stay. The fear of separatism was present in Bonifácio's mind, not the prince, and "petitions from towns" played absolutely no role in the matter (unless if understood as pressure from regional elites on José Bonifácio to convince the prince, since they feared the return of a direct rule from Lisbon). But even so, the prince was only able to make the decision to stay because of an understanding that he had reached with his father upon the King's return to Portugal, known as the Bragança Agreement. It is more commonly described as instructions from the King to his heir: "I am forced to return and an uncertain destiny awaits me. I leave you here in charge of securing our family's interests. If something should befall me and an illegitimate government (meaning one not led by himself, of course) should take measures opposed to our interests, reenforce your authority and crown yourself King of this land, I shall understand it and support you by whatever means left at my disposal".
The agreement was relevant especially because England, the world's leading power then, was obliged by a treaty to recognize only the decisions made by the Head of the House of Bragança in questions regarding the Portuguese Empire (and that's what saved John VI's life in Portugal).
Sorry for the long example, but I hope it helps improving this article.
Regards,
Redux 14:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
like all except one or two other articles in Category:Empires . For the Googlees: Brazilian Empire (20k) - Empire of Brazil (12k) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
all other empire articles (except Russia) are named "adjective Empire". See Category:Empires. Any concerns if this is moved to "Brazilian Empire"? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
As of 14 November 2006, per WP:WIAGA, I make a speedy failing of this article for Good Article status. This article is nice, but alas the whole article is unreferenced. I put the tag in the article to notify editors to put reliable sources to supply all historical facts, claims and figures in this article to support the three pillars of Wikipedia: verifiable, contains no elements of original research and neutral point of view. You may want to read this WP:CITE guidelines. If all of this matters are resolved, this article can be renominated back. Cheers. — Indon ( reply) — 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
"In January 1822, tension between Portuguese troops and the Luso-Brazilians (Brazilians of Portuguese ancestry)"
I do not think this makes sense. The division was not between Brazilian born and Portuguese born. The division was between those who supported the son, D. Pedro, and those who supported the father, King D. João. There were Portuguese and Brazilian born soldiers supporting D. Pedro and there were Portuguese and Brazilian born soldiers supporting D. João. It was a matter of what side one took not wher one was born.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.251.228 ( talk) 09:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand what the word is supposed to mean, but 1) it's not a real English word (to the best of my knowledge), and 2) it is hardly NPOV. Any objections? -- int19h 13:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The map is incorrect in what concerns to the actual representation of the Minas Gerais state. Its territories in 1822 were nearly the same as today. The region called Triângulo Mineiro, formerly part of the Goiás state, was incorporated into Minas Gerais in 1816.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex Bouvier ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldnt hte article be called Empire of Brazil instead? It sounds more formal.
(Comment from 195.93.21.68 on 6 Sept 2005 moved here from Category talk:Wikipedia community forums; Beland, 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC))
In your article about the Empire of brazil you mention Dom Pedro abdicated in 1831 in favor of his FIVE year old son. You mention the son was crowned in 1841 yet the picture of Dom Pedro II nd's coronation showes him with a very full busy beard - ON A 15 year old!!!
A.P. Dallas
Why was this country allowed to claim itself an Empire? Was this ever not recognized? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthurian Legend ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
This discussion is pointless. The question is that that was what they called themselves and that that was how other recognized them. India was also the Indian Empire in Victorian times and never conquered others... The Ogre 12:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
How can you say it never conquered anything? Check for the changes in the territory from the Empire era to present Brazil. (In fact, these changes started since the Treaty of Tordesilhas, but Brazil was under the rule of Portugal by that time) You'll see that parts of Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul states belonged to the neighboring countries. Although most of these additions occurred by means of diplomacy, it doesn't change the fact that Brazil acquired territory during its Empire history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.214.240 ( talk) 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How bout it was called an Empire cause it was ruled by an Emperor?-- 71.185.193.245 ( talk) 14:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Arthurian legend, how bout we all regonize you as a big retard? - Igor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.38.214 ( talk) 08:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys i'm brazilian and in these time we were an empire .Probably you think that this is weird because you don't know our history.Of course that these empire was recognized ,who did the independence was D. pedro I and he was from the portuguese royal family (we study this in school).The problem is that people normally don't know our history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.160.122 ( talk) 23:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It was called an empire because the person taking the crown of Brazil was in line to become King of Portugal. By becoming Emperor of Brazil, Pedro was renouncing his claim to the Portuguese crown in favor of his daughter, Maria da Gloria. Therefore, he would want to differentiate the Brazilian monarchy from the Portuguese one... what better way than to call it an empire rather than a kingdom? Monikwee ( talk) 20:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)monikwee
"The royal family tended to be a kind of joke. They liked to socialize more than worry about politics and the king and queen were unconcerned about their people. They liked to paint their sheep pink and green and purple, and romp playfully through the gardens in really big bonnets. Their standard dress consisted of pastel garters and violent purple bloomers."
Thing can't be real. Someone's yanking us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.199.179 ( talk) 09:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The image [1], that portraits the provincial division in the Empire of Brazil, presents a few minor but important mistakes.
Firstly, the city of Rio de Janeiro wasn't named "Distrito Federal" until the Republic was founded in 1889. The Capital City's actual status during Imperial times was of "Município Neutro" (Neutral Municipality), in order to separate it from the Province of Rio de Janeiro. That would be a more accurate naming to be present on the map.
Also, the province of Pernambuco is mistakenly abbreviated as "PF" on the map, while its correct acronym would be "PE". — 201.66.200.75 ( talk) 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Another problem is in the santa catarina province of the map, althrought the frontiers were not weel defined at the time of the end of the empire the de jure frontier was the same as the republican one. Argentina claimed the region but i repeat it was a de jure part of Brazil. Rocha -- 201.6.80.56 ( talk) 23:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You´re correct. The brazilian frontier was identical to today´s borders. With the exception of Acre. All the history books I´ve seen about Brazil shows that. And yes, the correct name as Neutral Municpality. The image being used in this article is wrong. Anyone care to fix it?-- Lecen ( talk) 00:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I put a very, very good text from the portuguese Wikipedia about the economy of the Brazilian Empire. The problem is that it is in portuguese. So, if anyone could translate it to english, it would make the whole article a lot better. Thanks, - -- Lecen ( talk) 20:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I've made a lot of progress on translation and cleanup. There are two words in the
Industry section that I am not sure how to translate correctly in context. I'm familiar with both words, just can't make sense of them here.
- Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Those (above) are now dealt with.
I don't get the sense of the statement that the Constitution of 1824 era bem menos parlamentarista que o projeto da Constituinte. Something like "was much less [a] parliamentarist project than a project of Constitutating"? But that makes little sense. - Jmabel | Talk 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Two other phrases that I'm not sure how to translate (you may want to look at these in context): prestação de contas (Got it) and pois viria. -
Jmabel |
Talk
05:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
jogo parlamentar: literally "parliamentary game", what does it mean? - Jmabel | Talk 19:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, I currently have "the definition of the program de governo do ministério era realizada by the President of the Council of Ministers"; I'm not sure I exactly understand either de governo do ministério or realizada in this context, someone else will need to address these. - Jmabel | Talk 19:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Another: “deu margem à famosa ‘ditadura da honestidade’. Transformou-se, logo no poder pessoal do monarca, exercido sempre com alto espírito público”. I've been able to render most of this: "created the space for the famous 'dictatorship of honesty.' Transformou-se, logo the personal power of the monarch, always exercised with a high public spirit." I understand Transformou-se to mean "transformed itself" and logo to mean "soon", but can't quite put the sentence together. - Jmabel | Talk 18:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, não agüentam por muito tempo a prova da experiência e vão logo quebrar-se contra os fatos. My read is something like "they do not stand a long time the proof of experience and soon break out against the facts." That's probably wrong. Obviously, this is pushing my limits of comprehension of Portuguese; help would be appreciated. - Jmabel | Talk 00:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
And é uma garantia das promessas de sobrevivências no sentido. I would think I understood all the words, but I can't put the sense of it together. - Jmabel | Talk 03:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I've done what I can with the Moderating Power section. I think someone with stronger Portuguese needs to carry it from here. If your Portuguese is much better than your English, please feel free either to paraphrase into simpler Portuguese or to give an approximate translation, which we can then hone. - Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that the {{ translation}} tags have been removed, but as noted there are half a dozen passages in the Moderating Power section still needing translation. - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
As I proceed with translation, I notice a lot of material stating that the conventional view of such-and-such (usually the backwardness of the Empire) is wrong, or that a commonly held view (similarly) has no documentary evidence. I feel like we are presenting only one side of what is obviously an argument.
I'll try to continue with translation, but I don't know much of this history well. All I bring to this is good English and a moderate knowledge of written Portuguese. - Jmabel | Talk 00:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I've translated the section Empire of Brazil#The Emperor´s legitimacy more or less faithfully, making only small stylistic changes. My feeling, though, is that it says what are effectively the same things a few too many times. I leave it to someone else to edit this down.
Conversely, it would be very good to cite some primary materials from the time of the Empire for the lack of claim of divine right, and for the notion that the emperor served as a symbol and servant of the nation rather than as a sovereign. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a reference to the "French minister Amelot". Many Amelots in French history, a distinguished family (but most so in the 18th century). Anyone know just which one this was? - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I´ve finished translating all text. But I still have to correct many mistakes on the section "Armada" and put all sources.
I´m going next to start correcting the text about the history of the Empire. There are many, many, many horrible mistakes. Anyone have any idea, suggestion or critic? -- Lecen ( talk) 22:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Is the capital shown for brazil or the Emperor? Zoo Fari 03:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know where one can find an English-language of the 1824 Constitution online? I've been able to find it in Portuguese (on the Portuguese Wikisource), but not in English. Josh ( talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't believe you'll find the English text online. If you're REALLY interested in it, the book Slavery, Freedom, and the Law in the Atlantic World: A Brief History with Documents by Sue Peabody and Keila Grinberg contains the full version of 1824 Political Constitution of the Empire of Brazil. Try Amazon Books. --
von Tamm (
talk)
02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I tracked down a copy of the book. Unfortunately, it only contains a few (incomplete) chapters of the constitution. Does anyone know where one can find the constitution in English, in its entirety? Thanks. Josh ( talk) 09:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The map is totally inacurate, it displays present day boundaries. By that period the Great Colombia existed, Mexico´s was at its largest extent, and even Bolivia had access to the sea,etc. The map should be removed or replaced until an exact map is avaible. -- 189.216.56.115 ( talk) 08:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. If anyone here has sufficient skills as a cartographer, could they possibly remedy this? Josh ( talk) 09:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That's true, but if possible, we should fix the borders of other countries to what they were at the time Brazil became independent, or at the time the Empire ended, IMO. Josh ( talk) 23:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Not an easy task. The external and internal boundaries in 1825 and 1889 of the Empire are correct. I believe that is the least of our problems. This article and the ones realted to it need grammar and spelling correction and also need to be wikified. - -- Lecen ( talk) 15:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
FRENCH GUIANA WAS PART OF BRAZILIAN EMPIRE..!!
The money in the Brazilian Empire wasn't the real, but the "Conto de Réis". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.15.172.70 ( talk) 18:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
How dare you to write the word Braganças in a Spanish (or whatever that is) way???? It is the Portuguese royal family, the name is "Bragança"... the "Z" there is blasphemy, it's awful and despicable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.207.216 talk 19:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the old text of the history section. It had many mistakes and they did more harm than good to readers. I've began working on a new text. Right now, the part related to the years between 1831 and 1852 are finished. -- Lecen ( talk) 19:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I did a copyedit of the article and noticed that you have changed a couple of things back.
I had a discussion with User_talk:Lecen#Empire_of_Brazil where I simply stated the problem of using a "quote" vs "copying it directly out of a book without crediting the author".
You have restored some sentences which I find difficult to accept:
These are only copyedit matters but short sentences are really not a good way to write and I think you have reduced the quality of the article by reverting so many of my edits which linked short sentences in to longer ones. let me show you what I mean.
These are only copyedit matters. But short sentences are really not a good way to write. I think you have reduced the quality of the article. By reverting so many of my edits. Which linked short sentences in to longer ones.
to
This is most important - a large proportiaon of the "xxx" statements appear to be direct copyright violations. They should either summarise the sentence, and have the " " removed, or they should have the name of the person being quoted (in the case of this it would be something along the line of "Barman said in his book "XXX""
I cannot stress how important this is.
You (collectively) have introduced a massive amount of text in the last few days, 14:22 20 June (62,958 bytes) to 16:30 1 July 2010 (87,716 bytes) and although I appreciate that many people can indeed write in a fine style some of the text appears like it may be directly copied
For example - who in ther vocablulary uses promulgated ? If it is the case that they are copied I suggest that this be remedied.
Chaosdruid ( talk) 15:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
King Arthur could have saved his throne. He could have prevented the outcome. But he did nothing to stop it, nothing at all. All was left was the history of a reign that ended so tragically.
Here are the ones from the first half of the page:
Here is the one that I changed in my edit yesterday:
As you can see there are such quotes which include one ore more whole sentences
Chaosdruid (
talk)
20:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I moved the history section's text to its proper article. Once finished, I will bring a much shorter version back. -- Lecen ( talk) 16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I changed "National Assembly" to "General Assembly" in the infobox template. Why was this reverted? The legislature was never called "National Assembly," it was called "General Assembly." source Therefore, reverting it to "National Assembly" makes no sense, IMO. Josh ( talk) 20:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
in the xix century, the west amazon jungle was pure amerindian and northern mato grosso too..the southeast of rio grande do sul have many slaves, etc..the map is very good, because falta alguns detalhes pra aprimora-lo melhor..praticamente o padrão racial continuou o mesmo, excepto pelas migrações e afins na segunda metade do xx!
Well,, I'm back to the article and I plan to finish it soon. There a couple of unfinished sections (Armed Forces and European immigration) and other that are completely empty. It will take some time but once it is finished, I believe this article will give a wonderful view of imperial Brazil. Regards to all, -- Lecen ( talk) 20:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The provincial and local government section is comprised of an entire paragraph copied from the source. Quotation marks and a citation do not a valid encyclopedia make, it's plagiarism. Keegan ( talk) 03:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was going to be a culture section like most other country articles have? I would like to say that it is a very interesting read so far as I hope to see it completed so I can read more. Spongie555 ( talk) 06:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi ( Lecen and Astynax in particular),
I've been doing some copyediting work on what I think is shaping up as a great article, but I have a few questions about specific phrases which I'm not too sure of:
1. The first sentence of the "Anarchy" section — The quotation starting with "nominal ruler"... and ending with ..."given by it to the Emperor" is not referenced as a quotation and seems an odd thing to quote, as it is all pure fact. Could someone clarify this?
2. The quotation in the "Anarchy" section beginning "marked the elimination of the monarch..." doesn't have a closing quotation mark. Could someone please clarify?
3. The final sentence of the "Anarchy" section — "The liberals, however, took the initiative and obtained that Pedro II was to be declared of age earlier than expected and fitted to rule in July 1840" — I was hesitant to edit this as I wasn't sure exactly what was meant. Could someone clarify?
Many thanks in advance Arthur Holland ( talk) 12:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The following statement appears in the "Elections" section:
"[The 1881 reforms meant that] illiterate citizens were no longer allowed to vote. Participation in elections dropped from 13% to only 0.8% in 1886. In 1889 about 15% of the Brazilian population could read and write, so disenfranchising the illiterate does not explain the sudden fall in voting percentages."
If 85% of the previously enfranchised population were no longer able to vote (because of their illiteracy) surely that would explain (at least in part) a sudden fall in numbers of voters? Apologies if I'm missing the obvious.
Also, do the percentages mentioned relate to percentages of those eligible to vote (i.e. literate men earning above the minimum requirement) or percentages of the whole population? Arthur Holland ( talk) 17:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the point of the figures is to show that
I'm thinking that perhaps an endnote would be good to explain this further, using some of the material Lecen has quoted from Carvalho, without making the text in the section itself too complicated. I can probably insert an endnote if no one else gets to it first. • Astynax talk 09:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for taking the time to go through this with me, and apologies again for my fussiness on this. Arthur Holland ( talk) 22:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I know I was a pain about this in the first place, and I'm sorry to bang on about it, but I do feel that the changes that Lecen has made to endnote B defeat the purpose of inserting it in the first place. I put the note in to provide some specific figures to demonstrate (mathematically) that disenfranchising the illiterate could not have been the only cause of the massive drop in electoral participation. The endnote we have now doesn't address that issue at all. Arthur Holland ( talk) 00:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm just going through doing a bit of copy-editing, starting with "independence and the early years". Shout if I've accidentally distorted the meaning of the text. Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I've had a stab at the "Apogee" section. Hchc2009 ( talk) 16:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
What would people feel about amending the opening sentence? Specifically "political entity" seems a bit vague, and "comprised present-day Brazil" is, I think, not quite accurate, as Uruguay was lost during the empire and other border disputes were not settled until Brazil became a republic. Would something along the following lines be of interest?
The Empire of Brazil was a sovereign state that broadly comprised present-day Brazil under the rule of Emperors Pedro I and his son Pedro II, both members of the House of Braganza...
I don't have a strong opinion on this and if there are specific reasons for using "political entity" then no problem. Just thought I'd see what people thought. Arthur Holland ( talk) 00:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I've finished writing the article. Also removed "photograph" subsection as I believe it makes no sense in here. Once Astynax, Arthur Holland and Hchc2009 are over reviewing and correcting any mistakes left, I'll open a FAC nomination. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 23:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I know I was the one who did a partial copyedit removing the capitals on "the Emperor" and "the Empire", as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters) but I feel that in both these cases what is implicitly meant is:
And all these cases would be legitimately capitalized.
Exceptions would be as follows:
As in both these cases "emperor" is used in a more general sense.
There may be some other exceptions too. What do people think? Arthur Holland ( talk) 12:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This article follows the spellings given in the majority of referenced used to source this article. The practice of retaining original spellings of names (rather than anglicizing the spellings) is very commonly used by scholars writing on Brazilian history during the last decades. Please keep this in mind when adding or editing material to this article. • Astynax talk 20:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Cripipper,
I believe you are incorrect, here are the reasons why:
1- As Astynax defended, it is common practice among modern scholars to use João instead of John, the reason being that the Portuguese speaking countries are very concerned about preserving the names in the original language, as it is done by the French speaking nations, for example: If you ask a Canadian if he knows Peter Trudeau, he will certainly laugh at you, the correct form is always Pierre Trudeau or you can even ask the French about Lewis XIV, it should be Louis XIV.
2- You may even be correct that a google search will show more references to John than João. However, you should also note the dates on the publications, in the 19th century it was common practice to refer to everybody by their English name, today, historians and individuals are concerned in how the names are know in other countries or in the original country. We now live in a globalized world where information is used by individuals from different countries.
3- The great majority of Portuguese and Brazilian articles use the Portuguese form of names, although it is not the only practice it is the proper and modern way.
I hope this will help you , I would also recommend a less aggressive attitude. Wikipedia is founded on the values of collaboration, you already have three editors that worked on numerous articles telling you that your changes are not standard practice, if I were you I would step back and listen a little. We all have made mistakes and we are constantly learning. If I can be of any help please let me know. Cheers. Paulista01 ( talk) 16:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason why the fact that the article is at John VI of Portugal should preclude using the Portuguese name in this article. Both names are very commonly used in English, and I think in such cases deference is due to the preferences of the person who mostly wrote the article, who in this case is Lecen. This seems analogous to an WP:ENGVAR issue to me. [Note: I said analogous to an ENGVAR issue. It is not an ENGVAR issue, but I think it should be treated in the same way]. There is no reason to insist that all articles must use the same name form for an individual. john k ( talk) 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Here are some comments on the article's prose:
More to come. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Why was Image:BrazilEmpireFlag.jpg removed from the article? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 18:42, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The part leading to the Independence could be made into a separate article.
Also consider splitting the article into four smaller articles (Independence, First Empire, Regency, Second Empire). Then the original "Empire of Brazil" article could be restored as a short summary of the whole Empire, with pointers to the last three pieces.
All the best,
Jorge Stolfi
04:36, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks to 172 for fixing the whole "empire/reign" issue. I would point out that Jorge Stolfi has been renaming many articles concerning Brazilian monarchs to match the "Peter instead of Pedro" issue, a problem I had pointed out a while back in this exact article. Ironically, this seems to be the only article that has escaped Stolfi's effort to correct the names. Maybe someone else who is involved with this article could take care of this?
I will, however, insist that this article still has problems regarding the info. I have noticed some factual errors and incomplete data that sometimes change the actual meaning of some facts. Here is an example:
This problem is at the end of the "Pedro as regent" segment. Peter's decision to stay in Brazil in defiance of the Côrtes orders was brought about by influence of José Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva, his friend and confidant, and the prince's wife, princess Leopoldina. They united to convince Peter to stay, and to accomplish that, they played on Peter's formation as an absolutist prince (and future King), they argued that his father, John VI, had returned to Portugal "in chains", as they put it, and if Peter returned, a similar fate awaited him, and only by staying would he be able to "fulfill his destiny" as an absolute King. That was the basis for Peter's decision to stay. The fear of separatism was present in Bonifácio's mind, not the prince, and "petitions from towns" played absolutely no role in the matter (unless if understood as pressure from regional elites on José Bonifácio to convince the prince, since they feared the return of a direct rule from Lisbon). But even so, the prince was only able to make the decision to stay because of an understanding that he had reached with his father upon the King's return to Portugal, known as the Bragança Agreement. It is more commonly described as instructions from the King to his heir: "I am forced to return and an uncertain destiny awaits me. I leave you here in charge of securing our family's interests. If something should befall me and an illegitimate government (meaning one not led by himself, of course) should take measures opposed to our interests, reenforce your authority and crown yourself King of this land, I shall understand it and support you by whatever means left at my disposal".
The agreement was relevant especially because England, the world's leading power then, was obliged by a treaty to recognize only the decisions made by the Head of the House of Bragança in questions regarding the Portuguese Empire (and that's what saved John VI's life in Portugal).
Sorry for the long example, but I hope it helps improving this article.
Regards,
Redux 14:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
like all except one or two other articles in Category:Empires . For the Googlees: Brazilian Empire (20k) - Empire of Brazil (12k) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
all other empire articles (except Russia) are named "adjective Empire". See Category:Empires. Any concerns if this is moved to "Brazilian Empire"? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
As of 14 November 2006, per WP:WIAGA, I make a speedy failing of this article for Good Article status. This article is nice, but alas the whole article is unreferenced. I put the tag in the article to notify editors to put reliable sources to supply all historical facts, claims and figures in this article to support the three pillars of Wikipedia: verifiable, contains no elements of original research and neutral point of view. You may want to read this WP:CITE guidelines. If all of this matters are resolved, this article can be renominated back. Cheers. — Indon ( reply) — 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand what the word is supposed to mean, but 1) it's not a real English word (to the best of my knowledge), and 2) it is hardly NPOV. Any objections? -- int19h 13:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Shouldnt hte article be called Empire of Brazil instead? It sounds more formal.
Why was this country allowed to claim itself an Empire? Was this ever not recognized? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthurian Legend ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
This discussion is pointless. The question is that that was what they called themselves and that that was how other recognized them. India was also the Indian Empire in Victorian times and never conquered others... The Ogre 12:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
How can you say it never conquered anything? Check for the changes in the territory from the Empire era to present Brazil. (In fact, these changes started since the Treaty of Tordesilhas, but Brazil was under the rule of Portugal by that time) You'll see that parts of Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul states belonged to the neighboring countries. Although most of these additions occurred by means of diplomacy, it doesn't change the fact that Brazil acquired territory during its Empire history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.214.240 ( talk) 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How bout it was called an Empire cause it was ruled by an Emperor?-- 71.185.193.245 ( talk) 14:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Arthurian legend, how bout we all regonize you as a big retard? - Igor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.38.214 ( talk) 08:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys i'm brazilian and in these time we were an empire .Probably you think that this is weird because you don't know our history.Of course that these empire was recognized ,who did the independence was D. pedro I and he was from the portuguese royal family (we study this in school).The problem is that people normally don't know our history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.160.122 ( talk) 23:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It was called an empire because the person taking the crown of Brazil was in line to become King of Portugal. By becoming Emperor of Brazil, Pedro was renouncing his claim to the Portuguese crown in favor of his daughter, Maria da Gloria. Therefore, he would want to differentiate the Brazilian monarchy from the Portuguese one... what better way than to call it an empire rather than a kingdom? Monikwee ( talk) 20:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)monikwee
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Why was Image:BrazilEmpireFlag.jpg removed from the article? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 18:42, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The part leading to the Independence could be made into a separate article.
Also consider splitting the article into four smaller articles (Independence, First Empire, Regency, Second Empire). Then the original "Empire of Brazil" article could be restored as a short summary of the whole Empire, with pointers to the last three pieces.
All the best,
Jorge Stolfi
04:36, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I really don't have the time to work on this article. In the interest of historical correctness, however, I must point out that this piece has some problems in terms of the correct division of the Brazilian emperial history.
There is no such thing as a "First Empire" and a "Second Empire". Historians are pretty much unanimous to agree that only one empire existed, the Empire. That is divided in two periods: The First Reign and the Second Reign. The former ends with the abdication of Peter I. The latter begins immediately after, but it is divided in two periods: Regency (which is itself divided in two periods: "Regency of One" and "Regency of Three" - would have to double check the English translation for that though) and Peter II's personal rule (which is interrupted in two ocasions: the first and the second regencies of HRH Princess Isabel, during two extended trips that the Emperor took).
Finally, concerning the grammar, if I'm not mistaken, names of monarchs and saints must be translated. Therefore, since this article is in English, "Pedro" should be translated into "Peter", as I have written above ( e.g.: In Russia: Peter, the Great).
Regards,
Redux 07:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks to 172 for fixing the whole "empire/reign" issue. I would point out that Jorge Stolfi has been renaming many articles concerning Brazilian monarchs to match the "Peter instead of Pedro" issue, a problem I had pointed out a while back in this exact article. Ironically, this seems to be the only article that has escaped Stolfi's effort to correct the names. Maybe someone else who is involved with this article could take care of this?
I will, however, insist that this article still has problems regarding the info. I have noticed some factual errors and incomplete data that sometimes change the actual meaning of some facts. Here is an example:
This problem is at the end of the "Pedro as regent" segment. Peter's decision to stay in Brazil in defiance of the Côrtes orders was brought about by influence of José Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva, his friend and confidant, and the prince's wife, princess Leopoldina. They united to convince Peter to stay, and to accomplish that, they played on Peter's formation as an absolutist prince (and future King), they argued that his father, John VI, had returned to Portugal "in chains", as they put it, and if Peter returned, a similar fate awaited him, and only by staying would he be able to "fulfill his destiny" as an absolute King. That was the basis for Peter's decision to stay. The fear of separatism was present in Bonifácio's mind, not the prince, and "petitions from towns" played absolutely no role in the matter (unless if understood as pressure from regional elites on José Bonifácio to convince the prince, since they feared the return of a direct rule from Lisbon). But even so, the prince was only able to make the decision to stay because of an understanding that he had reached with his father upon the King's return to Portugal, known as the Bragança Agreement. It is more commonly described as instructions from the King to his heir: "I am forced to return and an uncertain destiny awaits me. I leave you here in charge of securing our family's interests. If something should befall me and an illegitimate government (meaning one not led by himself, of course) should take measures opposed to our interests, reenforce your authority and crown yourself King of this land, I shall understand it and support you by whatever means left at my disposal".
The agreement was relevant especially because England, the world's leading power then, was obliged by a treaty to recognize only the decisions made by the Head of the House of Bragança in questions regarding the Portuguese Empire (and that's what saved John VI's life in Portugal).
Sorry for the long example, but I hope it helps improving this article.
Regards,
Redux 14:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
like all except one or two other articles in Category:Empires . For the Googlees: Brazilian Empire (20k) - Empire of Brazil (12k) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
all other empire articles (except Russia) are named "adjective Empire". See Category:Empires. Any concerns if this is moved to "Brazilian Empire"? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
As of 14 November 2006, per WP:WIAGA, I make a speedy failing of this article for Good Article status. This article is nice, but alas the whole article is unreferenced. I put the tag in the article to notify editors to put reliable sources to supply all historical facts, claims and figures in this article to support the three pillars of Wikipedia: verifiable, contains no elements of original research and neutral point of view. You may want to read this WP:CITE guidelines. If all of this matters are resolved, this article can be renominated back. Cheers. — Indon ( reply) — 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
"In January 1822, tension between Portuguese troops and the Luso-Brazilians (Brazilians of Portuguese ancestry)"
I do not think this makes sense. The division was not between Brazilian born and Portuguese born. The division was between those who supported the son, D. Pedro, and those who supported the father, King D. João. There were Portuguese and Brazilian born soldiers supporting D. Pedro and there were Portuguese and Brazilian born soldiers supporting D. João. It was a matter of what side one took not wher one was born.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.251.228 ( talk) 09:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand what the word is supposed to mean, but 1) it's not a real English word (to the best of my knowledge), and 2) it is hardly NPOV. Any objections? -- int19h 13:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The map is incorrect in what concerns to the actual representation of the Minas Gerais state. Its territories in 1822 were nearly the same as today. The region called Triângulo Mineiro, formerly part of the Goiás state, was incorporated into Minas Gerais in 1816.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex Bouvier ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Shouldnt hte article be called Empire of Brazil instead? It sounds more formal.
(Comment from 195.93.21.68 on 6 Sept 2005 moved here from Category talk:Wikipedia community forums; Beland, 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC))
In your article about the Empire of brazil you mention Dom Pedro abdicated in 1831 in favor of his FIVE year old son. You mention the son was crowned in 1841 yet the picture of Dom Pedro II nd's coronation showes him with a very full busy beard - ON A 15 year old!!!
A.P. Dallas
Why was this country allowed to claim itself an Empire? Was this ever not recognized? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthurian Legend ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
This discussion is pointless. The question is that that was what they called themselves and that that was how other recognized them. India was also the Indian Empire in Victorian times and never conquered others... The Ogre 12:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
How can you say it never conquered anything? Check for the changes in the territory from the Empire era to present Brazil. (In fact, these changes started since the Treaty of Tordesilhas, but Brazil was under the rule of Portugal by that time) You'll see that parts of Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul states belonged to the neighboring countries. Although most of these additions occurred by means of diplomacy, it doesn't change the fact that Brazil acquired territory during its Empire history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.214.240 ( talk) 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How bout it was called an Empire cause it was ruled by an Emperor?-- 71.185.193.245 ( talk) 14:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Arthurian legend, how bout we all regonize you as a big retard? - Igor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.38.214 ( talk) 08:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys i'm brazilian and in these time we were an empire .Probably you think that this is weird because you don't know our history.Of course that these empire was recognized ,who did the independence was D. pedro I and he was from the portuguese royal family (we study this in school).The problem is that people normally don't know our history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.160.122 ( talk) 23:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It was called an empire because the person taking the crown of Brazil was in line to become King of Portugal. By becoming Emperor of Brazil, Pedro was renouncing his claim to the Portuguese crown in favor of his daughter, Maria da Gloria. Therefore, he would want to differentiate the Brazilian monarchy from the Portuguese one... what better way than to call it an empire rather than a kingdom? Monikwee ( talk) 20:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)monikwee
"The royal family tended to be a kind of joke. They liked to socialize more than worry about politics and the king and queen were unconcerned about their people. They liked to paint their sheep pink and green and purple, and romp playfully through the gardens in really big bonnets. Their standard dress consisted of pastel garters and violent purple bloomers."
Thing can't be real. Someone's yanking us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.199.179 ( talk) 09:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The image [1], that portraits the provincial division in the Empire of Brazil, presents a few minor but important mistakes.
Firstly, the city of Rio de Janeiro wasn't named "Distrito Federal" until the Republic was founded in 1889. The Capital City's actual status during Imperial times was of "Município Neutro" (Neutral Municipality), in order to separate it from the Province of Rio de Janeiro. That would be a more accurate naming to be present on the map.
Also, the province of Pernambuco is mistakenly abbreviated as "PF" on the map, while its correct acronym would be "PE". — 201.66.200.75 ( talk) 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Another problem is in the santa catarina province of the map, althrought the frontiers were not weel defined at the time of the end of the empire the de jure frontier was the same as the republican one. Argentina claimed the region but i repeat it was a de jure part of Brazil. Rocha -- 201.6.80.56 ( talk) 23:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You´re correct. The brazilian frontier was identical to today´s borders. With the exception of Acre. All the history books I´ve seen about Brazil shows that. And yes, the correct name as Neutral Municpality. The image being used in this article is wrong. Anyone care to fix it?-- Lecen ( talk) 00:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I put a very, very good text from the portuguese Wikipedia about the economy of the Brazilian Empire. The problem is that it is in portuguese. So, if anyone could translate it to english, it would make the whole article a lot better. Thanks, - -- Lecen ( talk) 20:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I've made a lot of progress on translation and cleanup. There are two words in the
Industry section that I am not sure how to translate correctly in context. I'm familiar with both words, just can't make sense of them here.
- Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Those (above) are now dealt with.
I don't get the sense of the statement that the Constitution of 1824 era bem menos parlamentarista que o projeto da Constituinte. Something like "was much less [a] parliamentarist project than a project of Constitutating"? But that makes little sense. - Jmabel | Talk 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Two other phrases that I'm not sure how to translate (you may want to look at these in context): prestação de contas (Got it) and pois viria. -
Jmabel |
Talk
05:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
jogo parlamentar: literally "parliamentary game", what does it mean? - Jmabel | Talk 19:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, I currently have "the definition of the program de governo do ministério era realizada by the President of the Council of Ministers"; I'm not sure I exactly understand either de governo do ministério or realizada in this context, someone else will need to address these. - Jmabel | Talk 19:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Another: “deu margem à famosa ‘ditadura da honestidade’. Transformou-se, logo no poder pessoal do monarca, exercido sempre com alto espírito público”. I've been able to render most of this: "created the space for the famous 'dictatorship of honesty.' Transformou-se, logo the personal power of the monarch, always exercised with a high public spirit." I understand Transformou-se to mean "transformed itself" and logo to mean "soon", but can't quite put the sentence together. - Jmabel | Talk 18:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, não agüentam por muito tempo a prova da experiência e vão logo quebrar-se contra os fatos. My read is something like "they do not stand a long time the proof of experience and soon break out against the facts." That's probably wrong. Obviously, this is pushing my limits of comprehension of Portuguese; help would be appreciated. - Jmabel | Talk 00:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
And é uma garantia das promessas de sobrevivências no sentido. I would think I understood all the words, but I can't put the sense of it together. - Jmabel | Talk 03:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I've done what I can with the Moderating Power section. I think someone with stronger Portuguese needs to carry it from here. If your Portuguese is much better than your English, please feel free either to paraphrase into simpler Portuguese or to give an approximate translation, which we can then hone. - Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that the {{ translation}} tags have been removed, but as noted there are half a dozen passages in the Moderating Power section still needing translation. - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
As I proceed with translation, I notice a lot of material stating that the conventional view of such-and-such (usually the backwardness of the Empire) is wrong, or that a commonly held view (similarly) has no documentary evidence. I feel like we are presenting only one side of what is obviously an argument.
I'll try to continue with translation, but I don't know much of this history well. All I bring to this is good English and a moderate knowledge of written Portuguese. - Jmabel | Talk 00:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I've translated the section Empire of Brazil#The Emperor´s legitimacy more or less faithfully, making only small stylistic changes. My feeling, though, is that it says what are effectively the same things a few too many times. I leave it to someone else to edit this down.
Conversely, it would be very good to cite some primary materials from the time of the Empire for the lack of claim of divine right, and for the notion that the emperor served as a symbol and servant of the nation rather than as a sovereign. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a reference to the "French minister Amelot". Many Amelots in French history, a distinguished family (but most so in the 18th century). Anyone know just which one this was? - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I´ve finished translating all text. But I still have to correct many mistakes on the section "Armada" and put all sources.
I´m going next to start correcting the text about the history of the Empire. There are many, many, many horrible mistakes. Anyone have any idea, suggestion or critic? -- Lecen ( talk) 22:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Is the capital shown for brazil or the Emperor? Zoo Fari 03:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know where one can find an English-language of the 1824 Constitution online? I've been able to find it in Portuguese (on the Portuguese Wikisource), but not in English. Josh ( talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't believe you'll find the English text online. If you're REALLY interested in it, the book Slavery, Freedom, and the Law in the Atlantic World: A Brief History with Documents by Sue Peabody and Keila Grinberg contains the full version of 1824 Political Constitution of the Empire of Brazil. Try Amazon Books. --
von Tamm (
talk)
02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I tracked down a copy of the book. Unfortunately, it only contains a few (incomplete) chapters of the constitution. Does anyone know where one can find the constitution in English, in its entirety? Thanks. Josh ( talk) 09:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The map is totally inacurate, it displays present day boundaries. By that period the Great Colombia existed, Mexico´s was at its largest extent, and even Bolivia had access to the sea,etc. The map should be removed or replaced until an exact map is avaible. -- 189.216.56.115 ( talk) 08:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. If anyone here has sufficient skills as a cartographer, could they possibly remedy this? Josh ( talk) 09:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That's true, but if possible, we should fix the borders of other countries to what they were at the time Brazil became independent, or at the time the Empire ended, IMO. Josh ( talk) 23:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Not an easy task. The external and internal boundaries in 1825 and 1889 of the Empire are correct. I believe that is the least of our problems. This article and the ones realted to it need grammar and spelling correction and also need to be wikified. - -- Lecen ( talk) 15:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
FRENCH GUIANA WAS PART OF BRAZILIAN EMPIRE..!!
The money in the Brazilian Empire wasn't the real, but the "Conto de Réis". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.15.172.70 ( talk) 18:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
How dare you to write the word Braganças in a Spanish (or whatever that is) way???? It is the Portuguese royal family, the name is "Bragança"... the "Z" there is blasphemy, it's awful and despicable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.207.216 talk 19:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the old text of the history section. It had many mistakes and they did more harm than good to readers. I've began working on a new text. Right now, the part related to the years between 1831 and 1852 are finished. -- Lecen ( talk) 19:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I did a copyedit of the article and noticed that you have changed a couple of things back.
I had a discussion with User_talk:Lecen#Empire_of_Brazil where I simply stated the problem of using a "quote" vs "copying it directly out of a book without crediting the author".
You have restored some sentences which I find difficult to accept:
These are only copyedit matters but short sentences are really not a good way to write and I think you have reduced the quality of the article by reverting so many of my edits which linked short sentences in to longer ones. let me show you what I mean.
These are only copyedit matters. But short sentences are really not a good way to write. I think you have reduced the quality of the article. By reverting so many of my edits. Which linked short sentences in to longer ones.
to
This is most important - a large proportiaon of the "xxx" statements appear to be direct copyright violations. They should either summarise the sentence, and have the " " removed, or they should have the name of the person being quoted (in the case of this it would be something along the line of "Barman said in his book "XXX""
I cannot stress how important this is.
You (collectively) have introduced a massive amount of text in the last few days, 14:22 20 June (62,958 bytes) to 16:30 1 July 2010 (87,716 bytes) and although I appreciate that many people can indeed write in a fine style some of the text appears like it may be directly copied
For example - who in ther vocablulary uses promulgated ? If it is the case that they are copied I suggest that this be remedied.
Chaosdruid ( talk) 15:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
King Arthur could have saved his throne. He could have prevented the outcome. But he did nothing to stop it, nothing at all. All was left was the history of a reign that ended so tragically.
Here are the ones from the first half of the page:
Here is the one that I changed in my edit yesterday:
As you can see there are such quotes which include one ore more whole sentences
Chaosdruid (
talk)
20:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I moved the history section's text to its proper article. Once finished, I will bring a much shorter version back. -- Lecen ( talk) 16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I changed "National Assembly" to "General Assembly" in the infobox template. Why was this reverted? The legislature was never called "National Assembly," it was called "General Assembly." source Therefore, reverting it to "National Assembly" makes no sense, IMO. Josh ( talk) 20:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
in the xix century, the west amazon jungle was pure amerindian and northern mato grosso too..the southeast of rio grande do sul have many slaves, etc..the map is very good, because falta alguns detalhes pra aprimora-lo melhor..praticamente o padrão racial continuou o mesmo, excepto pelas migrações e afins na segunda metade do xx!
Well,, I'm back to the article and I plan to finish it soon. There a couple of unfinished sections (Armed Forces and European immigration) and other that are completely empty. It will take some time but once it is finished, I believe this article will give a wonderful view of imperial Brazil. Regards to all, -- Lecen ( talk) 20:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The provincial and local government section is comprised of an entire paragraph copied from the source. Quotation marks and a citation do not a valid encyclopedia make, it's plagiarism. Keegan ( talk) 03:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was going to be a culture section like most other country articles have? I would like to say that it is a very interesting read so far as I hope to see it completed so I can read more. Spongie555 ( talk) 06:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi ( Lecen and Astynax in particular),
I've been doing some copyediting work on what I think is shaping up as a great article, but I have a few questions about specific phrases which I'm not too sure of:
1. The first sentence of the "Anarchy" section — The quotation starting with "nominal ruler"... and ending with ..."given by it to the Emperor" is not referenced as a quotation and seems an odd thing to quote, as it is all pure fact. Could someone clarify this?
2. The quotation in the "Anarchy" section beginning "marked the elimination of the monarch..." doesn't have a closing quotation mark. Could someone please clarify?
3. The final sentence of the "Anarchy" section — "The liberals, however, took the initiative and obtained that Pedro II was to be declared of age earlier than expected and fitted to rule in July 1840" — I was hesitant to edit this as I wasn't sure exactly what was meant. Could someone clarify?
Many thanks in advance Arthur Holland ( talk) 12:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The following statement appears in the "Elections" section:
"[The 1881 reforms meant that] illiterate citizens were no longer allowed to vote. Participation in elections dropped from 13% to only 0.8% in 1886. In 1889 about 15% of the Brazilian population could read and write, so disenfranchising the illiterate does not explain the sudden fall in voting percentages."
If 85% of the previously enfranchised population were no longer able to vote (because of their illiteracy) surely that would explain (at least in part) a sudden fall in numbers of voters? Apologies if I'm missing the obvious.
Also, do the percentages mentioned relate to percentages of those eligible to vote (i.e. literate men earning above the minimum requirement) or percentages of the whole population? Arthur Holland ( talk) 17:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the point of the figures is to show that
I'm thinking that perhaps an endnote would be good to explain this further, using some of the material Lecen has quoted from Carvalho, without making the text in the section itself too complicated. I can probably insert an endnote if no one else gets to it first. • Astynax talk 09:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for taking the time to go through this with me, and apologies again for my fussiness on this. Arthur Holland ( talk) 22:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I know I was a pain about this in the first place, and I'm sorry to bang on about it, but I do feel that the changes that Lecen has made to endnote B defeat the purpose of inserting it in the first place. I put the note in to provide some specific figures to demonstrate (mathematically) that disenfranchising the illiterate could not have been the only cause of the massive drop in electoral participation. The endnote we have now doesn't address that issue at all. Arthur Holland ( talk) 00:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm just going through doing a bit of copy-editing, starting with "independence and the early years". Shout if I've accidentally distorted the meaning of the text. Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I've had a stab at the "Apogee" section. Hchc2009 ( talk) 16:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
What would people feel about amending the opening sentence? Specifically "political entity" seems a bit vague, and "comprised present-day Brazil" is, I think, not quite accurate, as Uruguay was lost during the empire and other border disputes were not settled until Brazil became a republic. Would something along the following lines be of interest?
The Empire of Brazil was a sovereign state that broadly comprised present-day Brazil under the rule of Emperors Pedro I and his son Pedro II, both members of the House of Braganza...
I don't have a strong opinion on this and if there are specific reasons for using "political entity" then no problem. Just thought I'd see what people thought. Arthur Holland ( talk) 00:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I've finished writing the article. Also removed "photograph" subsection as I believe it makes no sense in here. Once Astynax, Arthur Holland and Hchc2009 are over reviewing and correcting any mistakes left, I'll open a FAC nomination. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 23:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I know I was the one who did a partial copyedit removing the capitals on "the Emperor" and "the Empire", as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters) but I feel that in both these cases what is implicitly meant is:
And all these cases would be legitimately capitalized.
Exceptions would be as follows:
As in both these cases "emperor" is used in a more general sense.
There may be some other exceptions too. What do people think? Arthur Holland ( talk) 12:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This article follows the spellings given in the majority of referenced used to source this article. The practice of retaining original spellings of names (rather than anglicizing the spellings) is very commonly used by scholars writing on Brazilian history during the last decades. Please keep this in mind when adding or editing material to this article. • Astynax talk 20:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Cripipper,
I believe you are incorrect, here are the reasons why:
1- As Astynax defended, it is common practice among modern scholars to use João instead of John, the reason being that the Portuguese speaking countries are very concerned about preserving the names in the original language, as it is done by the French speaking nations, for example: If you ask a Canadian if he knows Peter Trudeau, he will certainly laugh at you, the correct form is always Pierre Trudeau or you can even ask the French about Lewis XIV, it should be Louis XIV.
2- You may even be correct that a google search will show more references to John than João. However, you should also note the dates on the publications, in the 19th century it was common practice to refer to everybody by their English name, today, historians and individuals are concerned in how the names are know in other countries or in the original country. We now live in a globalized world where information is used by individuals from different countries.
3- The great majority of Portuguese and Brazilian articles use the Portuguese form of names, although it is not the only practice it is the proper and modern way.
I hope this will help you , I would also recommend a less aggressive attitude. Wikipedia is founded on the values of collaboration, you already have three editors that worked on numerous articles telling you that your changes are not standard practice, if I were you I would step back and listen a little. We all have made mistakes and we are constantly learning. If I can be of any help please let me know. Cheers. Paulista01 ( talk) 16:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason why the fact that the article is at John VI of Portugal should preclude using the Portuguese name in this article. Both names are very commonly used in English, and I think in such cases deference is due to the preferences of the person who mostly wrote the article, who in this case is Lecen. This seems analogous to an WP:ENGVAR issue to me. [Note: I said analogous to an ENGVAR issue. It is not an ENGVAR issue, but I think it should be treated in the same way]. There is no reason to insist that all articles must use the same name form for an individual. john k ( talk) 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Here are some comments on the article's prose:
More to come. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Why was Image:BrazilEmpireFlag.jpg removed from the article? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 18:42, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The part leading to the Independence could be made into a separate article.
Also consider splitting the article into four smaller articles (Independence, First Empire, Regency, Second Empire). Then the original "Empire of Brazil" article could be restored as a short summary of the whole Empire, with pointers to the last three pieces.
All the best,
Jorge Stolfi
04:36, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks to 172 for fixing the whole "empire/reign" issue. I would point out that Jorge Stolfi has been renaming many articles concerning Brazilian monarchs to match the "Peter instead of Pedro" issue, a problem I had pointed out a while back in this exact article. Ironically, this seems to be the only article that has escaped Stolfi's effort to correct the names. Maybe someone else who is involved with this article could take care of this?
I will, however, insist that this article still has problems regarding the info. I have noticed some factual errors and incomplete data that sometimes change the actual meaning of some facts. Here is an example:
This problem is at the end of the "Pedro as regent" segment. Peter's decision to stay in Brazil in defiance of the Côrtes orders was brought about by influence of José Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva, his friend and confidant, and the prince's wife, princess Leopoldina. They united to convince Peter to stay, and to accomplish that, they played on Peter's formation as an absolutist prince (and future King), they argued that his father, John VI, had returned to Portugal "in chains", as they put it, and if Peter returned, a similar fate awaited him, and only by staying would he be able to "fulfill his destiny" as an absolute King. That was the basis for Peter's decision to stay. The fear of separatism was present in Bonifácio's mind, not the prince, and "petitions from towns" played absolutely no role in the matter (unless if understood as pressure from regional elites on José Bonifácio to convince the prince, since they feared the return of a direct rule from Lisbon). But even so, the prince was only able to make the decision to stay because of an understanding that he had reached with his father upon the King's return to Portugal, known as the Bragança Agreement. It is more commonly described as instructions from the King to his heir: "I am forced to return and an uncertain destiny awaits me. I leave you here in charge of securing our family's interests. If something should befall me and an illegitimate government (meaning one not led by himself, of course) should take measures opposed to our interests, reenforce your authority and crown yourself King of this land, I shall understand it and support you by whatever means left at my disposal".
The agreement was relevant especially because England, the world's leading power then, was obliged by a treaty to recognize only the decisions made by the Head of the House of Bragança in questions regarding the Portuguese Empire (and that's what saved John VI's life in Portugal).
Sorry for the long example, but I hope it helps improving this article.
Regards,
Redux 14:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
like all except one or two other articles in Category:Empires . For the Googlees: Brazilian Empire (20k) - Empire of Brazil (12k) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
all other empire articles (except Russia) are named "adjective Empire". See Category:Empires. Any concerns if this is moved to "Brazilian Empire"? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
As of 14 November 2006, per WP:WIAGA, I make a speedy failing of this article for Good Article status. This article is nice, but alas the whole article is unreferenced. I put the tag in the article to notify editors to put reliable sources to supply all historical facts, claims and figures in this article to support the three pillars of Wikipedia: verifiable, contains no elements of original research and neutral point of view. You may want to read this WP:CITE guidelines. If all of this matters are resolved, this article can be renominated back. Cheers. — Indon ( reply) — 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand what the word is supposed to mean, but 1) it's not a real English word (to the best of my knowledge), and 2) it is hardly NPOV. Any objections? -- int19h 13:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Shouldnt hte article be called Empire of Brazil instead? It sounds more formal.
Why was this country allowed to claim itself an Empire? Was this ever not recognized? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthurian Legend ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
This discussion is pointless. The question is that that was what they called themselves and that that was how other recognized them. India was also the Indian Empire in Victorian times and never conquered others... The Ogre 12:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
How can you say it never conquered anything? Check for the changes in the territory from the Empire era to present Brazil. (In fact, these changes started since the Treaty of Tordesilhas, but Brazil was under the rule of Portugal by that time) You'll see that parts of Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul states belonged to the neighboring countries. Although most of these additions occurred by means of diplomacy, it doesn't change the fact that Brazil acquired territory during its Empire history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.214.240 ( talk) 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How bout it was called an Empire cause it was ruled by an Emperor?-- 71.185.193.245 ( talk) 14:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Arthurian legend, how bout we all regonize you as a big retard? - Igor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.38.214 ( talk) 08:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys i'm brazilian and in these time we were an empire .Probably you think that this is weird because you don't know our history.Of course that these empire was recognized ,who did the independence was D. pedro I and he was from the portuguese royal family (we study this in school).The problem is that people normally don't know our history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.160.122 ( talk) 23:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It was called an empire because the person taking the crown of Brazil was in line to become King of Portugal. By becoming Emperor of Brazil, Pedro was renouncing his claim to the Portuguese crown in favor of his daughter, Maria da Gloria. Therefore, he would want to differentiate the Brazilian monarchy from the Portuguese one... what better way than to call it an empire rather than a kingdom? Monikwee ( talk) 20:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)monikwee