Talk:Pedro II of Brazil

Severe neutrality issues

The introductory paragraphs are ludicrously biased in favour of him and have no citations. Please someone change this, it reads more like a fan page than a serious historical perspective. Who even writes this stuff, jeez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.21.39 (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The Lead section of an article does not require citations because the purpose of this section is to summarize information from the article's Body that is already cited; you need only read down in the section of the Body which covers any statement in the Lead to find the corresponding citation(s). The allegation of bias has been previously raised, examined, and resolved both during previous article assessments and here on the talk page. Articles are to reflect the overall consensus of the most widely respected scholarly sources, including significant dissenters. If you have new reliable sources that disagree with something stated in the article, you are welcome to contribute that alternative viewpoint. • Astynax ^talk 16:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

When the introduction defenitely does need citations, and if their so easy to find, no issue in citing them twice in the same article. Right now the introduction of this article is a joke 89.23.235.49 (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The introductory lead summarizes the body of the article which provides not only details and context, but the citations on which the statements are based. Again, if intrigued by a statement, simply read the article for this information. In many cases the summarized material relies on multiple statements and their multiple sources, which only leads to repetitive bloat of the references section to no purpose (or worse, confusion as to what source supports what portion of a summation statement). • Astynax ^talk 16:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Assassination attempt

Hello folks, I've translated Pedro's assassination attempt article from Portuguese and I've noticed this article does not mention it, while the article in Portuguese does. I think it is an important event that should be mentioned here, but I'm not sure if I'm qualified or allowed to edit this article considering it is a featured one, so I'm leaving this here.Torimem (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Because this article is an overview of the reign, and because the assassination attempt has only a tenuous tie to republicanism, I do not see where this could fit into this article's narrative. However, I do think it may merit a mention and a link within the more detailed Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil article and have added a mention in "The last year" section. It would be more noteworthy if there are sources that detail how this may have influenced Pedro's thinking or the subsequent course of events. • Astynax ^talk 03:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

[1] EEng 06:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the edit, however, the language still implies a tie to republicanism and/or the subsequent overthrow of the monarchy. The gunman was not an adherent of the republican cause, nor was he endorsed by those holding republican views. As mentioned, there is also nothing suggesting that Pedro II noticed or was influenced by this incident, and thus I still see no reason for this minor event (drunken immigrant with no political ties letting off a shot) to be placed within this main article. • Astynax ^talk 15:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, without further sources to guide I'm not sure it's worth discussing. EEng 00:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following pages:

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose. The rationale for creating sub-articles was both because of article size (as mentioned above), and because the sub-articles encompass subject matter during this long reign that could be greatly expanded based on available sources. • Astynax ^talk 17:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)