Talk:Empire of Brazil/Archive 1

Flag
Why was Image:BrazilEmpireFlag.jpg removed from the article? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 18:42, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Splitting
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)

Division of the Brazilian emperial history
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)

Problems
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)

Naming
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)
 * Moved. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 07:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But the thing is called "Empire of Brazil." That's its name.  The distinction in Portuguese is pretty clear, and there's no reason not to use a literal translation. john k 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
History of Portugal (1777-1834) is now being peer reviewed. Please, if you want, go there and state your opinion. Thank you. Gameiro 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to state that it is now a featured article candidate. You can support or oppose here. Thanks. Gameiro 01:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Failing for GA
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. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Troops
"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)

"Slavocracy"
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)

Brazilian Provinces Map
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)

Brazilian Empire
Shouldnt hte article be called Empire of Brazil instead? It sounds more formal.


 * Done. I don't know how it ever got to be at Brazilian Empire, which seems to me to misleadingly suggest a colonial empire, rather than  a state ruled by an emperor. john k 15:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Age question
(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
 * The picture with D. Pedro II with a bushy beard is actually a portrait of him in a session of the Imperial Parliament... not his coronation. :)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidan7 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 4 July 2007‎ (UTC)

Empire?
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).
 * Allowed?!? They were and are their own masters! They can call themselves whatever they want! And yes, they were universally recognized as the Empire of Brazil. The Ogre 12:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What Arthurian Legend probably means is this: they never conquered anything, so why did anyone recognize them as an empire? 88.235.147.161 12:34, 22 July 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

Violent Purple Bloomers?
"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)

Map of the Imperial Provincial Division
The image, 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)

Translation
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 added more texts. They treat about the government structure. Anyone who can help translating them, please, do it! If not, try t o find someone that can! - --Lecen (talk) 21:01, 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)
 * The first establishment to receive such a grant was the “Fábrica das Chitas” ("Factory of Chitas"), devoted to estamparia and paper.
 * Estamparia, I believe, means stamping, but there are a lot of possible shades of meaning, and that word is unclear in context. Does anyone know precisely what this factory did?
 * the decree of 8 August 1846 that exempted manufactured products from the direitos of transport
 * Direitos is normally "rights" or "laws", but in this context neither is particularly clear. "Laws" is more plausible than "rights" but it seems to mean something other, or more specific, some particular regulations or taxes.

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)
 * I haven't read the whole text to check, but literally it would mean the "Constitution of 1824 was much less parliamentarianist than the project [drafted by] the Constituent Assembly" (probably in the sense that it gave relatively more power to the executive branch – in case the word "parliamentarianist" exists ;-). RodC (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved. Going for "The Constitution of 1824 was rather less parliamentary than the draft prepared by the Constituent Assembly." - Jmabel | Talk

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)
 * "Pois viria": in the context, "for it would". RodC (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved. Thanks, that works. - Jmabel | Talk 00:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

jogo parlamentar: literally "parliamentary game", what does it mean? - Jmabel | Talk 19:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... a metaphor for the parliamentary exchange and negotiations between the different parties and politicians. RodC (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved. I'll use "parliamentary interplay". - Jmabel | Talk 00:12, 26 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)
 * That means literally (and a bit tortuously) "the definition of the cabinet's governmental program was done by the President of the Council of Ministers". Congrats and thanks for your effort. RodC (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved. OK, I can work with that

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)


 * "não agüentam por muito tempo a prova da experiência e vão logo quebrar-se contra os fatos" it means that something may look great in theory, but in reality, it can prove itself to be a completely disaster. And "é uma garantia das promessas de sobrevivências no sentido" means that the role of the Emperor can ensure peace, freedom, stability and unity as it is told in the text. As soon as possible (saturday, to be more precise), I´ll take a look at all issues. - Lecen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.248.237 (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume you are speaking very loosely when you say '"é uma garantia das promessas de sobrevivências no sentido" means that the role of the Emperor can ensure peace, freedom, stability and unity', since there is nothing about peace, freedom, stability or unity in the phrase in question. - Jmabel | Talk 19:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't had time to give attention to this article and discussion, but skimming very lightly over the text I sniffed out a certain degree of POV, maybe going towards what could be called monarchist propaganda. This will have to be dealt with, probably. Regards, RodC (talk) 03:46, 30 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)

Controversy
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 see that Lecen has made at least one edit to reduce this. He explained to me elsewhere what I suspected: that the implicit argument was against the advocates of the First Republic. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Emperor´s legitimacy
I've translated the section Empire of Brazil 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)

Amelot
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)
 * "Ministro" could mean "Ambassador" or an equivalent officer. I'm guessing the reference is to one Count Amelot-Chaillon mentioned here – a French diplomat at the Brazilian court, I gather. RodC (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * RodC is correct. The Amelot mentioned is the ambassador (also called then "minister") in Brazil. - Lecen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.248.237 (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What to do next
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)

Capital
Is the capital shown for brazil or the Emperor?  Zoo Fari  03:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Constitution
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)


 * You won't find it. I could translate it to you whatever parts you want to, however. --Lecen (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate map
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)
 * Although it does represent present boundaries, it does only to other countries other than Brazil. At least the boundaries representing the Empire of Brazil are correct. - --Lecen (talk) 10:36, 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
FRENCH GUIANA WAS PART OF BRAZILIAN EMPIRE..!!


 * Source? Josh (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * French Guiana was part of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves from 1809 up to 1817 when it was handed back to France. That is, at least five years before the birth of the Brazilian Empire. - --Lecen (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Currency
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)

"Braganzas"
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)
 * It is hardly blasphemous, awful or despicable, but rather a very common non-Portuguese spelling. It is the spelling used in the Wikipedia article on the House of Braganza, which you may wish to change before making this change elsewhere. As for this article, "Braganza" is the spelling which has been used since 24 October 2005.
 * The "Braganza" spelling may have been used because it was what was used in the cited references. It may have also have been used because not all languages use the "ç" character. That includes English. It is common for those languages to substitute an equivalent letter. I have no objection to the use of "Bragança", so long as the "Braganza" spelling is also noted. The edit you made removed both a template for the Portguese spelling and the English equivalent, so I am going to revert it. &bull; Astynax talk 03:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that it has already been properly reverted by another editor. &bull; Astynax talk 03:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the same information has been blanked in the same way, and has been again reverted for exactly the same reasons. &bull; Astynax talk 17:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Improving the article
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)


 * Now the timeline goes from 1831 up to 1862. --Lecen (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Changes of 2 July
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 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:


 * "return of Pedro I as regent instead of his son." to "return of Pedro I as regent for his son." - if Pedro I was to return as regent then surely it was "instead of his son (being emperor/holding power)" and this may be better explained as such for those who may not know what regent actually means :¬)
 * "population but few captaincies" to "population. But few captaincies" - Never start a sentence with ". But" the but is a continuation of the preceeding statement
 * "mestiço (English: Mixed one) and is a" to "'mestiço (English: Mixed one). This is a" - Same as but to But

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 lasted until the emperor was fully grown and experienced purged everyone linked to the group including Aureliano who no longer held any influence in politics after Pedro II imposed an unspoken ban on him holding any political position. Barman (1999), pp.   112–114 &  .& lt;/ref> "
 * "This lasted until the emperor now fully grown and experienced, purged everyone linked to the group including Aureliano who no longer held any influence in politics, including Aureliano—whose influence in politics disappeared after Pedro II imposed an unspokenan implicit ban on himfrom Pedro II precluded his holding any political positionpost. Barman (1999), pp.   112–114 &  .& lt;/ref> "

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)


 * Yes, it was directly copied. I understand that you "fell" here out of nowhere and consequently is not aware of our work in here. The text that you saw in the article was taken from three articles: Pedro II of Brazil, Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná and José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco. That's why "large amount of text" was added so quickly. Also, direct quotations do not need to have the name of the historian presented (that is, "according to historian XX 'that happened because' the other person said...") but would be necessary if we were presenting an opinion (such as "according to historian XX, Emperor YY 'was one of the greatest monarchs of the W country' and as such..."). Since those are not opinions, but merely information about something that happened there is no need to say the name of the author. HOWEVER, obviously, there is the need to show the correct source ("In 1822, Brazil became independent as 'a stable parliamentary monarchy' and continued for a few decades" Author X, p.Y ). Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for going over the article. It exposed several errors and instances where the text should have been clearer. As to your concerns:
 * The hope of the Restorationists was that Pedro I return as regent for his son. His son was never regent, but rather a minor who required a regent. "Restorationist" in this instance meant restoring Pedro I to Brazil and to a position of influence, though not to the throne.
 * I've removed the conjunction "But" from the start of the sentence.
 * The sentence: "The pardo (English: Brown) was a designation for multiracial Brazilians which is still officially used though some scholars prefer the term mestiço (English: Mixed one) and is a broad category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (descendants of Whites and Blacks) and Cafusos (descendants of Blacks and Indians)." contained an exhausting number of clauses. When read aloud, it sounds almost like a run-on. It is easier to understand when broken up into two complete sentences—at least for myself. If your concern is with the sentence starting with "This", then I've modified it.
 * It would be better to cut and paste the sentence from the article so that it comes across accurately. The comparison should be be:
 * "This lasted until the emperor was fully grown and experienced purged everyone linked to the group including Aureliano who no longer held any influence in politics after Pedro II imposed an unspoken ban on him holding any political position."
 * to
 * "This lasted until the emperor, now fully grown and experienced, purged everyone linked to the group, including Aureliano—whose influence in politics disappeared after an implicit ban from Pedro II precluded his holding any political post."
 * I still think the latter is less confusing and easier to read.
 * The only changes I made to your work on quotations was where you changed words within the (remaining) quote marks. Where you summarized quotations, I removed a couple of remnant quote marks and further summarized stretches of text which remained from the original.
 * "Promulgated" is the best word I could come up with from my vocabulary to cover the method for the birth of the Constitution. It was not "declared". "Decreed", "enacted" and "introduced" would also miss the mark. The word can frequently be found in historical and constitutional texts, and I haven't consciously copied it, or any other of my edits, from some other source(s).
 * Both Lecen and I are aware of copyright and attribution issues, but it is certainly OK to raise the question. &bull; Astynax talk 17:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case I have to commend you on your excellent use of english !! Promulgated is certainly an educated word but, unfortunately, most people will not know what it means lol
 * Pedro I and son - I know what a regent is and so appreciate that his son could not be regent, the issue I have is with "for" - "...was that Pedro I return as regent for his son". It still reads as though he was doing it for his son...
 * I think "to" is better and perhaps as I have said lower down about Caboclo- put regent so they can see what it means easily.
 * Normally we look at a sentence legnth as the bit between . and . - any parentheses would normally not count as a part of the sentence. This is an encyclopedia and this article is written; not spoken. Do not be under the impression that most people cannot take in a sentence longer than 10 words.
 * I suggest you take the words in brackets out then as that would make more sense to me.
 * includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians) would become caboclos etc.
 * As I have already said you really need to put a minimum of "Quote:" and even better would be "Brown said" or "Brown says in his book" - a quote without explaining that it is one, or where it comes from is not good practice - especially when you have just said that you "restored the quote" which infact tell me that they are directly copied form other texts. :¬) see MOS:QUOTE
 * Attribution
 * The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote.
 * The only other alternative is to rewrite the text=which is the one I chose as I could not verify that the quote was from the ref as I do not have the book
 * Good luck with the article it is pretty good but try and put in a bit at a time - it is a B-calss and was a GA candidate. With all tose un attributed quotes in it would immediately fail and maybe get demoted to a C-class
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Only if that is a Wikipedia rule. All the history books I used to wirte articles about Pedro II of Brazil, Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, Platine War, Early life of Pedro II of Brazil, Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil (yes, it was I who read a dozen of books to write them all) have quotes and do not mention the original authors in the main text (except, however, that all of them are followed by a footnote telling who said it, in what book and what page). In fact, when we take only a piece of sentence we avoid telling the name of the author in the main body of the text. And when I said it was copied from other articles, I meant all those articles that I wrote. I was not saying that I copied them from some book or from a website. Also, a few examples:


 * Example 1: King Arthur delivered a blow into Mordred's heart, but the latter "did not seem to feel it". Name of author, page of the book (the remaining info of the book is found in the references' section 


 * Example 2: King Arthur was according to historian John Morris, an "outstanding mythical character". Name of author, page of the book (the remaining info of the book is found in the references' section 


 * Example 3: King Arthur was dying, his wounds were too severe and there was nothing else to do about it. According to a historian:


 * "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."

- Clark J. Williams


 * All of the examples above are used in books. Why they could not in Wikipedia? It is impossible to argue that a small piece of sentence with 4-8 words that is used to complement a larger sentence and that is followed by a reference can be considered copyright infringement. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the link to the rule from the MOS which I put in my post earlier - MOS:QUOTE Attribution  The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote.
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But we did not use a full sentence. Only part of it. As I said above with the 3 examples given by me. --Lecen (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are the ones from the first half of the page:


 * "Dissolution of power to the provinces, far from placating local ambitions and discontents, kindled them into flame. In the far north and the far south, civil wars broke out" 2 sentences
 * "The country's needs were not being addressed." 1 sentence
 * "the close links, both political and personal, that its leaders established with the booming coffe sector in the Paraíba valley just to the north of Rio de Janeiro city. Coffee exports quadrupled during the 1820s and doubled again between 1829 and 1835."  2 sentences
 * "The economic boom strengthened the position of the national government, increasing its revenues and its ability to secure loans." 1 sentence
 * "They were a pragmatic alliance involving everyone from republican radicals to moderate reformists to liberal monarchists to former restorationists." 1 sentence
 * "Without experience, he might be manipulated by whoever brought him to power." 1 sentence
 * "The political system functioned smoothly. Civil liberties were maintained. A start had been made on the introduction into Brazil of railroad, telegraph and steamship lines. The country was no longer troubled by the disputes and conflicts that had racked it during its first thirty years." 3 sentences
 * "With no actual responsibility for the actual conduct of affairs, the legislators were free to propose sweeping reforms, advocate ideal solutions, and denounce compromising and opportunistic conduct by the government." 1 sentence
 * "This power was effective when held in reserve as a threat. It could not be employed repeatedly, nor would its use work to the emperor's advantage." 2 sentences

Here is the one that I changed in my edit yesterday:


 * Nabuco said"The President of the Council in Brazil was no Russian Chancellor, Sovereign's creature, nor an English Prime Minister, made only by the trust of the Commons: the delegation of the Crown was to him as necessary and important as the delegation of the Chamber, and, to exert with safety his functions, he had to dominate the caprice, the oscillations and ambitions of the Parliament, as well as to preserve always unalterable the favor, the good will of the emperor."[139]

As you can see there are such quotes which include one ore more whole sentences Chaosdruid (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Very well, I think all that can be adressed. Thank you very much for helping us! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem - it can be frustrating to find ones hard work is not quite as per wiki rules, and there are so many !
 * I'll leave you to it now and please realise my concern is the quality of the article above all else. It really is informative - for example I learned so much that I didn't know before from reading it.
 * I always wondered why Brazil was so different from the other SA countries and this explained a lot of it.
 * Happy editing ! :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. Criticism, when it is constructive - as was yours - is always helpful. I was wondering if we could count on you in the future, could we? --Lecen (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you need me just post on my chat page - I may come back to read it again once you finish it - and if you do a GA or A-Class or FA attempt let me know !! I would be honoured to join in and help get it through :¬)
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

History section
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)

Why was my change reverted?
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)
 * "Poder Moderador" (literal translation: "Moderating Power") has been translated as "Regulating Power" by British historian Roderick J. Barman. "Assembléia Geral" (literal translation: "General Assembly") can also be translated as "National Assembly", "Parliament", etc... If you had bothered to read this article you would have noticed that it uses throughout its text the name "National Assembly". Such name is also used on other related articles, such as the one on Pedro II of Brazil, Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, etc... That's why your edit was reverted. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I came across as a jerk about it. I was just wondering. Josh (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relax, you were trying to help, and that's always appreciated. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

racial map
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!


 * Hi! The map reveals which ethnic group was the single largest one. It does not men that that ethnic group is the only one in the area. For example, in the south it says that whites were the largest ethnic group. Obviously, there were also Mulattoes, Caboclos and Blacks in the area. --Lecen (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Back to the article
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)
 * Some of the sections which I'm still working at might look a little messy, but don't worry. Once they are finished, it will all make more sense. --Lecen (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done with "European immigration" section. Moving to Armed Forces... --Lecen (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My PC has been damaged. I won't be able to do anything in the article for at leat a week. Quite a shame. I'd still appreciate any comments, criticisms, ideas or similar to the article. Regards to all, --Lecen (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done with Armed Forces, moving to "Provincial and local government". I'm still waiting for suggestions, comments, criticisms, etc...--Lecen (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done with Provincial and local government. --Lecen (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving on to Foreign relations. --Lecen (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving Foreign realtions aside for the moment. Focusing on the history section. --Lecen (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done with three history sections. --Lecen (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just finished the last non-history related article. Moving foward the history section. --Lecen (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is finished. Astynax will correct all grammar and spelling mistakes and will also improve the tone and prose of the text. As soon as I can, I'll rewrite the lead. --Lecen (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Visual arts' section is done, 2 more to go. --Lecen (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Literature and theatre section is finished. Only one section left. At last. --Lecen (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with Provincial governent section
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)
 * It is under quotes and is properly sourced, so it can not be themed "plagiarism". And there is one section just above this one explaining that this article is under construction. The section you mentioned is one of the sections that are under work. --Lecen (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Section
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)


 * That's something that has been bothering me for awhile. Since my objective is to have this article raised to Featured status it seems I'll have to write a culture section. Boring, certainly. But it has to be done.


 * With this article finished, along with Pedro II of Brazil, Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná and José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, readers will be able to understand this period of Brazilian history. I wish I could write others too, but I have less and less time available now. Let's see what can be done. Thank you for enjoying it, and I hope I'll se more ideas, suggestions and even criticisms from you in the future. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm done with the article. I'll create two further sections: art and literature. I believe it's enough. --Lecen (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Was there any sports in the empire of brazil? I have seen sport subsections on other country articles. Spongie555 (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was, but is not a necessary section. Sports sections do exist in present-day countries's articles, not in former countries' articles. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Queries arising from copyedit
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)
 * Thank you for helping us out, Arthur. Any extra help is certainly welcome. I corrected the lack of a closing quotation mark. Both quotations are taken directly from historian Roderick J. Barman's words. I usually do that and Astynax later either change the words or add the historian name. On your last remark: Pedro II was declared an adult at age 14, in 1840. That was supposed to happen only in 1843, when he would be 18. Although the emperor, he could not rule until he was declared an adult. The liberals managed to declare him an adult earlier than it was supposed to. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lecen, I've reworked those sentences, but if I've misunderstood or misinterpreted anything please correct it or let me know. Arthur Holland (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Query about statement in "Election" section
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)


 * We have to go by parts in here: As you saw, someone to vote had to be a male, above 25 year-old and earning at least Rs 200,000 per year. And voting was obligatory. Well, as explained in the text, the income requisite in practice was the same as nothing, since a janitor (who was paid the lowest annual salary then) earned Rs 600,000 per year, 3x above the minimum. This, until 1881.


 * After 1881, voting became facultative but from now on a male had to know how to read and write (something not needed before). If in 1872 13% of the total Brazilian population (that includes children, women, babies, etc...), in 1885 it dropped to 0,5%. As told in the text, income requiste was not an issue. Being able to read and write wasn't either, since 15% of the population could read. Which leaves us with the facultative voting was the reason to why the number of people going to vote diminished so much. --Lecen (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that that still doesn't make sense to me. Of the 13% of the entire population which voted in 1872, a considerable proportion would have been illiterate. I don't know what that percentage would be, but if, for the sake of argument, we say that 50% of the people who voted in 1872 were illiterate, that would mean that once the 1881 reforms were enacted, the voter turnout would drop by 50% simply because these former voters were no longer allowed to vote.


 * Again, I apologize if I'm being stupid. I'm certainly not trying to be awkward, I just want to make sure that the article is clear and correct. Arthur Holland (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But the percentage did drop in 1881. Before that year 13% voted (and 87% did not), after 1881, only 0,5% voted. Which meaans that 95,5% of the population (including children, women, etc...) did not. The reform indeed lowered the number of Brazilians who were voting. --Lecen (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ow, you are asking if prohibiting illiterate from voting did harm somehow? Yes, it did. But it can not be regarded as the main impact. Perhaps the sentence should be changed a little bit? Something like "so disenfranchising the illiterate can not be regarded as the sole cause to the sudden fall in voting percentages." --Lecen (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally accept that the percentage dropped in 1881, but I'm not asking if prohibiting the illiterate from voting was harmful, I just don't understand the mathematical assumption in the existing article. My question is why the article states that this drop in electoral participation has nothing (or very little) to do with the illiterate being disenfranchised, even though this would have resulted in a significant proportion of the existing electorate being unable to vote after the 1881 reforms.


 * I wonder if we could ask Astyntax (or any other third party) to have a look at this as I feel a second opinion might be helpful. Once again, I really am sorry for making a nuisance of myself. I think you've done fantastic work on this article and I don't want you to think I'm just being annoying for the sake of it, as that really isn't the case. Arthur Holland (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "If the legal exclusion of the electoral process is easy to understand, the self-exclusion requires a greater effort of interpretation. Apparently, a great part of the adults chose not to be an active citizen, to use the legal expression of the imperial constitution. One of the reasons for this behavior was without a doubt the electoral fraud, which the Republic did nothing to eliminate." p.86


 * "In the case of Rio de Janeiro, there was also another good reason to citizens not to risk themselves on exercizing their rights. Beyond being useless, voting was very dangerous. Since the Empire, elections in the capital were marked by the presence of the capoeiras, hired by the candidates to garantee the results. The Republic fought against the capoeiras, but the use of henchmen to influence the electoral process only grew." p.87


 * "Eighty percent of the population of Rio de Janeiro did not have the right to political participation according to the electoral mechanisms; 20 percent had that right, but did not worry to exercise it." p.91


 * Source: Carvalho, José Murilo de (1987). Os Bestializados: o Rio de Janeiro e a República que não foi (2 ed.). São Paulo: Companhia das Letras 9online edition in here )


 * That's it. In any case, feel free to ask "third parties". --Lecen (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Still a bit confused, so I've asked Astynax to have a look. Arthur Holland (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the point of the figures is to show that
 * 1) Although prior to 1881, voting was a requirement for those enfranchised by virtue of income (almost every working free male), only a small fraction of those required eligible to vote actually participated.
 * 2) When suffrage was further limited to only those the literate in 1881, voting participation fell markedly, but those previously required eligible to vote were already largely not participating. So creating a literacy test to determine enfranchisement wasn't the only factor in the even lower voter participation rates.

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. &bull; Astynax talk 09:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I sincerely do not understand what is wrong with the text and how come it's not possible to understand it. Back then, most of the population were children, and half was female. Removing those, and also priests, soldiers and anyone else not allowed to vote, you'll get your 13%. And 13% does not mean that it was the percentage related to every single men who was allowed to vote, on the contrary.
 * Then, the people had to go the local parish and bring papers that could identify him and prove that he had the income required to vote. Once that was over, he could vote. And doing that gave the elector no garantee that he would actualy vote. The local political boss from a rival political party that had influence over the parish was able to prohibit him from voting. Either by sending henchmen to scare anyone who would vote or simply by not accepting his papers as genuine. There was no secret ballot during the Empire, which meant that voter had to say out loud in what candidate they were going to vote.


 * Anyway, the government took the names of everyone who appeared to vote in those parishes (and not from anyone who was actualy allowed to vote) to create the data in the census. And I'm quite sure that many did not go vote despite being mandatory. After all, the government had no power to go after a rancher, a farmer, a cowboy, a fisherman in the countryside and force him to vote. Even less in near impossible ares to reach such as in the Amazon rainforest, for example. --Lecen (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Having had a think about this, I do essentially agree with Lecen, in that the literacy restriction would not have been the main reason for the massive fall in voting. However, I still think the sentence I had a problem with is dubious because it makes a large deductive leap without any explanation:


 * "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."


 * The essence of this (as I read it) is that, "Since electoral participation had been 13% prior to 1881, and since 15% of the population was literate, disenfranchising the illiterate cannot possibly explain the fall in voting"


 * My problem is with the mathematical logic in that sentence. It is possible in theory that the entire electorate pre-1881 were illiterate (of course I know that that wasn't the case in reality) and that none of the literate population bothered to vote: there would (I suspect) have been enough free, illiterate, non-military, non-priest, adult men to make up 13% of the whole population. Therefore disenfranchising this demographic could (theoretically speaking) have eliminated the entire participating portion of the electorate.


 * I hope that makes some kind of sense.


 * Essentially, I think Astynax is right that a footnote containing some of the detail Lecen mentioned (about why so many eligible people didn't participate) would help. But I also think that the sentence as it stands is borderline WP:OR where it makes the leap from "15% of the population were literate" to "therefore disenfranchising the illiterate could not account for the drop in voting".


 * Sorry to keep banging on and on and on about this. I know I'm being a pain.


 * Having said my piece now, I'll agree to whatever you both think best, as I don't want to take up any more of your time -- I'm sure you'd rather be editing than wading through my posts.Arthur Holland (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I do no original research. The very reason I use so many different books to write the articles is to prevent someone of accusing me of taking sides or of chosing pieces of text that could better suit my own interests. Second, almost all sources can be found in google books. None of them are ancient relics that can be found only in my local library.


 * Having said all that, historian José Murilo de Carvalho was quite clear in his text which I transcribed above by saying that by the end of the empire (that is, after 1881) and at the beginning of the republic (when income was no more necessary to vote, but literacy was still needed), most of the eligible population had no interest in voting. It's simple like that. Feel free to add the footnote, if you think is that necessary. Nonetheless, I changed the text from "disenfranchising the illiterate cannot possibly explain the fall in voting" to 1889 "disenfranchising the illiterate does not solely explain the sudden fall in voting percentages". --Lecen (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Were the critics correct as for the political apathy of the fluminenses [inhabitants from Rio de Janeiro city]? The asnwer must be initialy searched in the participation through the oficial channels. Although the Republic had eliminated the income requirement vote, it kept, on the other hand, all the remaining restrictions, including the exclusion of iliterate and women. As, however, the population of Rio was the most urbanized in the country and reasonably literate, it was expected that it would be the most independent of the small political bosses and more prepared to exercise citizenship. We shall start by examining what would be the potential electorate in the city having in account the legal limitations. The data are in table V." (p.84)
 * Table V
 * Potential electorate in Rio de Janeiro, 1890
 * Total population: 515,559
 * Excluding all under age 21, we are left with: 299,827
 * Excluding all women, we are left with: 174,565
 * Excluding all iliterate, we are left with: 118,704
 * Excluding footsoldiers and priests, we are left with: 109,421 (p.85)
 * "We would have around 100,000 people apt to vote, that is, around 20% of the total population."
 * "The exclusion of 80% of the population of the political right to vote is already an indicator of how little it meant the new regime in terms of enlargement of the participation. The picture becomes more grave we examine the use that the population made of the existing right [to vote], that is, the number of fluminenses who enlisted themselves and truly voted in the republican elections. To the election of the Constituent in 1890, 28,585 electors were enlisted, that is, 28% of the potential electorate, 9,5% of the adult population, 5,5% of the total population. In the early direct elections to president, in 1894, only 7,857 people voted, that is, 7% of the potential electorate, 1,3% of the total population. In 1896 the enlisted had risen to 42,252, but in the elections of this year to the Congress 13,127 electors voted, which corresponded to 31% of the enlisted, 13% of the potential electorate, 2,5% of the total population." (p.85)
 * Source: Carvalho, José Murilo de (1987). Os Bestializados: o Rio de Janeiro e a República que não foi (2 ed.). São Paulo: Companhia das Letras 9online edition in here )
 * As you can all see in the text, only a minority of the ones who enlisted themselves to vote (that is, who went to the parishes with papers to prove that they could vote) did actually vote. And we are talking about people who had all the trouble of going there only to show that they could vote! And most didn't vote at all in the end. And these were only a minority of the potential electorate (the ones who could truly vote according to the law).
 * Also, as you can see in table V, out of 515,559 inhabitants, 340,994 were women and under age 21, that is, around 66.1% of the total population. Iliterate men, footsoldiers and priests were 65,144 in total. Literate men were 109,421. Even if the iliterate are removed, it did not harm that much. --Lecen (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I accept all of that, and it does perfectly explain and support the sentences I originally queried. I think the amendment you made to the wording of the sentence helps a lot, and, if it's OK with you, I'll put in a footnote incorporating in brief some of the figures you've mentioned above. I think that just about covers it?

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)


 * Although I still can not comprehend the necessity of a footnote I do not oppose its inclusion. --Lecen (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll sort out a footnote. Arthur Holland (talk) 00:08, 24 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)

Copy editing
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)


 * Don't worry, go ahead! --Lecen (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just done "decline".Hchc2009 (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hchc, "Dona" is not a name. And you mispelled it as "Donna" (which is Italian for "Dona"). Dona Isabel is the same as Lady Isabel as Dom Pedro II is the same as Lord Pedro II. Dom comes from the latin "Dominus", that is, Lord. Also, Dom is the same as the English, Spanish and Italian "Don". Don Corleone from "The Godfather" is in fact "Lord Corleone". Lastly, you wrote "In a male-dominated society like Brazil, neither Pedro II nor the ruling circles considered Donna suitable as Pedro II's successor." The older version with "female successor" was better. They did not held prejudice against the person of Isabel, against Isabel herself. They hel prejudice against the idea of a woman ruling the country. They could tolerate her as a regent because they know that it was temporary and that nonetheless there was an Emperor somewhere. --Lecen (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point - I misread two single ' as a ". Changes made as you suggest. Will have a look at some of the other sections tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had a stab at the "Apogee" section. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence
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 agree the current wording feels very unnatural. Another alternative, based on yours:
 * The Empire of Brazil was a 19th century constitutional monarchy, broadly comprising present-day Brazil, which was ruled by the Emperors Pedro I and his son Pedro II, both members of the House of Braganza...''
 * That way we'd have reference to the time period, the state/territory, the system of government, and the rulers all in the first sentence which seem to be the key elements in defining the Empire. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. I'll leave it for a bit to see if anyone else has thoughts on this, but I'm happy to go with your wording.


 * Ho ho ho! Arthur Holland (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, I've changed it as per Hchc2009's suggested wording. Arthur Holland (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Article is finished.
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)

Capitalization of "the Emperor" and "the Empire"
I know I was the one who did a partial copyedit removing the capitals on "the Emperor" and "the Empire", as per Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters) but I feel that in both these cases what is implicitly meant is:


 * 1. the Emperor (of Brazil)
 * 2. Emperor (Pedro I)
 * 3. Emperor (Pedro II)
 * 4. The Empire (of Brazil)

And all these cases would be legitimately capitalized.

Exceptions would be as follows:


 * 1. "Having inherited an empire on the verge of disintegration...." (lead section)
 * 2. "Although electoral fraud was common, it was not ignored by emperors, politicians or observers of the time." (elections section)

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)


 * I think you're right, that's the way I'd read the MoS on this one. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I just opened the article nomination as a possible FA. I took the liberty of adding you both guys as conominators. Please keep an eye there. --Lecen (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Splendid. I'll go through and amend "emperor" and "empire" as per suggestions above. If anyone objects later it can always be tweaked/reverted. And Lecen, I'm happy to be conominator and will keep any eye out accordingly. Arthur Holland (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, I've done that, but there are quite a few instances where empire/emperor was pretty generic, so I've left it lowercase in those cases. If anyone has any concerns I'm happy to discuss. Arthur Holland (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Anglicization of names
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. &bull; Astynax talk 20:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am afraid it does not: a browsing the English-language literature, or doing a google or google scholar search produces a ratio in excess of 2:1 in favour of John VI over Joao VI. The insertion of Joao VI is also in breach of Wikipedia policy Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)


 * ''# Otherwise, kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" (with the exceptions mentioned elsewhere) normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France.


 *    * Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference. Where this cannot be determined, use the conventional anglicized form of the name, as Henry above.


 * The commonly anglicized form is John VI, and is reflected in the fact that the wikipedia entry is for John VI of Portugal, not Joao, thus it is both inconsistent with usage and wikipedia policy to use Joao. Cripipper (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, we have John, father of Pedro? What is this? An American who adopted a Mexican boy? Cripipper, you're not helping at all in here. We spent a long time working on this article and your lack of respect to our effort is outrageous. But I'll leave this issue aside for the time being. --Lecen (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, John VI of Portugal fathered Pedro I. That is the convention. I didn't say it was logical, but English-speakers often aren't. Cripipper (talk) 18:10, 26 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.


 * Nor is it the current convention in English to talk about Pierre Trudeau or Lewis XIV either. Nor is wikipedia the forum for linguistic identity battles. This is an English-language encyclopedia, where English historical naming conventions are followed. Indeed, what you are attempting to do is not 'preserve' anything, but change how English-speakers refer to a certain number of historical figures.
 * I never said that we want to change how English speakers refer to Dom João IV. I was trying to explain to you why the modern scholars use the name in Portuguese.  You should be very careful how you interpret information.  You are misleading readers when you say that I am trying to change policy, the best modern scholars refer to the King as João and not John.  And by the way, the policy is also clear that priority should be given to modern sources.
 * Some contemporary scholars use Joao. Others do not (as evidenced on the Talk page of John VI of Portugal. Cripipper (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

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.


 * Indeed; but this is the English-language page of wikipedia, and English-language conventions and wikipedia policy should be followed.
 * I never said otherwise, you are clearly interpreting everything according to your taste, very sad.

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.


 * They don't when referring to British monarchs.
 * I never talked about the Portuguese Wikipedia, that thing is like the Wild West, I barely use it.  I was referring to the English Wikipedia, the Brazilian and Portuguese articles here.
 * And the convention in English, and on here, is that in most instances the Portuguese name is used (Pedro I, Luis I, Carlos I etc. etc.) However, there are some instances where the anglicized version is the convention. This is one of them. Cripipper (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Your (rather patronising) points have a certain validity, but they do not trump wikipedia naming convention policy, which states clearly Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference. Where this cannot be determined, use the conventional anglicized form of the name, as Henry above. If you propose a change move for John VI of Portugal to João VI of Portugal and it is accepted, then I will accept that the Portuguese name is now the convention.  Until then, as policy above states, where it cannot be determined the anglicized form should be used.  It is inconsistent and silly to insist on referring to João VI of Portugal when it wikilinks to the page John VI of Portugal.
 * I was being polite, if you are seeing it as patronizing you again misinterpreted what I was saying. I am here in good faith, unfortunately I can not say the same of your attitude, you have even used ad hominem attacks against different editors, so I don’t know how this will end. Paulista01 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no axe to grind in this, other than the preservation of logical consistency, Anglophone convention, and wikipedia policy. Cripipper (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It makes little sense the claim that there are more "John VI" hits at Google books than "João VI". Most refer to the bible as "John, VI" or to the Byzantine Emperor "John VI", not to Dom João VI of Portugal. Take a look there, any of you. But I won't deal with Cripipper anymore. Once I have some time, I will request the change of the Portuguese monarchs' names. --Lecen (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Try "John VI of Portugal". Cripipper (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Using João (or Joao) is not in breach of any Wiki policy. The article reflects the overwhelming use as found in the sources cited, as well as being the preferred (and less confusing) usage in recent scholarship. Google Books returns over 10K hits on "Lewis XVI", but that is no argument to re-adopt that antiquated anglicization. &bull; Astynax talk 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * John VI is still currently commonly used in works of general reference; thus it takes precedence in the instances where the most common form cannot be determined. But as I said, if you can get consensus to move John VI of Portugal then I will personally undo the changes made. Until then, I will insist on consistency, convention and policy being followed. Cripipper (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See Talk:John VI of Portugal. --Lecen (talk) 19:47, 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)
 * John k, I agree with what you said. The article can keep the form of the name as Dom Joao VI, we have no problem in linking it to King John VI.  I was concerned with how the user Cripipper made the changes, even if we explained to him that all sources used for this article use the form Dom Joao VI.  As you can see in the discussions the personal attacks used by the editor in question was a little over the top and did not help.  The editors here worked very hard to produce an article like this, it is frustrating to go through a discussion like this. Thank you for your opinion. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Cryptic C62
Here are some comments on the article's prose:


 * "As the head of state of a huge but sparsely populated and ethnically diverse empire" I'm not a fan of words like "huge" in an encyclopedia. Perhaps "large" or "extremely large" would be better.
 * "The power vacuum resulting from the absence of a ruling monarch as the ultimate arbiter in political disputes led to regional civil wars between local factions." Overly wordy. I suggest cutting out "as the ultimate arbiter in political disputes", as this chunk is not really necessary for full comprehension of the idea.
 * I do not agree with this one. Removing it will make readers wonder why the lack of a monarch caused all the troubles. --Lecen (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While it may be true that readers may wonder why a missing monarch would cause problems, the inclusion "ultimate arbiter" phrase doesn't serve to alleviate this confusion at all. It simply states what a monarch is. If an understanding of the term "monarch" is all that's needed to stifle this confusion, the reader should just zip over to monarch. Removing this phrase will help cut down on what is already a very large lead section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "As Pedro II was still a minor, a weak regency was created." I suggest replaced "minor" with "child". They definition of "minor" varies widely in different countries, so individual readers may interpret it differently. I also have my doubts that the Empire of Brazil even had a legal definition of "minor". "Child" avoids all this without losing any meaning.
 * "transformed Brazil into an emerging power on the international stage." In order to trim this down and avoid the use of the ambiguous metaphor "stage", I suggest rewording to "transformed Brazil into an emerging international power".
 * "The republicans' success owed far less to their accomplishments than to Pedro II's refusal to oppose the destruction of the Empire founded by his father." Unnecessarily detailed: "The republicans' success owed far less to their accomplishments than to a lack of resistance from Pedro II."
 * The lead section is not yet a well-balanced summary of all the article's contents. It seems to be a recap of the History section while completely ignoring Culture and Society.
 * On a related note, the introduction leaves the reader wondering: what happened next? Did the coup result in the nation of Brazil that we know today, or was there some other intermediary phase?
 * The coup made Brazil a Republic, which still is today, with all its ups and downs. Since this article is about the period when Brazil was a monarchy, it should not delve into the republican era. The other two Featured articles cited above follow the same course. I could, at most, add a link to República Velha (Old Republic), the historical era immediately after the Empire. --Lecen (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to suggest that you should summarize the republican era, but instead to simply give the idea a reader of what was next in Brazil's rich history. A brief sentence mentioning República Velha would be just fine. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cryptic, this is not the correct place to write your comments. You should move them to its proper page, which is the FAC nomination. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A while back, I had a recurring problem in which FACs would end (some promoted, some archived) before I had completed my prose review. I had a lengthy discussion with Sandy and Karanacs about how to avoid this problem, and the conclusion that we came to was that I should list prose issues on the talk page rather than the FAC itself. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Replies:
 * Use of the word "huge": At the time, Brazil was the 5th largest nation in the world (after Britain, Russia, China, the United States), and if overseas non-integrated territories and colonies are excluded, it was the 3rd largest (after Russia and China). "Large" is inadequate, and "extremely large" doesn't seem to be an improvement. Perhaps a stylistic difference, but I'm not sure what other problem there is with the term.
 * Ultimate arbiter: The term "ultimate arbiter" refers to the emperor's constitutional role as the moderating power. The regency did not have this power, which is why the phrase is in the sentence. The sentence summarizes the situation presented in the "Anarchy" section. The emperor's constitutional position as final arbiter isn't something that will be explained by a link to monarchy.
 * Minor: Pedro II's minority was a constitutional issue. The constitution determined the age of his majority, which was the point of the age of majority being reduced by parliament. "Child" introduces a concept which is not germane to the constitutional issue.
 * "emerging power on the international stage": I agree with this one, and have reworded as you suggested.
 * "destruction of the Empire founded by his father": The concept that the empire was being undermined and that Pedro II knew about it is something that belongs in the summary. I think "founded by his father" is redundant, however, and have dropped those words from the sentence.
 * "It seems to be a recap of the History section while completely ignoring Culture and Society." This is simply because this article describes the Empire of Brazil in which the culture, economy and society at its beginning was very dissimilar to the culture, economy and society at the time of its collapse. I inserted a sentence making a general observation that these were influenced by immigration, and mentioned the abolition of slavery. These are, of course, part of the article and deserve to be mentioned in the lead, but not in any detail.
 * "leaves the reader wondering: what happened next?": The lead section does state that there was a successful republican coup. Anything beyond that is beyond the scope of a lead summary as well as beyond the topic of the article. I have, however, added a link to República Velha in the section which describes the Empire's Fall.
 * I hope that my responses help explain why some of these points are in the lead. &bull; Astynax talk 08:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag
Why was Image:BrazilEmpireFlag.jpg removed from the article? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 18:42, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Splitting
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)

Problems
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)

Naming
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)
 * Moved. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 07:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But the thing is called "Empire of Brazil." That's its name.  The distinction in Portuguese is pretty clear, and there's no reason not to use a literal translation. john k 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
History of Portugal (1777-1834) is now being peer reviewed. Please, if you want, go there and state your opinion. Thank you. Gameiro 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to state that it is now a featured article candidate. You can support or oppose here. Thanks. Gameiro 01:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Failing for GA
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. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Slavocracy"
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)

Brazilian Empire
Shouldnt hte article be called Empire of Brazil instead? It sounds more formal.


 * Done. I don't know how it ever got to be at Brazilian Empire, which seems to me to misleadingly suggest a colonial empire, rather than  a state ruled by an emperor. john k 15:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Empire?
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).
 * Allowed?!? They were and are their own masters! They can call themselves whatever they want! And yes, they were universally recognized as the Empire of Brazil. The Ogre 12:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What Arthurian Legend probably means is this: they never conquered anything, so why did anyone recognize them as an empire? 88.235.147.161 12:34, 22 July 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