Talk:John VI of Portugal/Archive 1

Name
It was decided some time ago that most Portuguese monarchs are better known by their names in Portuguese than by the anglicisations. Why have you moved it? john k 20:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Should mention of Dom Joao VI, a play about his life, be listed on this page? http://www.ensaioaberto.com/djoao/index.htm Just an idea Dawn22 21:55, 24 January 2006 (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 01:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Before we start a revert war...
Why I'm changing this? The table is messy and has too much information. This article is about John VI of Portugal, not about his children (apart for the imprescindible bits). We don't need his children's full dates or bios here. That's better suited for their individual pages, specially when all of them have individual pages. It's done that way with lots of other royalty articles and I do think it's best. --Andromeda 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I disagree. I don't think the table is messy, and his children's bios are not in the table. If you observe better some of the British monarchs' articles you'll find out that they all have a table with the monarch's issue. I'll revert again, sorry. Thanks anyway for your efforts. Gameiro 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I disagree. The children full dates are in the table, while years suffice. If you look at lots of others royalty articles, you'll find children lists with years only when the children have their own pages. Also, too much information makes it messy. I really think it's a lot easier to read and to interpret as a list with years only. I'm reverting again, I'm sorry. --Andromeda 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory Father/Son Relationship?
In the article for Dom Pedro, or Dom Peter, it says that Dom John "advised Pedro to declare Brazil independent and take the throne for himself rather than allow a usurper to take over the country. This way there would still be a Portuguese king in power in Brazil" which implies that the father wanted the son to break away. However, in Dom John's article is says that John refused to recognize Brazilian independence.

Isn't that a bit misleading?

User:71.231.119.44 04:44, 24 September 2007‎ (UTC)

-Actually, it sounds contradicting because it was a clever political move by John VI. Let me explain: Before Pedro declared independance, Brazil was already a United Kingdom to Portugal, and the Algarves, under John VI. This was very good for Brazils economy and political prominence, because not only did it cease to be a colony and become a co-kingdom with Portugal, Rio de Janeiro was now the Capital of the Portuguese Empire. Brazil was the centre of the Portuguese world. So you can imagine how god that was for Brazilians, especially rich Brazilians. When Napoleon was defeated, Portugal was in shambles... they needed to rebuild the economy, so they decided that they had to revert Brazil back to the state of colony in order to explore its riches. During John VI's absense from Portugal, a revolution took place that would make Portugal a constitutional monarchy, instead of an absolutist one. Therefore remaining King of Brazil, and King IN Brazil, would be far better than returning to Portugal, and having to obey a constitution. But if he did not return, John would be deposed under the new laws. So, in other words, John wanted to maintain the status quo, and keep all 3 Kingdoms United. So, in order to save his throne in Portugal, he decided to return, but he left his son, Pedro, to rule as Prince of Brazil. But he also new that Brazilians were becoming more and more inclined to the idea of independance that it was inevitable by that point. So the only way out of the situation would be for Pedro, to declare independance... because the Brazilian throne, and the Portuguese throne would be united by the same Royal Family, and because of this, he predicted they would eventually re-unite.

Now remeber, Portugal was now a constitutional monarchy, ruled more by the courts, than by the king, and courts did NOT want Brazilian independance in any way, shape, or form.

And of course, what John instructed Pedro to do was never his oficial position. He had to make it seem as though the proclamation of independance was all Pedro's idea in order to save face with the courts.

Anyway, as history shows, Johns briliant plan failed because after his death, Pedro was barred from asuming the Portuguese throne, so he abdicated the Brazilian throne in favour of his 5-year old son, and after he secured Portugal his daughter became Queen, which meant Brazil and POortugal would follow different paths.

~User:Wikidan7 User:200.161.220.69 04:06, 25 September 2007‎ (UTC)

Removed
I removed the reference to John VI as a monarch of Brazil, since the Brazilian monarchy started officially with independence (1822). Prior to that, all rulers were Portuguese monarchs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abueno97 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Anglicized name
Echoing the earlier and unanswered question near the top of this page, this article should be put back under the title of either "João VI of Portugal" or "Joao VI of Portugal", and not "John VI". According to WP:MOS, if RS, English-language sources exist which prefer the original, non-anglicized spelling, it may be used. A quick search shows that there are many English-language references which use either João VI or Joao VI. Moreover, contemporaries (at least Americans during that era) used "Joao" when referring to this monarch. Perhaps there was some compelling reason to anglicize the name, and if so, please explain why it must be "John" (as an English-speaker, I wouldn't search under that for a Portuguese king). &bull; Astynax talk 08:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Even among English language sources published after 1990, John VI of Portugal is much more common than Joao VI of Portugal. Modern English language literature refers to him as John. Therefore, per common name policy, this is the correct name. Surtsicna (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not what I have found (compare John VI to João VI). Perhaps there is difference based upon the regional English variation. There was a ridiculous penchant at the beginning of the 20th century for anglicizing foreign names (you can find Alphonso anglicized to "Alphonse", Manuel anglicized to "Emmanuel", Louis anglicized to "Lewis", Wilhelm anglicized as "William", etc. if you want to go through old books). That doesn't mean this confusing situation need be perpetuated on Wikipedia when there is a substantial body of references which do not anglicize. &bull; Astynax talk 18:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What you have found is hundreds of books in Portuguese. Of course, English language literature is more authoritative on how an English language encyclopaedia refers to someone. It's not our job to decide whether to anglicise or not. If historians anglicise the name of a person, so should we. If they don't, we shouldn't either. Anglicisation wasn't invented in the 20th century and it did not cease to be used in the 20th century. As you can see, modern (post-1990) English language literature refers to him as John. Anyway, Wilhelm is still usually anglicised, while Louis is an Anglicised version of Ludovicus. Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the link includes many books in English, both recent and older. Perhaps "John", "Peter", etc. are more used in Britain, but that usage is very far from universal in English-language sources. By simply adding the English word "king" to the search to eliminate most, if not all, Portuguese-language sources, Google yields over 6,500 book results in which Joao is used. &bull; Astynax talk 10:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The link includes many books in Portuguese in addition to books in English. While Google yields 6,500 book results for "Joao VI" king, it yields 41,000 book results for "John VI" king and 12,700 book results for "John VI" king Portugal. Surtsicna (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think book results won't help much. We have to see case by case. British historian Roderick J. Barman wrote three books: "Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798-1852", "Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825-1891" and "Princess Isabel of Brazil: gender and power in the nineteenth century", published in 1988, 1999 and 2002, respectively. All of them adress Dom João VI as "João VI". See here, here and here. American historian Neill Macaulay wrote the book "Dom Pedro: the struggle for liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798-1834" published in 1986. Dom João VI is called "Dom João VI". See here. The British historian John Armitage wrote "The history of Brazil: from the period of the arrival of the Braganza Family in 1831..." which was published in 1836 (two years after Pedro I's death). Dom João VI is called "Don João VI". See here. Historian Robert M. Levine wrote "The history of Brazil" published in 1999. Dom João VI is called "Dom João VI". See here. The book "Isabel Orleans-Bragança: the Brazilian princess who freed the slaves" written by James McMurtry Longo and published in 2008 treats Dom João VI as "João VI". See here. The book "The Brazil reader: history, culture, politics" written by Robert M. Levine and John J. Crocitti and published in 1999 calls Dom João VI "D. João VI". See here. The historian Colin M. MacLachlan wrote "A history of modern Brazil: the past against the future", published in 2003, calls Dom João VI "João VI". See here. Historian Leslie Bethell wrote "Brazil: empire and republic, 1822-1930", published in 1989, calls Dom João VI "João VI". See here. Marshall C. Eakin wrote "Brazil: The Once and Future Country", published in 1998, calls Dom João VI "João VI". See here. As you can see, there is no reason to keep the article as "John VI". --Lecen (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Even the online version of Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to John VI as "John VI"; there is no doubt that other versions do. Of the sources you mention, the 19th century one refers to John VI as "John VI" as well, which you failed to note. Peter J. Bakewell refers to John VI as "John VI" in A history of Latin America: c. 1450 to the present (published in 1989). The Cambridge modern history (1969, University of Cambridge) refers to John VI as "John VI". Jonathan Hart refers to John VI as "John VI" in Empires and colonies (2008). So does A concise history of Portugal (2003) by David Birmingham. The royal house of Portugal (published in 1970) and Carlota Joaquina, queen of Portugal (published in 1970) refer to John as "John VI". The epic of Latin America is one of many books that refer to John as "John VI".
 * There is also the issue of consistency; why have João VI of Portugal with John V of Portugal, John IV of Portugal, John III of Portugal, John II of Portugal and John I of Portugal? Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I suggest requesting a move. That way you'll get more support and more opposition, so consensus will be clearer. Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The pattern here seems to be the specialist works tend towards João, while more general works use John. My comments seven years ago notwithstanding, I don't have a very strong opinion on this one.  Both forms are commonly used in English, and which one we use is ultimately a matter of taste.  john k (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move January 2011

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * No consensus for the proposed move. Ruslik_ Zero 14:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

John VI of Portugal → João VI of Portugal — There are several reasons to why the name of this article should be changed from "John" to "João": -Lecen (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) First reason: Searching for "John VI" at Google books you will find 168,000 results (here: ), but they are misleading, since the vast majority refer to the Bible ("John, VI") or to the Byzantine Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos. Now, if you try to look after "John VI of Portugal", you'll find 1,960 results (Here: ). The problem is that the vast majority of these results are 19th century books, some early 20th century books and very, very few late 20th century books. And if you look carefully at the 20th century books, you'll notice that they are not specialist works on either Portugal's or Brazil's history.
 * 2) Second reason: The vast majority of the most recent books (that is, late 1980s to present-day) written in English focused on either Portuguese or Brazilian history use the name "João VI". Here are the examples:
 * Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798-1852, by Roderick J. Barman (1988).
 * Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825-1891, by Roderick J. Barman (1999).
 * Princess Isabel of Brazil: gender and power in the nineteenth century, by Roderick J. Barman (2002).
 * Dom Pedro: the struggle for liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798-1834. by Neill Macaulay (1986).
 * The history of Brazil, by Robert M. Levine (1999).
 * Isabel Orleans-Bragança: the Brazilian princess who freed the slaves, by James McMurtry Longo (2008).
 * The Brazil reader: history, culture, politics, by Robert M. Levine and John J. Crocitti (1999).
 * A history of modern Brazil: the past against the future, by Colin M. MacLachlan (2003).
 * Brazil: empire and republic, 1822-1930, by Leslie Bethell (1989).
 * Brazil: The Once and Future Country, by Marshall C. Eakin (1998).
 * Brazil, by Errol Lincoln Uys (2000).
 * Brazil, by Jane Ladle (1999).
 * A reference guide to Latin American history, by James D. Henderson (2000).
 * Tropical Versailles: empire, monarchy, and the Portuguese royal court in Rio de Janeiro, 1808-1821, by Kirsten Schultz (2001).
 * The Portuguese empire, 1415-1808: a world on the move, by A. J. R. Russell-Wood (1998).
 * The history of Portugal, by James Maxwell Anderson (2000).
 * The Independence of Latin America, by Leslie Bethell (1987).
 * Empires and colonies, by Jonathan Hart (2008).
 * Americanos: Latin America's struggle for independence, by John Charles Chasteen (2008).
 * Exotic nations: literature and cultural identity in the United States and Brazil, 1830-1930, by Renata Ruth Mautner Wasserman (1994).
 * Brazil, by Harry Greenbaum (2003).
 * Etc, etc, etc...
 * 3) Third reason: Consistency. We have an article about Pedro I of Brazil (also Pedro IV of Portugal) and Pedro II of Brazil. It makes no sense to have "John VI", father of "Pedro IV".
 * 4) Fourth reason: Again: consistency. All articles about the Portuguese monarchs are in is original form in Portuguese: Afonso Henriques to Afonso VI of Portugal, as well as Manuel I of Portugal and Manuel II of Portugal, and also Maria I of Portugal and Maria II of Portugal. They are not in English, or else, the names should be "Alphonse", "Emmanuel" and "Marie". Only the article about Kings named "João" are in English. And, as anyone can see at the top of this talk page, editor John K complained that someone changed from "João VI" to "John VI" with a reason and when there was already a consensus in keeping its Portuguese names.
 * As you all can see, specialist works use "João", not "John". Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Support As per reasons stated above. --Lecen (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Support – The historians provided above could be described as the “who is who” of modern Brazilian and Portuguese history. Most are English speaking authors. Paulista01 (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Most? All of them are English speaking authors... --Lecen (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I taught Renata was not, good to know, thank you. Paulista01 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Neutral - There appears to be a strong usage for both. General histories appear to employ John VI more extensively ( My search produced about 20,000 google book hits for sources produced after 1990 ) than the more academically centric books cited above. So I guess it largely comes down to approach, academic/specialist vs general. Not that this is a significant factor but the number of incoming links into the article via João VI redirects is extremely low.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Labattblueboy, forgive me, but what is an "weak oppose"? Also, looking at the link you provided with search results, there aren't 20,000 google book hits for sources that uses "''John VI of Portugal". Many are results like these:


 * "CASTILE NAVARRE Henry II (1369-1379) John I (1379-1390) Henry III (1390-1406) Charles III (1387-1425) Ferdinand ... Table 1 (continued) GRANADA ARAGON PORTUGAL Muhammad VI (1360-1362) Muhammad V (1362-1391) YusufII John I (1391- 1392)''"
 * "Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have both visited here. A small chapel marks the spot where the apparition occurred and, at almost any hour, you will witness the faithful on their knees, traversing the broad esplanade which fronts it. ..."
 * "A Commander of Portugal ; Vice-Chancellor : nominated Bailli of Aquila by papal brief, dated Rome, 22 nd March, 1755. 35. ... Commander of Erding, of the Anglo- Bavarian Language ; named Bailli of Aquila by brief of Pope Pius VI."
 * "The interest was centred in Spain and Portugal. There it was intense and awakened fierce heart-burnings. Though John II. had not given his consent to the proposal for murdering Columbus, he appears to have seriously entertained the ..."
 * "Percussion includes drum set, xylophone, and tympani. Stevens, John. Adagio. Editions BIM. Four euphoniums and four tubas. 1991. 9:00. IV. Part I: g–b♭'; Part II: g–a'; Part III: d–d'; Part IV: c–d'; PartV: E–c'; Part VI: C–c'; ..."
 * "Meanwhile, John had to fight the 'war of restoration' against Spain. Within a few days of his accession he ... when John died in 1656, his young successor, Alfonso VI, continued the war. The greatest danger to Portugal came after the ..."
 * All of the examples above came from one page only of the link you provided. Which means that out of 10 results given, 6 have no relation to João VI of Portugal. This is precisely what I meant in my request to move: search results at Google books are misleading. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There will certainly be false hits, no disagreement there. I conducted a revised search, under the terms of "John VI" of Portugal -wikipedia -"Icon Group International" -"Books llc" which produced 1,850 hits . However a comparable search employing "João VI" of Portugal -wikipedia -"Icon Group International" -"Books llc" produced 11,000 hits. GoodDay's comments regarding consistency, my own regarding regarding incoming links and Uxbona's regarding the tilde are still concerns I have (There appear to be more than enough sources that abandon the tilde), but not enough to oppose. --Labattblueboy (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Labattblueboy, but all the other articles on Portuguese monarchs have their names in the original form. Maria II of Portugal (Not Marie II), Manuel II of Portugal (not Emmanuel II) and Afonso VI of Portugal (not Alphonse). As you can see at the top of this talk page, JohnK complained that someone changed the name of this articles as it was before ("João") to the present form without a reason, even though there was a previous consensus on keeping it as "João". If you're taling about consensus, then it should be reverted to João, since all ther other articles have their names in Portuguese. But that's not the most important: historians who wrote books on João's reign use his name in Portuguese, not Anglicized. We can not have "John VI" of Portugal, son and successor of Maria I of Portugal and father of Pedro I of Brazil (Pedro IV of Portugal). Why only his name is in English? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The move to the article's present location took place on 2004, it's been stable in the present location for six and a half years. I don't think there is a legitimate argument to be made that the current title went against a consensus. Arguing that it should be moved based on their not having been an open discussion back in 2004 is preposterous. This being said, I will retract my suggestion of considering abandoning the tilde. Although some general sources seems to sometimes abandon the tilde, it's consistently employed in wikipedia article titles for individuals named João. Of the 500 or so articles titles I looked at, only Joao Fernando Salazar e Bragança fails to employ the tilde.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Labattblueboy, if you look carefully, you'll notice that the article isn't stable for 6 and a half years, but instead, it's abandoned. Neglected. I was planning to work on this article with the goal of nominating it to Featured category. I did the same with Pedro Álvares Cabral, the Discoverer of Brazil, whose article looked like this before I began improving in it. But I see no reason to call it "John", when all books I have call him "João". Also, it is odd to see that his mother and antecessor in the Portuguese throne has her name as Maria I of Portugal (not Marie II) and his son and sucessor is called Pedro I of Brazil (not Peter I). The reasons to why I want this article renamed are simply two: because that's how he is called in English-written books that focus on Portuguese and Brazilian history; and for consistency, since both the name of his antecessor and successor is in its original form, as used by historians. Wilhelm II, German Emperor isn't called "William II", but Wilhelm because that's how historians call him. Nonetheless, I respect your vote, although I believe (if you allow me to be sincere) it's a mistake. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many historians call him "William," actually, although Wilhelm is probably more common. john k (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the archives of Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor, you will see that that is an extremely contentious example; it is not precedent; there is no consensus on it, despite a strong case for English adoption of the German name; the case here is weaker. The less said about the folly of John Kantakouzenos instead of the English John Cantacuzene the better - although even that error does not replace English John with Ioannes, as would be the analogy here. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True that that is contentious. You are making much stronger claims about English usage than the evidence actually warrants.  Actually looking at sources, you'll find that many English language use João rather than John.  Even the stupid world history textbook I'm teaching from this seemster (The Earth and Its Peoples, 5th ed.) uses "João III" - and 19th century monarchs are generally far more likely to be left unanglicized than 16th century ones.  The idea that we should have a general preference for the anglicized form is simply wrong - anglicized forms are used less and less in English, and this particular case is very clearly one where both forms are in sufficient usage that it is very, very difficult to determine which is more frequently used. john k (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose as this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Portugese. Also, we've got John I of Portugal through John V of Portugal. Let's be consistant, folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, we are not talking about ENglish wikipedia or Portuguese wikipedia, but the name used by historians who work on books about Portuguese and Brazilian history. Yes, there is John I of Portugal, but there is also Manuel I of Portugal, Afonso V of Portugal and Afonso VI of Portugal, etc... not "Emmanuel I of Portugal" and "Alphonse VI of Portugal". Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If yas wanna move this article, yas have to move all 6 John of Portugal articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a small detail, after all, we would have to move all 6 "Afonso of Portugal" as well as 2 "Manuel of Portugal". I've been working now for 2 years on articles related to Portugal and Brazil history (Pedro Álvares Cabral, Pedro II of Brazil, etc...) and I know what I'm talking about. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing this article & not the other 5, will disrupt consistancy. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it wouldn't make any sense at all in requesting five moves at the same time. If, for example, this discussion ends in favor of the move, the other 5 would follow it as a consequence. As you can see at the very beginning of this talk page, editor John K complained about someone having moved the name of this article (which was at first "João VI") without a reason. Now the articles about Portuguese monarchs are a mess. Most (Like Manuel II of Portugal [English: Emmanuel], Maria II of Portugal [English: Marie II] and Afonso VI of Portugal [Alphonse VI]) are in Portuguese and the ones about all Portuguese "Joãos" (like this one) are in English. There are 2 Marias, 6 Afonsos and 2 Manueis. There are 6 "Johns". And as I told you, I've been working on this articles for over 2 years and I know that historians prefer to use the name in its original form. --Lecen (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I still oppose the move. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Emmanuel" went out of fashion because, at this point, it's not actually a better known name in English than "Manuel" - it's an archaic anglicization, like "Lewis" for the kings of France. "Alphonse," similarly, is so rare in English that it is no longer used as an anglicization for monarchs of that name.  I'm not sure about your claim that "Marie" is the english version of "Maria".  Surely that is "Mary"?  But, at any rate, "Maria" is actually a perfectly legitimate English name, and is rarely anglicized for anybody.  For monarchs whose names have clear options between a decidedly English name and a decidedly Portuguese one, it's a lot less clearer which we should use.  I definitely see "Joseph" far more than "José", but much more even splits for "Edward" vs. "Duarte."  There's no real rhyme or reason to any of it.  The best thing is probably just to figure out which is more common in any given case, rather than trying to work out general rules. john k (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry Lecen, but I agree: this is the English language Wikipedia, it is consistent (remember "Magellan", a well established translation for Magalhães) there's no strong need to it. Google books search shows about 129,000 results (0.26 seconds) for John VI of Portugal and 112,000 for João VI of Portugal, its a small gap, but John wins. Regards --Uxbona (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Uxbona, did you read the reasons I stated above for the move? Google books results are misleading. There aren't 129,000 books about John VI nor 112,000 about João VI. Historians who wrote books about Portuguese/Brazilian history prefer the names in its original form. Also, all the other articles about Portuguese kings are in Portuguese: Maria II of Portugal, Afonso VI of Portugal and Manuel I of Portugal. Just take a look at the top of this talk page: the name was changed from portuguese to English without a reason, when there was already a consensus about it. And your example of Magellan can not be used. That's how is known in English. Pedro Álvares Cabral is not Peter Cabral. --Lecen (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lecen, João is always of difficult use in English because of the tilde. I will go with encyclopedic references: Britannica as John IV of Portugal. Sorry --Uxbona (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My God, that makes no sense at all... All other Portuguese monarchs' articles with their names in Portuguese and this one in English. It doesn't matter if João VI is the name used by historians who write books about Braziliand and Portuguese history. What it matters in the end is... "this is English Wikipedia". Well, if it is, it should be using the name according to historians, not to what editors prefer. --Lecen (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Lecen, please see Naming conventions (use English). I have re-read your points and was ready to change my mind - after all, I had never thought thoroughly about this before. Remembering to have used a difficult tild name for "António Galvão" article, was ready to change it to Galvano: once more went to Google Books search. There, although Antonio Galvano is an ancient English translation, António Galvão got much more results. So I let it as is. About "our" kings John, Google books goes for John - and really it is good if it gets results for books of all ages, XVI to XXI century, not only recent ones.


 * Encyclopedias are places were people from all backgrounds search info, mainly a first introduction about a given subject. It is not a reference guide for scholars and academics: those have wider sources, so one should stick with the broadest view, surely linked to specialized sources. One can Change to João, but would have o do it for all Joões, and then in the body of the articles should it remain John? Best regards--Uxbona (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wilhelm II, German Emperor. This is a fine example. If our goal was to keep it simple, the article should be renamed to "William II". They kept it like this because that's how historians call him. As I told Labattblueboy, João VI's mother and antecessor Maria I of Portugal (not Marie II) has her name in its original form. João VI's son and successor is called Pedro I of Brazil, not Peter I. You saw my work back there at Pedro Álvares Cabral and you know that I'm not an editor who appears out of nowhere saying "I think that's better...". I wouldn't dare to point a direction if I wasn't 100% sure that it's the correct one. For the last 3 decades historians have used João, not John and that's important. All sources I was planning to use in this article call him "João", why should he be called John in here? To keep it simple? To whom? Because reading John VI, son of Maria I and father of Pedro I isn't more simple, but confuse. We are not helping anyone, only making things worse. This article, as well as the others on Portuguese monarchs are abandoned for years. Years. Keeping them in this state only will only further damage the articles related to Portuguese and Brazilian history. And this is something I want to change. However, if this is your vote, I'll respect it. I don't agree, for obvious reasons, but I won't bother you anymore. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Naming conventions (use English). I also wish to point out the naming consistency of the following articles: John I of Portugal, John II of Portugal, John III of Portugal, John IV of Portugal and John V of Portugal. We either change them all (towards João ? of Portugal) or we change none of them. We certainly shouldn't change only one of them. Flamarande (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Flamarande, did you read the reasons stated for the change, including that English-speaking historians prefer "João" not "John"? --Lecen (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But of course we do this all the time. We have William I, German Emperor and then Wilhelm II, German Emperor, on the grounds that the grandfather is more frequently known by the anglicized name, and the grandson by the unanglicized one.  We talk about Louis Philippe I, even though the various other kings named "Philippe" are at Philip VI of France and so forth.  Charles XV of Sweden is followed by Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden.  And so it goes.  Most common usage is always decided on a case by case basis. john k (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did read your list of selected authors. It's also my duty to point out that you choose the authors of said list. I have little doubt that someone could provide a similar list of authors of recent books who use 'John'. I also took a look at the article from the Encyclopedia Britannica . It uses the name 'John'. It also uses translated name for the other kings Johns/João of Portugal. Flamarande (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but I thought it would be unreasonable to open several moves at the same time. I thought that one move and one discussion would be far easier and simpler. Once one was settled, the others would automatically follow it. As you can see in the examples given above or below, the Portuguese kings do not have their names anglicized:
 * The Portuguese empire, 1415-1808: a world on the move, by A. J. R. Russell-Wood (1998).
 * The history of Portugal, by James Maxwell Anderson (2000).
 * Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work that way. You simply can't propose the move of a single article and theoretically win it and afterwards move all other similar articles (using the previous move as a precedent). You need to make a multiple move-request. The move of all concerned articles will then be debated in a single place/talkpage. Flamarande (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then, please, give me a list of 21 books about Brazilian and Portuguese history that call him "John" from the late 1980s to the present-day. --Lecen (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I don't have to spend a considerable portion my little free time in a search for a list of 21 books about Brazilian and Portuguese history that call him "John" from the late 1980s to the present-day. I already voted according to the best of my knowledge and according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is quite a formidable source on its own. You provided a selected list of books, I provided a very respected encyclopaedia. Flamarande (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words: you can not prove that historians prefer to use John instead of João and prefer to stick to a single source?
 * Oh, I believe that I can and I have presented my evidence below. Flamarande (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When I wrote the articles on Pedro II of Brazil and Empire of Brazil I used 34 books and 53 books, respectively, as sources. None one book only, but 34 and 53. It's very sad seeing editors sticking to one view regardless of the opinion of professional historians. In fact, it's frustrating. There is not a single desire to be reasonable and I have to deal with people (some quite rude, in fact, but thankfully, not all) who won't listen. That's sad and very frustrating. I'm trying to improve articles, not make them worse.
 * Could someone give me a list of 21 books published since the late 1980s that focus on Brazilian and Portuguese history that use "John" instead of "João"? Please? --Lecen (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Naming conventions (use English). While there is an argument that historians specializing in Portugues history have in recent years started calling him (and his predecessors) by their Portuguese name, it is neither the common convention in general works, nor the commonly understood name in the English-speaking world. It would be confusing to many readers if João VI were referred to in articles, and they do not realise that the person being referred to is the one commonly known as John VI. The fact that his son is commonly known as Pedro I is irrelevant; what matters is the Anglophone convention: Pedro I is commonly known as Pedro I, João VI is commonly known as John VI.  There may arrive a day when he is commonly known as João VI in the English-speaking world, but it is not here yet. Cripipper (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I am influenced in part by the current academic literature cited above, which does seem convincing to me. I've also done some basic Google pulls, designed to filter out non-Brazilian Joaos and Johns:
 * Support
 * brazil + "João VI" (exact phrase) produces 70,400 results in total; looking at the volume published over the last 30 years, the total results are 24,100.
 * brazil + "John VI" (exact phrase) produces 10,500 results in total; looking at the volume published over the last 30 years, the total results are 1,680.

Because this does catch both Portuguese and English language versions, I double checked by doing the same pull in against English volumes only:


 * brazil + "João VI": 13,200. Last 30 years only, 6,410.
 * brazil + "John VI" 9,920. Last 30 years only, 1,650.

On this basis (and I agree its not scientific), I'd be inclined to go with João VI as the most commonly used English term, particularly with the modern literature base. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He was King of Portugal...Cripipper (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * portugal + "João VI": 68,600
 * portugal + "John VI": 14,700
 * Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Consistency between articles in the same category is one of our desiderata; it should have weight whatever the search results - and unfortunately Google searches are not scientific. I suspect Hchc2009 has been finding books in Portuguese; changing the search terms to King "John VI" and Portugal makes John VI more common; it increases the likelihood the text found is actually in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are some figures for a couple of different spellings of John. King "Joao" VI Portugal and

King "João" VI Portugal. I have not given it a thorough check to count the books written in English. John Hendo (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could someone give me 21 books about Brazilian or Portuguese history that has "John" instead of João? Looking at google books is useless. Unless, of course, someone will check all 1,000 results given to each name. Books about Brazilian and Portuguese history do not use "King John VI", father of "King Pedro IV". I've been working with all these article for years and I know what I'm taking about. --Lecen (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * More books with "João" instead of "John":
 * 1) Global History, Volume Two: The Industrial Revolution to the Age of Globalization, by Jerry Weiner (2008).
 * 2) Frommer's Brazil, by Shawn Blore (2010)
 * 3) Brazil: politics in a patrimonial society, by Riordan Roett (1999).
 * 4) A reference guide to Latin American history, by James D. Henderson (2000).
 * 5) Frommer's South America, by Nicholas Gill (2010).
 * 6) Fear & memory in the Brazilian army and society'', 1889-1954, by Shawn C. Smallman (2002)
 * 7) Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899, by Robert L. Scheina (2003).
 * 8) South American independence: gender, politics, text, by Catherine Davies (2006)
 * 9) The party of order: the conservatives, the state, and slavery in the Brazilian monarchy, 1831-1871, by Jeffrey D. Needell (2006).
 * 10) Brazil handbook, by Ben Box (2002).
 * 11) Brazil in Pictures, by Thomas Streissguth (2003).
 * 12) Blacks of the Rosary: Memory and History in Minas Gerais, Brazil, by Elizabeth W. Kidd (2007).
 * 13) A History of Modern Latin America: 1800 to the Present, by Teresa A. Meade (2007).
 * 14) The human tradition in modern Brazil, by Peter M. Beattie (2004).
 * 15) The realities of images: imperial Brazil and the great drought, by American Philosophical Society (2001).
 * 16) South America on a shoestring, by Danny Palmerlee (2007).
 * 17) Iberia and the Americas: culture, politics, and history : a multidisciplinary encyclopedia, Volume 1, by John Michael Francis (2006).
 * 18) A Companion to Latin American History, by Thomas H. Holloway (2011).
 * 19) Brazil, by Regis St. Louis (2005).
 * 20) Imperial skirmishes: war and gunboat diplomacy in Latin America, by Andrew Graham-Yooll (2002).
 * Books about Brazilian and Portugal history use "João", not "John". It's simple. Stop looking at numbers. There aren't 1,000 books about John nor about João. Could someone show me a list of books about Brazil and Portugal where he is called "John"? --Lecen (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Portuguese Kings according to Google books:


 * 1) Afonso Henriques: 3,270 results ; Afonso I: 1,410 results ; Alphonse I: 71 results
 * 2) Sancho I: 3,300 results ; ??? [English??]
 * 3) Afonso II: 604 results ; Alphonse II: 53 results
 * 4) Sancho II: 2,730 results ; ??? [English??]
 * 5) Afonso III: 1,220 results ; Alphonse III: 81 results
 * 6) Dinis: 6,340 results ; Denis: 13,800 results
 * 7) Afonso IV: 843 results ; Alphonse IV: 65 results
 * 8) Pedro I: 8,370 results ; Peter I: 3,150 results
 * 9) Fernando I: 203 results ; Ferdinand I: 642 results
 * 10) Joao I: 823 results ; John I: 2,170 results
 * 11) Duarte: 1,060 results ; Edward: 1,550 results
 * 12) Afonso V: 3,090 results ; Alphonse V: 188 results
 * 13) Joao II: 851 results  ; John II:  2,330 results
 * 14) Manuel I: 7,630 results ; Emmanuel I: 969 results
 * 15) Joao III: 5,870 results ; John III: 16,700 results
 * 16) Sebastiao: 928 results ; Sebastian: 6,600 results
 * 17) Henrique: 547 results ; Henry: 2,390 results
 * 18) Joao IV: 971 results ; John IV: 11,900 results
 * 19) Afonso VI: 985 results ; Alphonse: 229 results
 * 20) Pedro II: 741 results ; Peter II: 314 results
 * 21) Joao V: 535 results ; John V: 1,600 results results
 * 22) Jose I: 2,010 results ; Joseph I: 6,090 results
 * 23) Pedro III: 222 results ; Peter III: 165 results
 * 24) Maria I: 3,310 results results ; Mary I: 1,680 results
 * 25) João VI: 1,170 results ; John VI: 1,790 results
 * 26) Pedro IV: 3,890 results ; Peter IV: 1,140 results
 * 27) Maria II: 4,360 results ; Mary II: 852 results
 * 28) Pedro V: 5,000 results ; Peter V: 407 results
 * 29) Luis I: 1,620 results ; Louis I: 2,520 results
 * 30) Carlos I: 1,310 results ; Charles I: 770
 * 31) Manuel II: 2,940 results ; Emmanuel II: 1,340 results

Out of 31 Kings, 18 have their names in Portuguese and 13 in English. --Lecen (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd wanna move those to their english version, I'd support it easily. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Canadian humor, eh! Paulista01 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was a very helpful comment. Lecen, all your links go to the UK Google search page which are blank and show no information. What should we be seeing? John Hendo (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello John, the links are working for me here in Canada. Maybe it is your browser, see if this will work: 1- Go to the google website and click on google.com at the bottom of the front page.  Your browser will save the new address and not direct you to Google UK.  I had the same problem once, it directed all my links to google.ca.  Cheers! Paulista01 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Paulista. I'm getting the google results now. I thought it was a bit strange. :) John Hendo (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support -- Take a look at John VI of Portugal. Notice that there is a 'John' and a 'Michael' in that list, mixed in with lot of other people with Portuguese names. Doesn't that look like a motley collection? In the 'succession' box at the bottom of that page, John VI is the only one whose name is in an English style. His predecessor and successor are in Portuguese style. The problem of the variation of name styles first started to bother me when I was trying to read about the descendants of João I. If you want a surreal experience, try to read the first paragraph of Isabella of Portugal (1397–1471). You will never be able to figure out that her real given name was 'Isabel' in Portuguese. The conflicting name styles completely fog the issue. (If your patience runs out, click the interwiki link for the Portuguese wikipedia and you can find out people's real names). EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support -- Have to say I find Lecen's numbers compelling, and as he says, looking at the searches from the Google books comparison of names, the vast majority of "John VI" references are from 19th century or early 20th century books. I think the point made about making a multiple move-request is valid though and that this should be done in one sweep rather than piecemeal. Arthur Holland (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that I'm forced to expend some of my free time in answering your concerns. Jecen's "compelling numbers" are doubtful and his search parameters are poor. If you're truly trusting them let's take a closer look:


 * Joao I: 823 results ; John I: 2,170 results
 * Joao II: 851 results  ; John II:  2,330 results
 * Joao III: 5,870 results ; John III: 16,700 results
 * Joao IV: 971 results ; John IV: 11,900 results
 * Joao V: 535 results ; John V: 1,600 results results
 * João VI: 1,170 results ; John VI: 1,790 results
 * Don't ask me why Jecen had to include all the other names in the list above. The other names simply don't matter because the pronunciation of the name 'João' causes some difficulty to English-speakers (simple statement of fact). That's why they commonly translate João into 'John' (which they prefer). The other names are largely irrelevant and this is the English wiki.
 * Using Google scholar (and restricting the search from 1980 till 2011) I received 19 hits for John VI of Portugal against 17 hits for João VI of Portugal. One may argue that is a tiny difference but remember that older material will clearly favour John. This also seems to be confirmed by Encyclopaedia Britannica which uses John I, John II, John III, John IV, John V and John VI. Flamarande (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First, my name is Lecen. Your lack of respect from not even bothering to spell correctly my user name tells much about you. I've been trying to be polite so far, but I'm quite tired of your rudeness and mockery. This is simply a move request. Not a war. Think about it.
 * Second, the pronounce of "ão" is the same as "an" as in "Sebastian" or "Joan". So, as you can see, isn't that hard.
 * Third, the list with the other Portuguese monarchs is important because we must have a certain consistency in the name of all of them. You're not making the life of a reader easier when you show him "John VI", son of "Maria I" and father of "Pedro I". On the contrary, you make his life harder by mixing names and making it all more confuse. Since I know that you have no interest in articles related to Portuguese and Brazilian history (but I do), you couldn't have noticed that. If you had spent some time actualy writing and improving these articles (which you did not, but I did) you would know all that.
 * Fourth, historians who publish books about Brazilian and Portuguese histoy call him "João" (try to say "Joan" when you read it). Someone who read a book about Portugal or Brazil won't understand why in here he is "John". --Lecen (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my mistake and I wish to make clear that it was never my intention to be rude or mock you (it was a simple honest mistake). If you wish I will correct my mistake in the post above. However:
 * I'm able to speak Portuguese thank you very much, but most English-speakers don't know how to pronounciate the name João; that's why they use John and that's a simple fact.
 * The other names are not that important. Notice that Encyclopedia Britannica uses the other names but uses John.
 * How do you explain the Google scholar results for João/John?. How do you explain your own results for João/John which you presented in your own list above? How do you explain Encyclopaedia Britannica?
 * Your contributions are respected, but you don't own the articles. Flamarande (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said: I'm tired of your rudeness. From all of you (GoodDay and Cripipper too), in fact. "This in the English Wikipedia, dude!". Sorry, but I'm not trying to create a war between a language and the other. This is simply a move request. That's all. If the move is opposed, I won't die because of it. But you behavior (and the other two users) is reprehensible. You're clearly not trying to discuss the matter. To accuse me now of article ownership is too much for me. I'll simply ignore you since I'm not in the mood for all this. Have a nice day and I hope you may learn some manners in the near future. --Lecen (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you refuse to accept my apology for my simple mistake? Very well, that's certainly within your rights. Just don't complain about rudeness: Aqueles que têm telhados de vidro não deviam mandar pedras (those who have glass roofs shouldn't cast stones). Flamarande (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lecen, I can understand why you are a little frustrated when you know that modern scholary books on Portugal and Brazil use João. It does though seem to be leaning towards John in all the google searches. Would it be possible to further restrict the parameters of a google scholar search to books published specifically about Portugal and Brazil? John Hendo (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * John, what I'm trying to discuss in here is not simply the name of this article, or even of all "Joãos" that were Portuguese monarchs. The names of the Portuguese kings are lacking consistency and this is something that must be dealt with. It makes no sense to have "Afonso" (Portuguese), then "Edward" (English), then "Manuel" (Portuguese), then "John" (English), etc... The three most famous Portuguese monarchs are Afonso Henriques (the first Portuguese king), Manuel I (who was king during Vasco da Gama's famous voyage to India) and Pedro IV (better known as Emperor Pedro I of Brazil). And certainly, the most famous of all is Pedro II of Brazil, who would have been Pedro V of Portugal if history had followed a different course. All of them are far better known in their Portuguese names. Why they aren't translated to English ("Emmanuel", "Alphonse", "Peter", etc...) I don't know. Why there are historians who mix English and Portuguese names? I don't know.
 * What I do know is that specialized books (when I say "specialized" I'm not talking about books for few, I'm talking about books on Brazilian and Portuguese history) prefer to call João VI as João, not John. However, I did notice that more generalist works, such as books on World history, or European history seems to prefer his name as "John". Seems. I'm not sure on this one. The question is: which one should we pick? And why? --Lecen (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The English wiki should pick the name most commonly used in the English language. Per WP:Commonname. Flamarande (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Lecen that it looks a little odd mixing the English and Portuguese names. I'm not sure that WP:Commonname really covers this. I would be much happier if there were some guidelines that cover a specific scenario such as this. John Hendo (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The odd mixing may look a bit odd, but Encyclopaedia Britannica has no problem with it (why should the English wiki?). Another guideline is WP:Use English. Flamarande (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I still find it odd whether Encyclopaedia Britannica use it or not. While I have a lot of sympathy for Lecan and his point that most modern scholars writing of Portugal and Brazil use João, I can't ignore the fact that google search tells us that John is most commonly used throughout all types of literature. I do however think that there should be a guideline that covers this in a more specific way. John Hendo (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If it were up to me, all of'em would be in the english form. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me as though if it were up to you everyone would be forced to speak only English. I hope that's not a touch of xenophobia you're showing. John Hendo (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the first comment was a little funny, now, it is just bad taste and a little offensive to tell you the truth. I respect your opinion, you don't like the idea, but please be kind to others. After all we Canadians have a reputation to uphold, right? Regards. Paulista01 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the english language Wikipedia, not the multiple language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to let everybody know, this discussion started here: Empire of Brazil Thanks, Paulista01 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Support with "John VI" in a parenthetic note. Recent English-language scholarship dealing with Portuguese and Brazilian subjects does not predominately use anachronistic anglicized forms of names. It is too simplistic to just list results of a Google search. Narrowing it down to recent works produces a better picture. Then filtering out reprints of old books, ebooks, reprinted Wiki content gives an even clearer idea. Finally, one must consider the context in which anglicizations have been utilized—are they quoting older documents, are they dealing with primarily with Portuguese or non-Portuguese subject matter (if dealing with a bunch of old English sources regarding England's foreign policy, it is sometimes easier to use the form in the sources), does the work use multiple spellings (some do), etc.? This isn't a black vs. white issue, but I am supporting based on this being an article about a Portuguese subject. When there is doubt (as there might be if the article's subject was naval power in the 19th century and where you had English and Portuguese perspectives and references) policy requires that articles reflect the preponderance of their sources, and that trumps style guidelines. &bull; Astynax talk 20:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * About 1980-2010 book searches in History books:
 * * "João IV of Portugal" subject:"History"
 * Jan 1, 1980–Dec 31, 2010› Search English pages
 * About 85 results (0.22 seconds)


 * "John IV of Portugal" subject:"History"
 * Jan 1, 1980–Dec 31, 2010› Search English pages
 * About 209 results (0.19 seconds)


 * Please compare: List of French monarchs all have English names, even when most are similar to French ones; List of Spanish monarchs most have English names, few not (Juan Carlos I); List of Italian monarchs most have English names; List of German monarchs most, if not all, are listed by their English names. But List of Portuguese monarchs all have Portuguese names (!), even when it leads to the most popular English names (according to the rules) such as Denis of Portugal. So, about all this drama, one must ask: are you making an effort to better serve your readers or your ego? Regards --Uxbona (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder myself what is the reason to why all the editors who oppose the move have the need to be so rude. Through direct or indirect ways, such as insinuations, it looks like they need to demoralize a simple move request. Again: this is not a war, but a mere move request. If I knew this would cause this kind of behavior in some people I wouldn't have done anything. And we are talking of an article that no one really cares about, and that has been neglected for years. All this passion for an article like this one?! What happened with Assume good faith and Etiquette? --Lecen (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I give up.--Uxbona (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose multiple names is one thing, English vs. original language name is another. Regardless on whenever some authors may prefer to use a name in another language, if there is an established and recognized English usage (and in this case, there is) that's the one that should be used. As for consistency, if there are Portuguese monarchs with their name in English and others in Portuguese, we may very well consider consistency in the other way, translating the Portuguese monarchs to their English forms; that would be consistent with the French, Spanish and German monarchs as pointed by Uxbona. The mere usage of Portuguese names within Portuguese monarchs articles right now does not mean a consensus on the topic, same as the long usage of the English name here did not mean so either; as Lecen pointed, we talk about neglected articles. MBelgrano (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, I believe we're going to stick to John VI, son of Maria I, father of Pedro I, whose brother is Michael I. What family is that?! --Lecen (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * His brother is Miguel, as well he should be. I would tend to prefer the Portuguese form for all monarchs from Maria I onwards, but is it really that big a deal?  I'd certainly rather leave it inconsistent than move the others to the English version. john k (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Take a look at John VI of Portugal. Notice that there is a 'John' and a 'Michael' in that list, mixed in with lot of other people with Portuguese names. Doesn't that look like a motley collection? In the 'succession' box at the bottom of that page, John VI is the only one whose name is in an English style. His predecessor and successor are in Portuguese style. The problem of the variation of name styles first started to bother me when I was trying to read about the descendants of João I. If you want a surreal experience, try to read the first paragraph of Isabella of Portugal (1397–1471). You will never be able to figure out that her real given name was 'Isabel' in Portuguese. The conflicting name styles completely fog the issue. (If your patience runs out, click the interwiki link for the Portuguese wikipedia and you can find out people's real names)." Editor EdJohnston's remark about how confuse is having mixed Portuguese/English is simply perfect. As is the one made by &bull; Astynax:


 * "...with "John VI" in a parenthetic note. Recent English-language scholarship dealing with Portuguese and Brazilian subjects does not predominately use anachronistic anglicized forms of names. It is too simplistic to just list results of a Google search. Narrowing it down to recent works produces a better picture. Then filtering out reprints of old books, ebooks, reprinted Wiki content gives an even clearer idea. Finally, one must consider the context in which anglicizations have been utilized—are they quoting older documents, are they dealing with primarily with Portuguese or non-Portuguese subject matter (if dealing with a bunch of old English sources regarding England's foreign policy, it is sometimes easier to use the form in the sources), does the work use multiple spellings (some do), etc.? This isn't a black vs. white issue, but I am supporting based on this being an article about a Portuguese subject. When there is doubt (as there might be if the article's subject was naval power in the 19th century and where you had English and Portuguese perspectives and references) policy requires that articles reflect the preponderance of their sources, and that trumps style guidelines."


 * So, John K, if you don't mind if I'm sincere, yes, it is really that big a deal. Probably not for the users who opposed since none of them were ever interest in the subject. Or to MBlegrano who voted against simply because he dislikes me. But it is a big deal for us who have been trying to write good articles about Portuguese/Brazilian history. But as I can see, since there is presently at as stalemate, the article will stay as it is. It certainly won't harm the editors who opposed the move, since, as I said before, they don't care about the subject. But it will be said to of all who have been trying to improve these articles and see this mess. Regards,--Lecen (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How on earth is "John VI" anachronistic? That name was used in English during his lifetime.  Beyond that, a couple of points.  One is that both sides here seem to be largely motivated by the fact that both you and your opponents would rather have different naming conventions, rather than differing interpretations of the ones we have.  This is most clear of the many opponents of the move who seem to uncritically think that an anglicized form is the same thing as the most commonly used name in English.  This is clearly wrong to me, and I've argued against it here and elsewhere, although it seems to be a common view.  On the other hand, your position certainly comes perilously close to the view that we need to use these monarchs' "real names," regardless of common usage in English.  You also seem to view consistency as more important than English usage. As to the particular case, as I said it before, it seems to come down to the question of whether we should emulate more general sources, which tend to use the anglicized form, or more specialized ones, which tend to use the Portuguese.  I'd probably slightly prefer the Portuguese form in this case, but only if that doesn't mean we have to move all the other kings named John, who are less commonly referred to by the Portuguese name.  But both forms are commonly used in English.  This is neither a case like, say Carol I of Romania, where it was totally obscene when, many years ago, wikipedia had decided to call him "Charles I".  Nor is it a case like, say, Philip II of Spain, where the anglicized form is orders of magnitude more common than the Spanish name.  Both names are commonly used, and, as such, I don't think the naming guidelines give us any real preference.  Worrying about "real names" in other articles seems like a good reason to, you know, fix the other articles and make them clearer.  There's no reason you can't use Portuguese names to link to articles about people at anglicized names - I personally like very much List of Portuguese monarchs, which has one column for the Portuguese name and another for the anglicized name, and always links using the Portuguese name, even when the article itself isn't there.  That can be a model for other articles.  And be careful of anachronism - in the Middle Ages, the modern Portuguese names are often going to be just as anachronistic as the English ones.  Latinized names, in such cases, are often going to be the name most commonly used in the sources, and one might see a variety of spellings of Portuguese names in such Portuguese language documents as there are. john k (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A small note: the move request applies only to this article, not to all Portuguese named "João". However, I also pointed the need to discuss the general view, not only this article. --Lecen (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a small note: this article is in my watchlist because I edited it a year ago. It's not among the topics I usually work with (I was just following links related to Carlota Joaquina, who is among them because of her ambitions over Buenos Aires), but as this ongoing talk page kept raising in my watchlist, I finally decided to see what was going on, and so I gave my opinion. It is not my fault if the FAC for Empire of Brazil (from where all this seems to have come) is not going very well, as you can see I have not made a single comment, as it isn't a topic I'm interested in.
 * As for Lecen's last comment, I will remind Lecen that working hard over an article or topic does not provide ownership over them, nor does having national ties with it shared by few others, nor turn the user who worked on it into some kind of "moderator". Policies and guidelines apply anyway, and certainly none of us really need to know the full life and work of John VI in order to discuss how should the naming policies be applied. MBelgrano (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't find general English usage to be particularly useful in deciding cases like this. John VI is simply unknown to the educated, reading Anglophone public. No shock will be caused to anybody I don't believe by favouring the pronounceable English form of his name. I personally wouldn't mind anglicising all Portuguese monarchs' articles, as I proposed some months ago, for similar reasons and because of my tastes, but it's no big deal to me. I don't mind João VI in specialist works of history, but I find its use here a bit pretentious, the same as if we used Magellan's "real" name. Srnec (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely the point of naming policies is not what the "educated, reading Anglophone public" expects, but, as our naming policy says, what those familiar with, but not expert in, the topic would expect to see. I don't like the idea that we can call articles on obscure topics whatever we want because nobody knows anything about them, anyway.  The issue in this case is that both names are frequently used in English, and at that point it becomes a waste of time to try to figure out which is more used when both are common. john k (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said we could "call articles on obscure topics whatever we want because nobody knows anything about them". I have already fixed many articles with invented names, like "Nanda War" and "Portuguese–Mamluk War". I agree with your final sentence, but I would happily remove the word "frequently". In this case, given the alternatives, I prefer John VI merely if it is available—and it is because some reliable English sources have used it. This is why I would have no problem with Michael of Portugal, although I won't stubbornly insist on it because (a) Miguel is not hard and (b) the vast majority of English sources do prefer Miguel. I just prefer consistency of English and believe that we should be allowed to decide between the available options based on what reliable English sources (have) use(d). We should not slavishly count noses, although I know you are not trying to do that in this case. Srnec (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My view has not changed since June, when I discussed this in the preceding section. Srnec and John K make a great point about "real" names, which is what all of this seems to be about. Surtsicna (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. If it is the most frequent name and just because this is English wikipedia doesn't mean we have to use English names. One Joao and five John is fine with William I and Wilhelm II, German Emperor, we can see that we don't have to have consistent names.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, if I'm writing a book about the First World War, I can call Willie II whatever I want, say, Wilhelm, and I don't have to worry whether the guy who wrote a biography of his grandfather called him (Willie I) William. Neither of us will need to mention the other William/Wilhelm. But this is neither a biography of Wilhelm I nor work on the First World War, and I for one find the difference between the two kaisers here bizarre. I wonder if my editor would allow me to talk about Wilhelm II's grandfather William I? Srnec (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed it makes far more sense to have a king called "John" VI who is the successor of Maria I of Portugal (not Mary I) and father of Pedro I of Brazil (not Peter I) and Miguel I of Portugal (not Michael I) and grandfather of Maria II of Portugal (not Mary II). Now that's what I call consistency! And it would make even more sense if this article was improved and expanded and to see our "John" VI, this oddly English-named Portuguese monarch among his family (Maria, Pedro, Miguel, etc...) and figures like José Bonifácio de Andrada, António de Araújo e Azevedo, 1st Count of Barca, etc... It will certainly make the life of readers who do know know much about João VI far more easier. --Lecen (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Srnec, I can't tell if you are asking a honest question or being sarcastic, but if you are writing your own book you can call him Wilhelm or William since both version are exceptable; but lets say you call him Guillaume, you're reader might go "huh". But wikipedia is an encyclopedia of all the sources out there, and we should use the most common name. Also my bringing up William I and Wilhelm II is not bizarre because we are talking about monarch styles, aren't we? --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You said it yourself: we should use the most common name. It isn't 'João'. Flamarande (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I have always supported the consistent use of people's real names in English Wikipedia. Its not nationalism, its just: I think the world has gone beyond the anglo-centric universe that I grew-up in, and most accept those real valid names. I don't think its pretentious to be recognized by your real name. If anything, names like "John" or "Peter" should be relegated to fanciful nicknames, and not titles about real people. It is likely that if you were to tell anyone that their name was to be substituted for a "user-friendly" variation, it would not sit well with anyone. Maybe if people (in general) were a little more open in the past (historically), then there would still be a Fernão de Magalhães or Cristoforo Colombo, rather then the Ferdinand Magellan or Christopher Columbus. If the lingua franca was anything but English, would we still have this discussion: probably. But, I would still support the real names. Regardless, I support all of Lecen's points, and whatever decision that is consistent for all names.Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Real names? Are you serious? Christopher Columbus' real name was Christoffa Corombo in his native 15th-century Genoese language, not Cristoforo Colombo in modern Italian language. Nobody uses his "real name", Christoffa Corombo, anymore; no historian certainly. Joan of Arc, for example, was baptised Ioanna and called Jehanne during her lifetime so nobody can argue that Jeanne was her "real name". And what was the real name of an Italian ruler born to an Austrian and a Spaniard in the Netherlands? What matters is how these people are referred to by scholars. Surtsicna (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's quite obvious that he did not mean the name as it was spelled then. He is talking about keeping the name in their original languages. Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil was called "Affonso" in 19th century Portuguese. The Brazilian city of Niterói was spelled "Nichteroy" in 19th Century. --Lecen (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not obvious at all. He said "real names". The real name of Columbus was Christoffa Corombo and calling him Cristoforo Colombo would not be "keeping the name in their original languages" because 15th-century Genoese is not nearly the same as 21st-century Italian. The Prince Imperial is called Afonso because that's how modern English language sources call him. Saying that the article should be moved simply because this man is called João in modern Portuguese is like saying that Lisbon should be moved to Lisboa simply because that's how it's called in Portuguese. Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should change São Paulo to "Saint Paul", Rio de Janeiro to "January River" and Fortaleza to "Fortress" too? Relax, we don't want to change the world, only the name of this article. And if it fails, life goes on. No reason to bother. --Lecen (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is not to translate. The point is to use the name used by English language sources. That's why I reacted when it was suggested that calling Columbus Cristoforo Colombo would be more just. Surtsicna (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * May I note that I said "Maybe if people (in general) were a little more open in the past (historically), then there would still be a Fernão de Magalhães or Cristoforo Colombo, rather then the Ferdinand Magellan or Christopher Columbus." I never implied we should change either of those names. While we can not correct the mistakes of the past (that are etched almost in stone in the English lexicon), we can, on the other hand, avert modern conflicts (like this one) by accepting them now, as Lecen indicated. I believe that Lecen has made good points that support revising Portuguese biographical naming convention titles, but, I wonder if this will go beyond debate, without causing an edit-war. I still support the proposal. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as per Queen Elizabeth II little spy and Lecens comment under her support. Spongie555 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * John Hendo notes above that I tend to agree with Lecen that it looks a little odd mixing the English and Portuguese names. I'm not sure that WP:Commonname really covers this. I would be much happier if there were some guidelines that cover a specific scenario such as this. There are: Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility):
 * 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.
 * It seems fairly clear to me what the policy is. Cripipper (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per my opinions here SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

List with Wikipedians who support or oppose the move
Support:
 * Support. --Lecen (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --Paulista01 (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --Hchc2009 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --Arthur Holland (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. -- &bull; Astynax talk 20:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. --Spongie555 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * Oppose. --GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --Uxbona (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --Flamarande (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --Cripipper (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --MBelgrano (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --Srnec (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --Surtsicna (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Pipelinking of Pedro I of Brazil
I see no harm in pipelinkg that article-link as Peter IV of Portugal in this article. It's educational & helps readers place this Portugese monarch name in line with Peter I, Peter II, Peter III & Peter V. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no preference either way, but changing it to Peter from Pedro when his article names him as Pedro makes no sense, and doing so (twice) without discussion seems a little too bold. If you think his article title should be changed it should be discussed there. John Hendo (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeking an RM. My concern is about his Portugese monarchial title, which is out of sync with the other 4 Portugese kings named Peter. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether he is called Pedro or Peter is no skin off my nose, but you should discuss these things first when you know that there have been discussions surrounding Portuguese and English names on wiki. Note that he is also named as Pedro IV of Portugal in his infobox. If you want that changed then his article is the place to go and discuss it. John Hendo (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm already doing that. Note, I didn't pipelink the Brazilian monarchial title as Peter I of Brazil. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're crossing the line, GoodDay. Pedro I is known as Pedro IV, not Peter IV. --Lecen (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't comment on contributor, please. Anyways, let's relax & allow others to respond. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I really liked "Don't comment on contributor, please.". Wish it were offial WP policy. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pedro has also become an English name over time (João has not). SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss the naming of that other article at Talk:Pedro I of Brazil? MBelgrano (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to RM that article (note that I didn't pipelink as Peter I of Brazil). GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, you should at least leave a notice. This discussion is more about that other article than about this one MBelgrano (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I got a discussion going on there. Also, I'm currently haggling with Lecen about expanding the RM at Peter V of Portugal to include all the Peter # of Portugal articles. If all are changed to 'Pedro'? this 'pipe-link' push would become moot. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW I think that all the Peters of Portugal are incongruous and out of line with convention and should all be moved to Pedro of Portugal. Cripipper (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Pedro is okay, but not João? What...? --Lecen (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not a question of being okay or not, but of what is in common usage in the English-speaking world. Pedro is in common usage, João is not. Cripipper (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)