Jump to content

Talk:Peter III of Portugal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 08:28, 23 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Stub" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject Portugal}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Untitled

[edit]

According to this website: http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Brazil/brazil2.htm , Maria I and Pedro III had a stilborn son, Dom João de Bragança, on 20th October 1762. Should he also be listed? dawn22 19:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
NO ACTION
No consensus to move. First, note that per WP:CONSENSUS, closures of discussions are not made based on the number of votes; rather, admins are required to measure the arguments presented, particularly with reference to relevant guidelines and policies. Obviously, there is a significant numerical majority in favor of moving this page. However, not a single person raised an argument that is compliant with WP:SOVEREIGN, or, alternatively, made a substantive argument as to why specifically the guideline does not apply here, particularly with reference to other pages of similar types (as, in fact, those opposing the move did). It is not sufficient to just come in and say "I agree per persons X and Y"--such comments hold little weight when determining a consensus, particular when neither X nor Y included a rationale compliant with our rules. If in a few weeks someone wants to re-open this discussion with actual arguments for moving it that show why the relevant guideline does not apply or why the counts provided are somehow not accurate (i.e., to substantiate the claims made that "Pedro" is the more common name, which no one showed any evidence for), feel free to do so. Alternatively, you may want to consider go to the guideline's talk page and seeing if there is a consensus to change the guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2012
Addendum based on comments on my talk page: I want to clarify here that there is absolutely no prejudice on a new discussion being re-opened being very shortly. Note that the same concerns will continue to apply: the page should not be moved simply because a lot of people vote "me too". It should be moved only if evidence and argument compatible with the guidelines (probably WP:SOVEREIGN, though the more general WP:Article titles applies as well). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

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

– Results in Google books for "Pedro III" on works published between 1980 and 2012: 647 results; for "Peter III": 478 results

  • Results in Google books for "Pedro II" on works published between 1980 and 2012: 7,710 results; for "Peter II": 465 results

Thank you. Lecen (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Above Googlebooks results show "ghosthits" (non-existent hits) and are misleading. The "de-ghosted" results are given below. I've restrited the range 1980-2012, doing both "Peter" and "Pedro" alone, and by the longer phrasing "Peter of Portugal" and "Pedro of Portugal" (The former will likelier hit in specialist works, the latter likelier in generalist works).
  • Peter I 290, Pedro I 263, Peter I of Portugal 26, Pedro I of Portugal 23,
  • Peter II 504, Pedro II 559, Peter II of Portugal 40, Pedro II of Portugal 24
  • Peter III 262, Pedro III 199, Peter III of Portugal 23, Pedro III of Portugal 6
As can be seen it "Pedro" does not dominate "Peter. Moreover, looking at standard generalist works, e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica lists them as Peter I (King of Portugal), Peter II (King of Portugal) and Peter III (King of Portugal). Finally keep in mind the policy here is given at WP:SOVEREIGN, which states:
  • "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."
So by Wikipedia policy, the name should remain in anglicized form, "Peter".
To add, the current standard in Wikipedia for "Peter" sovereigns of other nationalities is to name them "Peter", including all the Spanish "Pedros", (e.g. Peter of Castile, Peter I of Aragon, Peter II of Aragon, etc.), to say nothing of the myriad of other Peters of other nationalities. I see no reason for Portuguese exceptionalism.
Finally, in all other Wikipedias, all the Portuguese "Peters" are translated into their respective language rather than retained as "Pedro", e.g. French: fr: Pierre I de Portugal, German: de:Peter I (Portugal), Italian: it:Pietro I del Portogallo, Dutch: nl:Peter I van Portugal, etc. Again, I see no reason to make an exception here and break with common usage. Walrasiad (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Different languages have different conventions. For instance, French uses the francisized name fr:Léonard de Vinci while English retains the Italian spelling Leonardo da Vinci. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leonardo da Vinci is not a monarch or royal. The convention for royals before the 19th C. is to translate, unless common usage directs otherwise. So we have "Ivan the Terrible" (exception by common usage) but "Peter the Great" (not Pyotr). And common usage in English generalist works for the Peters I, II & III of Portugal, Castile, Aragon, etc. is "Peter", not Pedro. Walrasiad (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not only is Pedro incredibly common in English, it is the commonly used name for the King. On a similar discussion on John VI, many argued that the move to João VI would be illogical because Anglophones would not be able to pronounce it (though there are hundreds of articles on English wiki that have accentations that are impossible to read), but on this Pedro is used in English all the time. This is a perfectly acceptable move. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As was mentioned before, Pedro is a widely cited name in English, and from either result is nearly as common or more common that "Peter." Wikipedia as it stands now is in the strange situation of having Portuguese Pedros named "Peter" and Brazilian Pedros named "Pedro," despite being from the same ruling line. Not to mention the host of other monarchs (Ludwig II of Bavaria, say) whose names are inconsistently rendered in respect to English or their national languages. Absolutely support this move. Chiwara (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is about Portugal, not Brazil. And the proposed changes are being made primarily backwards, into the Medieval era where anglicization is and remains the norm, not forwards into the 19th C., where nationalists managed to foist a hodge-podge of nativist spellings. So the existence of "Ludwig II of Bavaria" in the 19th C. does not implicate that all prior Ludwigs (Bavarian, German and otherwise) are "Louis". The stark incongruity would be with their contemporaries - the myriad of Peters of Castile, Aragon, et al., which are commonly known and named as such in standard generalist works. If you wish WP:SOVEREIGN criteria to be changed, then perhaps a discussion can be opened up there and a new policy determined. Walrasiad (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But one of the Pedros was emperor/king of both Brazil and Portugal. He is Pedro I of Brazil (never Peter), so you can't very well call him "Peter IV of Portugal". If he's Pedro IV of Portugal, then the first three should be Pedro I, Pedro II, Pedro III. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, it is not "never Peter". It is frequently Peter, but happens to fall in a period of transition in royal naming conventions in Europe so not that anomalous to find both and cases can be made for either. That said, Brazil is a different country without a Medieval past, so that has minimal disruptive backward implications. But imposing a 19th C. Brazilian nativist preference on earlier Portuguese, Castilian & Aragonese monarchs would be like imposing the commonly untranslated 19th C. Ludwig II of Bavaria on all prior German, Bavarian and Saxon monarchs named "Ludwig" but translated commonly to "Louis". As per WP policy, common usage should dictate and, where unclear, anglicize. If you feel the policy should be changed, then we can take up the discussion there. Walrasiad (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You forgot to mention Pedro V of Portugal, the grandson of Pedro IV (or Pedro I of Brazil). --Lecen (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The Portuguese and Spanish kings are today usually referred to as "Pedro". They should actually all be moved. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are? Do you have evidence for that? Because the figures above don't seem to support that contention. Certainly not generalist works (e.g. Britannica). If you are arguing for exceptionalism, I'd like a little more elaboration, particularly since any such changes would be highly disruptive to articles on Portuguese and Spanish history. If you are suggesting (as Chiwara seems to be above) that the criteria of WP:SOVEREIGN should be changed, shouldn't a discussion on that be opened up there rather than here? Walrasiad (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We already have Pedro I of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil, and common usage seems to be similar for Portugal. Indeed, it would be incongruous to say Pedro I of Brazil but not Pedro IV of Portugal, since they are one and the same person. The first name "Pedro" is by now quite familiar to English speakers in general contexts, which probably drives the modern usage of "Pedro" rather than "Peter" for the sovereigns. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Both names are correct. Neither is unusual. In this case, I think we have a right to decide what our editorial convention will be, and I am not convinced it is to just count, with difficulty, Google hits. Why should Portuguese medieval monarchs be treated differently from their French or Castilian counterparts? Srnec (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite curious coming from an account whose sole purpose is to vote on move requests. See Aerospace1's contribution history. --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's ironic the silence of the opposition compared to the past discussions on John VI of Portugal. At this time, I believe all the articles of the Portuguese monarchs can be moved without much contest.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appears to be fairly solid support for these moves, but this local consensus is plainly against WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Regardless of how this is closed, we need to review the wording at the guideline.--Cúchullain t/c 13:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. "Pedro" is fine and unlikely to be misinterpreted, but as noted the standard for European monarchs up until 1900 or so is to translate to the native language (note that French Wikipedia has Pierre III, Catalan Pere III, etc.). It's less of a concern with Portuguese monarchs than, say, Spanish ones (who frequently also ruled domains in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, etc. and thus calling them "Carlos" as if Spain was their only domain is misleading), but there's some value to consistency. SnowFire (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how long it will take until someone closes this move request. It was opened almost a month ago. --Lecen (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSE LINE 04:12, 5 September 2012 / 21:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)(UTC)

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

Post close comments

[edit]

when I made these comments it wasn't clear where the RM close line was, the above was still all white

  • Comment I'm not particularly interested in monarch's names, I'm more interested in how we spell BLPs (even sports stubs who I was told once "these people are not BLPs" (!) but since it evidently interests other editors, and since it seems there may be a gap between editors on this RM and editors who edit Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), consider this:

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.

I did my own search -wp -llc since 1990 in the following format and got 24xPedroI/4xPeter1 21xPedro II/7x Peter II, 5xPedroIII/0xPeterIII since 1990 so why isn't this a simple move following WP:SOVEREIGN? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're still counting ghosthits. Restricting it to 1990 (as you did), it not nearly as lopsided. Pedro I/Peter I = 14 : 5, Pedro II/Peter II = 11: 8, P3 = 5:0. I don't consider that overwhelming, particularly when you examine the small selection that comes up in that narrow window, e.g. nativist spellings in specialist works, spelling-focused numismatics, cheaply-translated volumes, and some books that don't have the terms at all! (e.g. this showed up for Pedro II, this, this, this and this showed up as hits for Pedro I. I dare you to find the word "Pedro" or "Portugal" in them.), etc. So take such numbers with caution. Googlebooks searches can occasionally be instructive, but also quite misleading, particularly on narrow edges. One specialist work or a coin auction catalog should hardly be the determining factor when compared to, say, generalist works of reference like Britannica. At best, it is unclear. And lack of clarity defaults to Peter by WP:SOVEREIGN. Walrasiad (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also Lecen's search results appear more correct and Walrasiad's include Wikipedia material - though Peters of Russia seem to have crept into both. Why isn't this a move per Lecen's figures? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not deghosting. Those are imaginary hits. You really imagine there were 7,700 books which referred to Peter II published since 1980? There probably aren't a fraction of that in the entire history of publishing, in all languages. Walrasiad (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Walrasiad, don't argue please. In any case the below uses your own figures: In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Closed with no move. -- PBS (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the new arguments afresh and I do not think that they change the assessments that user:Qwyrxian made when closing the debate less than a month ago.

There is a custom at WP:RM that when a debate such as the last one is closed that a period of time is allowed to pass (usually not less than 6 months) before an new RM is opened. If a debate is re-opened so soon after the last one then it is unlikely that the consensus of lack there of will change unless very significant new facts need to be presented. I do not think that in this case this level of new evidence has been presented (a metric of this is there does not seem to be a convergence of opinion between those who expressed an opinion, last time and their opinions now).

Walrasiad I think you are misunderstanding the guidance at WP:NCROY, the guidance is based on the policy statement of "Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic". The point is that specialised journals with a small circulation may well use terminology that is not familiar to the general public, but is a short hand for those experts (Wikipedia's talk pages are such an example: full of such jargon eg "RM", "AT", "disruption" etc). English speaking historical experts on a Continental European nation's history will probably be multilingual and use names closer to the primary sources than would be used by the general public. I do not think that one should dismiss from consideration a biography on a king written for the general public because it is not a general tertiary source. Indeed it is those sources that we consider to be the most reliable. However a word of caution, biographies do not have to distinguish their subject from other monarchs with similar names (so they do not have to dab on numeral or country, and for selling books to the general public common sensational name may be used in the book title, eg Bloody Mary instead Mary I or Mary Tudor (a commercial pressure that is not placed on more general histories) -- something that probably does not apply here).

I do agree with those who point out the flaw in the "consistency" and I am not sure why all three articles need to be considered in a multi-move, it is quite possible that one or more of them may be more notable in English sources than the others, and that the styling of the name -- Pedro or Peter -- will vary depending on their prominence. Other examples have been given, but a clear example exists in the naming of the biographies on Swedish kings. We have Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden who was and remains a super-star of early modern European history (as does the Sun King) but we name the biography of his namesake and ancestor Gustav I of Sweden and biographies of other members of the Swedish royal monarchy other titles (see Gustav Adolph of Sweden. Insisting that all articles on Swedish kings Christened Gustav/Gustv be called Gustavus or that the article on Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden be changed for consistency would be contrary to common name -- the central plank of AT (follow source Luke).

As either name would be acceptable, I went an looked at the articles expecting to find in those articles a plethora of cited sources, and I was going to use those to help determine the most appropriate name using the reliable sources in the article (an avenue of approach not considered in the last close). Given the long arguments presented here for one name or the other, the lack of sources for the three articles is stunning,:

  • P. I. Thee footnotes, One film source, and two sources in an image notation "forcing the clergy and nobility to kiss the bones of her hands"
  • P. II One footnote from Sousa, António Caetano de (in Portuguese).
  • P. III. Three footnotes all from one source Sousa, António Caetano de (in Portuguese).

I would suggest that before any of these articles are put up for renaming again that some of the energy put into suggesting names for these articles is spent improving the content with reliable English language sources (and foreign sources if the details are not available in English language sources). Providing the sources used in the article are modern ones, their usage ought to carry weight in any future requested moves six months or more down the line. -- PBS (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– [I did not take part in previous RM, closer has encouraged a new RM, original proposer also supports new RM]. Propose per WP SOVEREIGN "Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference.". Although not overwhelming the trend in results since 1990 is to "Pedro I, II, III of Portugal" from "Peter, I, II, III of Portugal". See Peter I/Pedro I = 14 : 5, Pedro II/Peter II = 11: 8, P3 = 5:0. As someone not involved in WP:NCROY discussions, I find results for Peter I/Pedro I (1320-1367) are particularly surprising since you'd expect "Peter I", as a standard English exonym for medieval kings (from Latin Petrus) and yet sources like The New Cambridge Medieval History: c. 1415-c. 1500 - Page 1033 Christopher Allmand, Rosamond McKitterick - 1998 has "Pedro I of Portugal". I was particularly struck by this source as it shows a deliberate editorial change contrary the old J. B. Bury Cambridge Medieval History 1938, 1959 which had "Peter I of Portugal" ...it is this change in a Cambridge standard work from 1938 to 1988 which makes me confident to support this move. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I whole wholeheartedly agree with In ictu oculi but I'd also wish to make a comment about it. We already have Pedro IV of Portugal and Pedro V of Portugal. Although there are no biographies in English of Kings Pedro I, Pedro II and Pedro III, it's pretty easy to learn what are the names that historians prefer. The sole biography in English about Pedro IV calls his grandfather (Pedro III) by his name in Portuguese.[1] The biography of Emperor Pedro II (son of Pedro IV and great-grandson of Pedro III) also uses "Pedro II" and "Pedro III".[2] What about the latest biography of Princess Isabel? It's not only a biography of her as well of all monarchs of the House of Braganza (including Pedro II, Pedro III, Pedro IV and Pedro V). It also uses "Pedro II", "Pedro III", "Pedro V"![3][4] There are books in English about the history of Portugal. They also use the name in Portuguese.[5][6][7] It's important to remember that Pedro  III's wife is never called "Mary I", but always "Maria I". Thus, the names should be moved to "Pedro I", "Pedro II" and "Pedro III" as they are the mostly used by English speaking historians and also to maintain consistency with Pedro IV and Pedro V. --Lecen (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. I think that, on balance, the non-Anglicized form is probably slightly more common for these Portuguese monarchs in English sources (although if we move these, we really need to do something about Peter of Castile, which may be one of the worst article titles on Wikipedia). That said, I don't think it's really been demonstrated that "Pedro" is more common, or that, if it is, it is very much more common. Instead of looking at raw google results, what we should be doing is looking at what reputable secondary sources use - textbooks, specialized reference works, historical monographs, etc. john k (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. As I said in the earlier move request, the fact of the matter is that Pedro is a completely accepted and common name used in the English language as Peter. The fact that modern day English language historians are using Pedro II instead of Peter II only proves that. There is literally nothing logical that can say that this move is not completely correct! There are no accentations that would "make it hard for English speakers". This is the man's name! Wikipedia is to base its information on what others, credible sources, write, not whatever we think is right. The fact is that historians refer to the men (Pedro I, II, and III of Portugal) by their name exactly: Pedro! In all honesty, if we look at all these discussions that have occurred on the Portuguese monarchs, the evidence is all their! Perfectly good and strong proof has been given to show that their real names are the ones that should be used on Wikipedia, but the fact of the matter is that anglophile xenophobicism is the main reason why none of article names are corrected. I really do hope that my previous statement is proven wrong and that this page is moved to its correct and rightful name. Many thanks, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There seems to be ample support for using the original, rather than an anglicized form of the name. It appears as "Pedro" even in 19th century English language sources. Despite the confusion in Wiki conventions, use of anglicized names in U.S. scholarship has never been universal and has been decreasing in recent decades, though holdouts for medieval and transliterated names still persist. I do understand that anglicization is more widespread in British sources, but this also has been changing (a personal, but I think accurate, observation). • Astynax talk 07:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Protest. I'd like to protest on procedural grounds. This RM has been opened and repeatedly relisted for a month, with ample time. Why has a new one been opened immediately? Surely a waiting time is in order?
Moreover, it seems to me the new comments seem to be largely a repetition of those previously, most still unaware that WP:SOVEREIGN, which asks for works of general reference, not specialist works. General references, as recommended by WP, is things like Britannica (Peter I, Peter II and Peter III) and Columbia (Peter I, Peter II, Peter III). Yet the examples being forwarded seem to be from specialized histories. We all know scholarly historians have recently adopted a tendency to nativize spellings. As a professional academic, I do that myself (but I also write for general audiences, and my habits differ there). Even to take the most generous example, ictu oculi's article (written by a non-native speaker incidentally) doesn't nativize Peters I, II & III, he nativizes the spellings for all monarchs. Not only Portuguese kings, but also Pedro of Castile, Pere of Aragon, Pere of Sicily, etc. If this is the new policy, I'd like to know.
Other comments return again to arguing for general policy changes - that is, that Wikipedia should overlook general references and move to specialized references in naming conventions, not only here but elsewhere. Others once again ask for a move of Castilian kings. This, again, is a repetition of the arguments made earlier.
In my view, this is the wrong way to resume discussion. Evidently the disatisfaction lies with Wikipedia's WP:SOVEREIGN policy. Canvassing a protest on the closing admin's page, immediately rinse & repeat and hope for a better result is not the way to go. If you want the policy changed, please do this seriously. Let's open a discussion on policy. There are good points to be made, and can be made. But that discussion shouldn't be here. If you want the Peters of Castile, Aragon, etc. to be changed, then bring in notices to those pages too and construct a wider move.
To summarize: I believe this RM opening is inappropriate, and that a pause should be made, as is customary in RM closures. It is evident the real problem lies in some people not finding the Wiki policy acceptable. That was already apparent in the first discussion, and the same arguments are being repeated here. This is exhausting and time-consuming. If nothing else, a pause would give people time to construct a more careful case, in the appropriate forum, rather than slicing repeatedly and interminably here. Walrasiad (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy procedural close. A well-participated RM discussion was just closed (as no consensus). A fresh discussion should not be allowed within two months, unless allowed by a properly conducted and closed WP:Move review discussion. Closes need this minimum of respect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See this: "I've given everyone the two options: restart the move discussion all over again using guideline-compliant arguments, or take me to WP:AN." Since my name isn't Walrasiad I won't bring an administrator to the ANI simply because he closed a move request against my wishes (See John VI of Portugal's talk page). I'm not petty. --Lecen (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let me clarify on the procedural note that I explicitly told Lecen that he could open a new RM if new evidence was presented, and I see that that is what In ictu oculi has done. The fatal flaw in the last discussion is that a number of people supporting the move asserted that Pedro is more common in sources, but no one actually proved it with evidence (and the evidence Lecen submited was prima facie not reliable evidence as required by WP:Article titles). While I could have let the previous discussion continue with the intent of getting more evidence, I felt that a fresh start would produce better results. However, everyone should see the note I'll leave in my next edit. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what will be tomorrow's TFA? Pedro I of Brazil (or Pedro IV of Portugal), an article Astynax and I wrote. I never saw a single book in English call him, nor his father, nor his grandfather (Pedro III) by Anglicized names. After eeading all those English-written books about 18th and 19th centuries history of Portugal and Brazil I can affirm that there is on usage of "John" or "Pedro". But perhaps a bunch of editors with no true knowledge about the subject under discussion knows better than I dor others who actually work on related articles do. --Lecen (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lecen, could you please clarify what you are saying here? Are you saying that this person (Peter/Pedro III of Portugal) is never, not even once, called Peter III of Portugal in references? That can't be right, because both your and iio's results show some (you're just claiming majority for Pedro). I'm not criticizing here--I'm just trying to say that what you wrote just above isn't clear, and clarity will help the discussion. Also, please don't try to assert expert status--if you are correct, the data will prove you correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't I say that I am an expert on what is being discussed? I'm the only person (along with my partner Astynax) who has ,in the last four years, written Featured Articles about Brazilian/Portuguese history: Pedro Álvares Cabral, Pedro I of Brazil (also Pedro IV of Portugal), Pedro II of Brazil, Empire of Brazil, etc... No one else in here can claim a greater knowledge. When I say that I have never seen a book calling King Pedro III as Peter III I mean exactly that: I never read a book that did that. Of course there are Google results, but it seems that they are only worth something when it's useful in certain moments for certain editors. About the use of Pedro III/Peter III: there are two biographies in English of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. The latest one was written by British Roderick J. Barman, who according to historian Jeffrey D. Needell, is the monarch's "best biographer".[8] Barman's work, called "Citizen Emperor" (published in 1999), used "Pedro III" and "Maria I" (not "Mary I") Notice that in the genealogical chart given, all other monarchs (from Spain, France, Austria, etc...) have their names in English. Thus, Barman clearly prefers to keep the Portuguese/Brazilian monarchs with their native names.[9] The other biography of Pedro II, "Dom Pedro the magnanimous, second emperor of Brazil" (published in 1937)[10] does not mention Pedro III, but does mention his wife Maria I (not "Mary I") and son João VI (not as "John VI"), see page 4. There are two biographies in English of Emperor Pedro I (also King Pedro IV of Portugal). The first was published in 1950 by Sérgio Corrêa da Costa. I do not own it nor have ever read it, but it's title tells a lot: "Every Inch a King: A Biography of Dom Pedro I First Emperor of Brazil" (not "Peter I"). The second biography was written by Neill Macaulay and its called "Dom Pedro: the struggle for Liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798-1834). It says "The first sovereigns to reside regularly in Queluz palace were Queen Maria I and King Pedro III, who was both Maria's uncle and husband and ruled Portugal jointly with her." (Macaulay, p.2)[11] There are no biographies in English of King Pedro III nor of his wife Maria I. Usually, English speaking historians are interest in Portugal's history in the 15th and 16th century during the Age of Discovery or in Portugal's early 19th century history, during King João VI (son of Pedro III and Maria I)'s flight to Brazil in 1808 and the subsequent founding of the Empire of Brazil. C. H. Haring's "Empire in Brazil: a New World Experiment with Monarchy" (1958) said on page 5: "The sovereign at this time was Maria I, but she was insane, and the actual government was in the hands of her son and heir, the Prince Regent Dom João." Not Mary, not John. On "The Brazilian Monarchy and the South American Republics, 1822-1831" (by Ron Seckinger, 1984) it says on page 6: "To provide a livelihood for those parasites as well as a growing number of Brazilians hungry for sincecures, Prince Regent João, who would take the throne as João VI in 1816, greatly expanded the size of the bureucracy in the capital..." I could go on and on forever. Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, daughter and heiress of Emperor Pedro II, has two biographies in English about her. The first is "Princess Isabel of Brazil: Gender and Power in the Nineteenth Century" (2002) and was also written by Roderick J. Barman. The names are in Portuguese (although other foreign royals have their names in English). The second biography is "Isabel Orleans-Bragança: the Brazilain Princess who freed the slaves" (2008). It is not only a biography of Isabel but also a biography of the Portuguese;Brazilian Royal House from Dom João IV (father of King Pedro II and great-grandfather of King Pedro III) until Isabel. The names are in Portuguese, but other foreign roayls have their names anglicized. --Lecen (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Lecen, This move is not about Brazil. Nor is it even for Peter III. It is for three Portuguese kings, and changes have implications across many historical articles including (in the extended arguments) implications for the kings of Castile, Aragon and Sicily. You seem a tad too focused on imposing the preferred name for a Brazilian 19th C. monarch backwards on a 14th C. Portuguese king. Yet they will rarely, if ever, come up together in an article here, whereas the earlier Peters coexist and interact with other Peters (and other anglicized monarchs) across Europe in their time period, and need to be referred and linked to in many contemporaneous articles. In writing historical articles, "horizontal" linkages are usually quite more important than "vertical" ones. Like many others I am sure, I appreciate you have taken the time to write biographies of 19th C. Brazilian monarchs and princesses for Wikipedia. But don't presume yourself uniquely poised or of special talents to denigrate the knowledge of others on this topic. Not only is it unseemly, it is incorrect and you know it. Walrasiad (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Lecen, #2, one more quick reminder: once again you turn to specialized tomes. Perhaps your narrow limitation to biographies is coloring your perception, but let me remind you that Wikipedia is a general reference, a hyperlinked encyclopedia, where references to monarchs are not limited to self-contained biographical articles, but across a multitude of articles. That is why "common name" is important. Walrasiad (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"But don't presume yourself uniquely poised or of special talents to denigrate the knowledge of others on this topic. Not only is it unseemly, it is incorrect and you know it." Please keep the focus on what is being discussed, not on an editor. "You seem a tad too focused on imposing the preferred name for a Brazilian 19th C. monarch backwards on a 14th C. Portuguese king." Again: focus on content, not on editors. Do not make false claims against me. It was not I the one who opened this second move request. It was another editor, someone whom (as far as I can remember) I've never talked to before. It was his idea, not mine, although I support him. Stop attacking me. This means you're running out of ideas. I only ask you not to bring me, other editors and the administrator who closes this discussion (if he moves it) as to the ANI as you did on John VI of Portugal. "Nor is it even for Peter III. It is for three Portuguese kings" We know that. Yo ushould stop ignoring what I and others (including the person who opened this move request) are saying. We gave you numbers, we gave you sources. Stop ignoring what we are saying and stop accusing us. "...where references to monarchs are not limited to self-contained biographical articles" Are you sauing that biographies about George Washington and Robert E. Lee are actually less important than generalist books? A book about the history of the 18th century is far more important as a source than a biography of the first president of the United States? It doesn't make sense. Find a better excuse. --Lecen (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one else in here can claim a greater knowledge.. You call that focusing on the topic rather than the editor? I am one of the "else in here", and your attempt to pull rank over other editors merits a brief, if polite, correction. I don't intend to proceed further. The remainder of my comments refer to the choice of literature you presented above - primarily specialist biographies on 19th C. Brazilian figures, and in order to judge their relevance, thought it apt to remind the specific topics of the proposed move are and the kind of evidence that is being sought. I am not attacking you. I have not made insinuations about your past behavior, or prior debates, as you are trying to stir up here again. I would think it advisable that you refrain from going down the personal road.
As to your substantive comment: I am afraid you misunderstood my statement. Monarchs are referred to here in Wikipedia in articles beyond their biography article. Indeed, they need to be referred to in a myriad of articles, many of which are not even about the history of the country they were kings of, e.g. in articles about other countries, other kings, wars, treaties, commerce, or even more general articles about shipwrecks, insurance companies, writers, theater fires, wigs, horse breeds, wool production, etc. These are "horizontal linkages", a hyperlink away, the core of Wikipedia's strength. That is why "common name" is important, that is why "common name" is policy. References to this article will be made everywhere, not merely in the biography article. Specialized works (and self-contained biographies are an even narrower subset of that) have no such generalist obligations. They are free to introduce specialized spellings, terms, language and jargon to their heart's content, precisely because they are specialized and will remain self-contained. But an encyclopedia is a generalist work, communicating to a general public, and particularly Wikipedia, a sprawling, growing, hyperlinked body which emphasizes and encourages links across articles, well beyond narrow biography. In this, specialist nomenclature can be detrimental to the overarching purpose of the whole. Articles in Wikipedia are meant to inform general casual readers who might curiously click from "wigs" to "Peter II", not to erect self-contained, isolated columns of scholarship. A specialist biography of Christopher Columbus may (as I've seen) use the term "Colon" throughout, or even just "the Admiral". And while such a biography may exceed all other biographies in authority, and be used as the primary source of the content of the article, the author's choice of specialized nomenclature is not and should not be determinative for choice of article name. Common usage in works of general reference is - as WP:SOVEREIGN correctly states. And that is what needs to be determined, and where evidence should be sought. Walrasiad (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found this essay (Wikipedia:Specialist style fallacy) which perhaps expresses better some of what I tried to explain above. Walrasiad (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as in previous discussion. The consensus was clearly to move the article, which is why the discussion has been reopened, much to the evident disgust of those who oppose its move. I am British (not Portuguese, Brazilian or any other non-native-English-speaking nationality), and I have never, ever seen any King Pedro of Portugal referred to as King Peter in any serious historical source. If this was the common name in English-language sources then I would support its retention under the normal WP:COMMONNAME policy, but I seriously do not believe it is. No doubt those on both sides of the debate will quote various manipulations of Google to "prove" their point, but at the end of the day we should all be aware by now that online sources are not paramount in article naming discussions. I am rather tired of editors pointing to Google Book searches and shouting "look, look, this proves my point conclusively". No it doesn't. It proves nothing whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note This is exactly what I'm talking about in my note above. Necrothep, you assert no guideline compliant argument. All you state is that you know, based on no evidence whatsoever, that "Pedro" is the more common name. And while you can certainly argue about numbers of sources, it's simply ludicrous to argue that there are none that use "Pedro", when both sides have already found serious, reliable, historical sources that use it. Were I to close the next RM (which I won't, of course), I would discount your !vote entirely. I'm not trying to influence the outcome here; rather, I want to be clear what helps the discussion. I strongly recommend you leave a new comment that complies with the guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Qwyrxian, I have some sympathy with your concerns or I wouldn't have picked them up in resubmitting this, but I think you - and possibly other RM admins, would be wrong to simply discount a statement like this. (Lets assume I didn't recognise Necrothesp's name as a competent editor from having encountered his edits on Spanish cathedrals, and it was Joe Bloggs' comment). This comment has an editor saying he has never seen Pedro referred to as Peter in a "serious historical source", well, it has to be said that apart from "Peter II of Portugal" occuring in Philip Mansel, Torsten Riotte - 2011, Google Books doesn't produce Peter of P, Peter I of P, Peter II of P, Peter III of P in sources since 1980 that look particularly serious even from their covers. If an editor is making a comment based on previous discussion with plentiful Google links, and then says that AGF means the editor has looked at the searches, made an assessment, and this is his/her reading. Also the reservations about GB searches are completely legitimate. If closing admins seriously just discount, then there's IMO a problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bzzt, Qwyrxian closed the prior RM, which had a strong consensus to move, as no consensus, and is now badgering 'supports' they don't like in this one. This is entirely inappropriate behaviour that I'd suggest they rectify by visiting WP:BN and turning in their bit. Such super-voting and badgering by an admin is conduct unbecoming. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay See comment below that discussion didn't conclude that. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support: IF "Naming conventions concerning royalty names" should or must be used, then not only "Pedro I of Brazil" and "Pedro II of Brazil" would have to be transformed to Peter I and Peter II, respectively, BUT ALSO "Wilhem II, German Emperor, Wilhelm I, German Emperor and many others, ALL OF THEM ought to have their names translated to English no matter to what country they belong(ed) to, withouth any exception. If this change will not be done because of any possible arguments (too many cases to review, too many languages to compare, "its perfectly acceptable to maintain German names"(?), as I said, ANY argument immaginable, then it's perfectly acceptable that an exception must be applied (in this case) to kings named Pedro, no matter in which country they were born. I don't think this change will affect more than, let's say, 50 name of kings, even if we consider other languages (Spanish, Italians...) and you say "oh, let's do it for other languages, too". We all can realize that the number is very much less than that. What is NOT acceptable at all is to say "king Pedro" is a blasphemy, but "king Wilhelm" is very cute (and all the other "exceptions" that I did not have enough time to "chase" here). That's my opinion. Joao Xavier (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's wrong we don't in fact have Emperor 'Wilhelm I' its actually at 'William I, German Emperor', his son is at Frederick III not Friedrich III, his brother Frederick William IV, his father Frederick William III, his grandfather Frederick William II etc etc many monarchs from many countries from before the 20th century have there names in anglicised form on Wikipedia this not just about Portuguese names. - dwc lr (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have belatedly (I thought Lecen would do it) notified everyone support/oppose from the previous RM who hadn't already found it that their postings will not be counted and must be resubmitted, quoting the key advice from Qwyrxian's box above.
Comment on dwc lr link - I wasn't familiar with that discussion, and I appreciate dwc lr, linking to it. However, the quality of discussion, and breadth of audience on MOSTalk/RfC pages is not necessarily, in fact possibly not often, greater than that found in a good RM. RMs suffer from focus on 1 article, MOSTalk/RFC can suffer from lack of focus and a reality gap with real articles. The discussion linked to there in particular includes one major failure - to address the point of WP:MOS "..Article titles policy. The principal criteria are that a title be recognizable (as a name or description of the topic), natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with the titles of related articles." In this case a failure to address MOS inconsistency between Peter III of Portugal vs Pedro V of Portugal ("Pedro V of Portugal" 70 results vs 1 result for "Peter V of Portugal"). Also there is a small but noticable sprinkling of comments such as "unless you like forcing English-speakers to try and learn a myriad different and often unintelligible foreign words for no good reason." which, to me at least, illustrates that that the level of that discussion there was less in tune with policies, sources and en.wp article reality here. And the lack of clear reference to WP:MOS "consistent with the titles of related articles" in WP:SOVEREIGN, is a reminder of the heading of all guidelines "best treated with common sense". In this case that common sense should default to sources all the way from New Cambridge preference on Pedro I, to the 70:1 Google Books results for Pedro V. This is really a very simple RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking a very peculiar interpretation to "consistency" which isn't implied there. It is about styling of article titles, not specific name spellings. What you are suggesting is akin to insisting that because of the existence of Ludwig II of Bavaria therefore all prior Bavarians, like Louis IV of Bavaria should be translated into Ludwig IV (or vice-versa). Or because of Louis Philippe of France, then the prior Philips of France should all be translated to Philippe. Or because Juan Carlos I gets a gazillion hits then the prior Johns & Charles's of Spain need to be spelled the same way. We all know that 19th & 20th C. kings tend to have nativist spellings in common usage. We also know that earlier kings tend to have anglicized spellings in common usage. Vertical inconsistency abounds and it is not deadly. (as I expressed earlier, horizontal inconsistency across contemporanous rulers is far more jarring in historical articles) But what is not a matter of opinion is WP's policy of common usage, which is the insistent and overriding naming policy throughout Wikipedia (and more specifically, in the case here, WP:SOVEREIGN). There are three kings being proposed to move here - Peter I, Peter II and Peter III. The purpose here is to determine common usage for them. Given these well-known vertical disparities of common usage, it is misleading to try to use 19th & 20th C. kings to backward impose on earlier ones to circumvent existing policies applying to them directly. Walrasiad (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrasiad,
Sorry I'm afraid I don't find that convincing. That's an interpretation, the natural meaning would be that "consistent with other article titles" embraces as many aspects of consistency as relevant. In any case it's a secondary argument Pedro I (weak majority) Pedro III (stronger majority) Pedro V (very strong majority, hence already at Pedro V). Like it or not this looks like one of those cases like Leghorn/Livorno where usage of the English exonym has retreated. Possibly due to Pedro IV of Portugal = Pedro I of Brazil, that's an unusual factor. Plus category:Portuguese monarchs already has so many others, Manuel I-II, Afonso I-VI, Miguel I, Maria I-II, Carlos, Luis, Sancho etc where exonyms are not used, against those that are. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of that consistency note is to ensure consistent style in article names, so that we don't have article titles "X, King of Portugal", "Y, Monarch of Portugal" and "Z, Head Honcho of Portugal", but that they all adhere to the same styling, not about spelling personal names. It is not an excuse to impose a different norms of different kings in different periods, kings not under discussion here, to circumvent applying WP policy to them. Yes, common usage is unclear. There is a policy for unclear results.
If my point about vertical vs. horizontal consistency was unclear, let me try again. Vertical inconsistency is only jarring in one article - a list of kings. Otherwise, Peter I & Pedro V will never be in the same article, much like the Williams and Wilhelms, Charles and Karls, Louis and Ludwigs, Philips and Philippes happily co-exist inconsistently (and there's nothing wrong with adjusting a list of monarchs to present both spellings simultaneously - so it's not even that jarring). Different eras have different common usage norms, and the norms of Medieval and Early Modern history is heavily anglicized, whereas those of 19th & 20th C. is heavily nativist. Most historical articles are written according to the common usage norms of that era. So a historical article pertaining to Medieval or Early Modern history (and there are gallions more of those than there are plain lists of kings) will almost always have uniformly anglicized monarchs, Peters and Johns, across European countries dealing with each other, rather than king Pedros, Peres, Pierres, Pyotrs, Juans, Joans, Jeans, etc. (with some notable exceptions, e.g. the Ivans of Russia, by decisive common usage). There is a far, far greater value on ensuring horizontal consistency in the dozens, heck, maybe even hundreds, of articles that refer to Peter using that contemporaneous norm, than it is to ensure that that Peter is spelled the same way as another irrelevant Peter five centuries later, with whom he will never share an article (except that one list). Moreover, it introduces an internal inconsistency in all articles pertaining to that era - where Portuguese exceptionalism suddenly emerges, and everyone else is still stuck with anglicized Peters & Johns (a situation, which I imagine, would not last long before everyone start demanding theirs, and the unraveling of all these articles). Now, which consistency is more important? Which is less disruptive? Which is more conducive to the mission of Wikipedia as a resource for general audiences? Walrasiad (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrasiad, thank you, but I understood your view the first time. As for "vertical consistency" List of Portuguese monarchs gives in English exonym and Portguese in the text. As for "horizontal consistency" all the monarchs in the House of Burgundy are "horizontally" at Portuguese titles already except Fernando I. The others are mixed. If you are arguing that all the Manuel I-II, Afonso I-VI, Miguel I, Maria I-II, Carlos, Luis, must use English exonyms, then you need to cite a policy. But such as policy does not exist. The existing WP:SOVEREIGN states sources, and sources are for Pedro. As far as MOS consistency it is a secondary argument, but illustrates the primary argument, that the sources are for Pedro... given that these sources themselves have both vertical and horizontal consistency issues.
As for "Which is more conducive to the mission of Wikipedia as a resource for general audiences?" ... this kind of appeal doesn't do it for me, WP:RS indicates go with serious sources, which are for Pedro I II III as IV(of Brazil) and V. That is enough for now. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Must"? Where did I say "must"? I said the era is heavily, almost uniformly anglicized. The Afonsos & Manuel are the only pre-19th C. kings which don't have anglicized names, because common usage of them, directly, allows it (much like the Ivans of Russia). If your Pedro exception was a preponderant as Ivan or Afonso, I'd agree. But it isn't. The sources you are citing, once again, are specialist not generalist sources. We know there has been a recent fashion for nativizing names in specialist histories - your source nativizes every king. Wikipedia doesn't. With only a handful of exceptions, every Medieval & Early Modern monarch of Europe is anglicized here, not only in their biographies, but in the hundreds (thousands?) of other articles that refer to them in any manner. I ask for proof of Portuguese exceptionalism to the norm here, and you don't give me exceptionalism, you give me an entirely different norm - either a 19th C. norm, or a foreign Brazilian norm, or a specialist norm, where there is no exceptionalism at all - all kings are simply nativized! This is a generalist encyclopaedia, and the Wiki policy demands generalist sources to determine common usage. WP:RS is for CONTENT, not for NAMES. Names are determined by WP:SOVEREIGN. I am not sure why you are not understanding the difference. Did you read the essay I linked above? WP: Specialist style fallacy. If I am not making myself clear, maybe that can help. Walrasiad (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is an editorial decision. It would be wrong to treat Portugal as an exception in a general reference work like Wikipedia. (The cited general reference works, Britannica and Columbia, don't either.) Academic sources, with different authors, from different schools, with different publishers, are inconsistent in a way that a single source, like Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia), should not be. If we don't use Henri I of France, or Enrique II of Castile, or Emperor Friedrich II, or Ladislao of Naples, or Jehan of England, or Jaime III of Aragon ... why should we use Pedro __ of Portugal? If the sources for Pedro are not overwhelming (as they would be for Ivan IV as against John IV), we should decide based on internal criteria. I plead for a little consistency. Srnec (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree Lecen and Joao Xavier.Érico Wouters msg 02:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose as before. In ictu oculi presents some good sources, but I feel Walrasiand is correct that opinion is at best split in generalist works. The larger concern is consistency. If the decision is made that *all* Portuguese monarchs should be in their Portuguese spelling, fine. But as is, we basically go by time period. It is quite jarring to see something like Pedro -> Fernando-> "John" -> "Edward" when all 4 of these monarchs would have expected their names to be localized when traveling, far more jarring from a historical perspective than having some Peters and some Pedros separated by centuries (which is basically historical trivia).
Basically, what I'm saying is that I strongly oppose switching just the Peters/Pedros because of the bizarre insistence on using Pedro of Brazil as an example, but would only weakly oppose switching all Portuguese monarchs whose only European domains were in Portugal to use the Portuguese name. (Ones who ruled elsewhere, such as Philip I of Portugal, better known as Philip II of Spain, won't be moving of course, which is part of the reason why such a big move is problematic.) SnowFire (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the prior RM's consensus and the invalid super-vote used to incorrectly close it. Qwyrxian's stance that all opinions must be guideline-compliant is bullshite. Those guidelines are *wrong*, biased, and seek to cement a nineteenth century view of Anglicisation of the world. Guidelines are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive, and the way to change a bad guideline is to build up a series of consensuses that are counter to it and then use them to drive the notion that a new consensus in fact exists that brings the bad guideline down. The men's names were Pedro; they probably rarely even heard the name "Peter" in their lives. Plenty of evidence that they're widely referred to as Pedro has already been presented (and I just made a typo and my English-spellchecker noted it and fixed it to "Pedro"). This is all very disruptive and disappointing. The whole pattern throughout all these move (and diacritic (see WP:AN)) discussions has a very serious effect on the participation of non-native English speakers in this project.
Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At risk of pointing out the obvious, localization of names is a *European* tradition not a British Empire one, and the topic is in fact Europe. And for nobles with several domains, yes, they absolutely would be called all of Guillermo / Wilhelm / Guillaume for example, and this is true of at least some Portuguese monarchs. Do you believe that all the titles in the interwiki links in Henry VIII of England (aka Henri, Hendrik, Enrico, etc.) have a "very serious effect" on participation of non-native speakers in their projects? SnowFire (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still oppose at this time. Lecen has not yet made his case to overcome Walrasiad’s counterpoints. However, I feel that Lecen may yet do so, if he can cite specific references of breadth and quality that use Pedro over Peter for these monarchs. I would expect these references to added and used in the article. Ideally, these references will refer to the multiple Pedros/Peters (even if separately).

    As per the previous RM discussion, I am quite ready to accept Pedro for Portuguese Kings. It is readily used. Today’s listing at the name article, Pedro speaks to the modern trend to use Pedro as an English name. The trend just needs to be substantiated in reliable sources.

    As for the guideline Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Sovereigns, it is already full of exceptions, and one more won’t hurt. It does not feel at all unpalatable to accept a variation for the lusophones, given the standard usage at Brazil. This may lead to subsequent similar discussions for the old (pre-Spanish) kings of Spain, and that is fine, as long as it is based on usage in reputable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about appeasing lusophones or playing nationality cards. It is about WP policy and what is good for Wikipedia. There are lusophones here who oppose this move. Walrasiad (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by not specialist. Histories of Portugal are specialist - they refer only to Portugal, their topic is confined to it. And most of the ones you give that I could verify predictably nativize all kings, like all recent specialist books (except Birmingham, who allows John to remain John, and I can't verify the first) (P.S. moreover two you chose are written by non-native English speakers, always a case for wariness). Generalist works are works that are not confined to the topic of Portugal, but are generic and make reference to these figures - Encyclopedias being the prime example. If you want to go beyond that into histories, then pick generalist histories not confined to Portugal, e.g. a general history of Europe. Walrasiad (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its worth reminding what WP policy state. WP:SOVEREIGN

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.

A history of Portugal is not a "work of general reference". Something like this would be. Walrasiad (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give input again on the guidelines/procedure, I believe Walrasiad is wrong here--"a work of general reference" is the term used on WP to refer to things written for a "general" audience--i.e., non-specialists. It's designed to clarify, for example, that drugs are usually named after the name used by normal people, not after the names that chemists call them. I don't know if the references above meet the "for the general public" criteria, but I know that the criteria is not about the breadth of topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the criteria given for SOVEREIGN names, not drug names. A glance at the archives of WP: SOVEREIGN, it is seems evident it does mean "It's what Britannica says." Pedro I of Brazil became Pedro I of Brazil because its what Britannica says. Not all drugs may be found in "works of general reference" and must go beyond it routinely. But sovereigns are. Maybe clarification should be sought there? At any rate, even the wider criteria given for geography (which you seem to prefer rather than sovereign), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely accepted name puts it pretty baldly that usage in Encyclopedias is decisive:
1.Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name.
And that is the case here.
A history of a country, or a biography on any person in it, is specialist by definition, as it is addressing an audience that is already expecting and prepared for the nomenclature and spellings of that country's language. There is no "surprise" finding "Jeanne d'Arc" (rather than Joan of Arc) in any book on French history, no matter the level, but it would be a surprise outside of it. A book on, say, German or Italian history which makes reference to her would be several times more indicative of what "general usage" is than an entire library of French history books.
Wikipedia is a general reference encyclopedia, not a website on Portuguese history. There is no expectation that only people interested in Portuguese history will be reading it, whereas only people interested in Portuguese history would read a book on the history of Portugal. Let me reiterate that the name used in the article here are will be referred to in a myriad of other Wikipedia articles - Scottish wars, shipwrecks, horse breeds, wigs, insurance companies, etc. - which patently cannot be characterized as being part of the history of Portugal, and where there is no expectation of Portuguese nomenclature. Walrasiad (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encarta gives "Pedro I" and "Pedro II". (There is no listing for either III or IV.) Like Cambridge, they give "John", not João. We should be in the style of a general reference, but I see no reason why we can't update Britannica in cases where they have failed to keep up with changes in usage. The revision by Cambridge suggests that there has been such a change. Kauffner (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Wasn't able to find Encarta, but I'll trust you. So that leaves it unclear. Not sure what Cambridge text you mean - surely not the specialist Portugal article written by a Portuguese historian? How about a more general history, like, oh, Cambridge Early Modern Europe, 1450-1789 (2009), a standard generic textbook for the undergraduate market. That goes with Peter II. Even recent highly specialized books that you'd expect to go with Pedro actually go with Peter, e.g. Comparative history of Literatures in the Iberian Peninsula (2010).
Unfortunately, these Portuguese kings are too minor for most other such general European works, but if it is any indication, generic works such as the Oxford History of Medieval Europe, Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe, Penguin History of Europe in the High Middle Ages, give the Castilian & Aragonese Peters as "Peter", not Pedro. So I'm not sure why you are so convinced that common usage has changed, that Britannica is an exception, and that there is a preponderance of Pedros elsewhere. I don't see it.
Best we can say is the results are unclear. And unclear, by WP:SOVEREIGN means it remains Peter. Which I think is the correct choice when considering the other more utilitarian arguments, esp. horizontal consistency and stability. The "updating" criteria you're proposing, on the basis of very recent specialist sources, without clear evidence of preponderance in general usage, is essentially discarding WP:SOVEREIGN - again, a proposal to change policy. WP naming policy is strict for a reason. Keep in mind what a race for "updating" all Medieval monarchs would cause (given you've accepted the principle of "updating" without preponderance, what arguments would you have to stop that from happening? That Joao "doesn't sound" right, but Pedro does? That's pretty weak. Having cut down the tree, you'd have nothing to hide behind (youtube) And now let's get all nations doing it (Portugal ain't special). It would fracture Wikipedia, bewilder general audiences, discourage non-native editors, and prospectively turn entire national areas into walled gardens for small cliques of editors, balkanizing Wikipedia. Wikipedia naming policy is strict precisely to prevent that. And I think it should be complied with.
I might be more sympathetic if a broader consensus, with other Wikipedia editors, in an appropriate forum, could be found for discussing all contemporaneous Peters - Portugal, Castile, Aragon, Sicily, etc. - not merely RMs, but carefully wide RfCs, with invitations for comment at all relevant project pages, including a notification at SOVEREIGN, that it is consciously going against policy and common usage. I'd probably still oppose it, but I'd be more understanding. But anything less is I think out of the question. There is simply no case here for discarding policy and ramming through Portuguese exceptionalism. Walrasiad (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Based on my personal experience with books regarding the history of Portugal and also by the overwhelming use of Pedro instead of Peter in all sorts of modern sources (see Kauffner and In ictu oculi above for sources). Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where you get that idea from even the nominator In ictu oculi says its "not overwhelming" so really we should be following guidelines (WP:SOVEREIGN) and use the "conventional anglicized form" as there is no where near enough evidence that Pedro is much more common than Peter. - dwc lr (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@dwc lr, Actually I may have been wrong, since I'm no expert (or even that interested) in royalty, (i) I only said that based on Walrasiad's searches which may have understated the case. A look at this GoogleBooks Ngram for "Pedro/Peter of Portugal" 1980-2008, suggests that usage while still not a total avalance/landslide is pretty strong. Also (ii) WP:SOVEREIGN doesn't say that, and (iii) even if it did WP:SOVEREIGN is edited by a narrower pool of editors than this RM. As User:Brer Rabbit pointed out MOS/guideline pages can easily be at odds with both sources and the consensus of content-provider-editor activity. A case in point is this editing out of Polish editor Prokonsul Piotrus' statement on use of European accents on WP:EN by a couple of WP:EN editors with the result that WP:EN now contradicts where 100% of Polish article titles are. Who is right, the editors who contribute Polish articles, or the WP:EN regular editors who disagree? Although that isn't an issue here, since WP:SOVEREIGN supports "Pedro III" pers sources, not just "Pedro of Portugal" per the Ngram. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not to you, since you are clearly not familiar with the subject. Anyway, this is my opinion, you and your buddies can keep writing your long and useless counterarguments, I have better things to do. The first move request had to be respected, this whole thing is BS and very disappointing. Paulista01 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move all and have done with this nonsense. These people were born (or christened) Pedro. Recent historians writing in English, as well as oh, just about everybody else writing in Portuguese or Spanish refer to them as Pedro, not Peter, Pete, Petey, Peadar, P–doggy Dogg or anything else. Because that is their name. pablo 20:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: A generic ngram? Who is "Pedro of Portugal"? A fashion model? This is not a good use of time. A wise man recently told me that in order to establish that an accentless spelling exists as an English exonym, you need to provide reliable-for-statement-being-made sources which can show accents for other words, but don't for this one. I expected much the same criteria would be applied here, and that to establish that "Pedro I/II/III" is indeed the English common usage term for these Portuguese monarchs, then you need to provide sources which show these three kings spelled this way, but which don't nativize spellings for other monarchs (i.e. no Pere, Joao, Enrique, etc.) That would be a better use of your time.
So far, the bulk of the sources that has been provided that use Pedro I/II/III are specialist sources that nativize all kings, not just these three. That is not establishing that Peters are English common usage, but sidestepping the criteria altogether, and surreptitiously and simultaneously proposing that all monarch names should be nativized in Wikipedia - a valid proposition, which deserves a broader discussion, but not what we are here to determine.
In Wikipedia, almost all monarchs of Medieval and Early Modern ages, of any country, are anglicized, with exceptions only for a few preponderant cases (e.g. Alfonsos of Spain, Ivans of Russia), which is the result that is yielded by the criteria set out in WP:SOVEREIGN. This RM was introduced on that argument that the Peters of Portugal are also exceptions, in the same manner as the Ivans and Afonsos. To establish that, you need to provide generalist sources that demonstrate this exceptionality is preponderant, sources that are not dedicated/specialist and use Pedro I/II/III but do not nativize other monarch names.
So far, I have only seen a couple of sources provided - unfortunately, they were dedicated or specialist histories of Portugal, not general histories, and counterexamples were provided from generalist histories where Peters are used. In general reference encyclopedias, Encarta was an example, but Britannica and Columbia are counterexamples. At best, it is unclear, so by WP: SOVEREIGN, it remains Peter. The case for Portuguese exceptionality, for the preponderance of Pedros for these kings in general usage, simply has not been made.
I would beg proponents of the move to try to prove this case, and not waste their efforts on changing the question, demanding Wikipedia should nativize all kings or discarding the generalist criteria set out in WP:SOVEREIGN. Walrasiad (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, by WP:SOVEREIGN it does not remain Peter please stop saying that, you are misreading "general" as Qwyrixan already pointed out. Anyone can run that ngram ("Pedro of Portugal" is primarily Pedro I, but catches others, Infantes and so on) substituting "I" "II" "III". In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi, one more thing: on consensus of content-providers. While consensus is important, Wikipedia is not created to service content-providers, but to service the general audience. These are our clients, we are merely producers. What our clients expect is more important than what producers think they should have. Wikipedia is not here to provide webspace for producers to build monuments of their own design, the Wiki Foundation is a not a Renaissance patron supplying atelier space for artists. It is easy for producers, immersed in their raw material, to forget their clients' needs and expectations. That's why we have guidelines, that is why outside editors are important - to keep us in check and remind us.
That said, we are far from the producer-consensus you are suggesting. I am probably the major content-provider for Portuguese history articles in Wikipedia, particularly in Medieval and Early Modern history, the eras to which these kings belong. And, in case you haven't noticed, I oppose this move. Walrasiad (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"So far, the bulk of the sources that has been provided that use Pedro I/II/III are specialist sources that nativize all kings, not just these three." Walrasiad, you are either putting in doubt our good faith in our claims or you are simply lying. I'm warning you: do not go that way. In Roderick J. Barman's "Citizen Emperor", we can see in the genealogical chart given names such as "Pedro II of Portugal, Pedro III of Portugal" as well as "Philip V of Spain" (not "Felipe V"), "Charles VI of the Holy Roman Empire" (not Karl VI"), "Francis I of the Holy Roman Empire" (not "Franz I"), etc...[12]. In James McMurtry Longo's "Isabel Orleans-Bragança: The Brazilian Princess who Freed the Slaves" we have names such as "Pedro II", "Pedro III", "Pedro V", "João VI" (all "of Portugal") as well as "Maximilian of Mexico" (not "Maximiliano"), "Charles III of Spain" (not "Carlos III"), "Ferdinand I of Spain" (not "Fernando I"), etc...[13]. This is just two of the sources given. Do not claim that we have shown sources that "nativize all kings". Do not accuse us in vain. --Lecen (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Warning"? Please maintain a civil tone. You sources are specialized biographies of 19th C./20th C. Brazilians. And your sources predictably DO nativize all Portuguese kings - Joao, etc. Not sure why you expect the "nativization" of Philip II (who ruled in England & Flanders), Philip V (who was French), Charles III (who ruled in Italy) & Maximilian (who was German) would necessarily be Spanish? In any case, your samples are not showing exceptionalism for Peters, but exceptionalism for all Portuguese kings. I know we are long allied to England, but what could give all Portuguese kings such an exceptional privileged place in an English text? Answer: specialization. Your sample is a good illustration of the problem pointed out earlier: that the interested reading audience of a specialized, dedicated Brazilian text is expecting Portuguese nomenclature and spellings, but not Spanish, Italian nor German (consequently anglicized). You need to prove the reverse, the appearance of Portuguese nomenclature when not expected. Try coming up with something more generalist. It is probably helpful to also move away from 19th C. to sources which actually deal with the kings in question, i.e. Medieval & Early Modern, for that is where the consistency concerns lie. It'd be more helpful. Walrasiad (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jocelyn Hillgarth's The Spanish Kingdoms, 1250–1516 (2 vols., Clarendon, 1976–78) uses Pedro for the Portuguese kings. It also uses Pere for Aragonese kings, as well as Enrique and Fernando. In other words, it nativises (and modernises) all Spanish king's names. In the entry for "Portugal" in OUP's Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages there is a reference to "King Peter I". However, in Dynasties of the World (OUP, 2002) the Portuguese table uses Afonso, Sancho, Pedro, Denis, Ferdinand, John, Sebastian, Henry, Duarte, Manuel, Joseph, Maria, Miguel, Luís and Carlos. I have no idea what the reasons are for this inconsistency. Thomas Bisson, in The Medieval Crown of Aragon, uses Pere, Peter and Pedro in accordance with a rule of his own devising, but he doesn't mention any Portuguese Peter. There is no use going to sources such as these. We must devise our own rule that best suits our own purposes. I think it is best if the Aragonese, Castilian and Portuguese kings who all had the same name be given the same name. Srnec (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, it is now 11 support, 6 oppose. I point this out to show that despite the volume of text (and repetition) generated results are fairly consistent with last time. I suggest give it a rest and let it run the remaining days in case any new faces turn up. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Refimprove

[edit]

"changing to refimprove is fine (which I've done), but the template has to stay at the top" (user:Qwyrxian) why does it have to stay at the top? and givent that bibliography is confusing why not change the section headings in the appendix to the standard ones? -- PBS (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because maintenance templates that refer to the entire article always stay at the top. The point behind this template is 1) to tell readers "Hey! this article needs help! Help us if you can!" and 2) to tell readers, "Hey! We aren't so sure of the quality of this article, because there's really only 1 source, and that's not so good, so be careful about trusting this info." Putting them at the bottom hides them, thus defeating both purposes. And here's another way of looking at it: the lack of references isn't a problem for the reference section--it's a problem for the text, because the text is based on only a single reference, which is not a good way to have a WP page. The reference "section" itself is fine.
As for the titles of the sections, I put them back the way you preferred them; on that, I have no opinion, and interested editors can discuss if they disagree. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus (and never has been) that this template (and some others) should always be at the top: see the documentation for {{refimprove}} There is currently no consensus on where in the article to place this template. See also the documentation {{unreferenced}} This template can either be placed at the top of an article, at the bottom of the article page (in an empty "References" or "Notes" section—usually just before a {{Reflist}} template), or on the article's talk page. Likewise templates such as {{Uncategorized}} usually goes at the bottom. -- PBS (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's interesting, since I've never once (as far as I can remember) seen it at the bottom. And if I ever did, I would make exactly the same argument I made above: putting it at the bottom makes it worse than useless. In fact, if you put it at the bottom, then the only solution will be to apply a large number of other tags throughout the article. We must notify the reader prominently that even by our own standards this article is lacking. Don't we want the problems fixed? And how do you overcome my other argument--that the problem isn't with the references section, but with the text itself? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just as with categories the argument put forward in {{Uncategorized}}, people familiar with the usual layout of Wikipedia articles will look for a reference section at the bottom. Putting the {{unreferenced}} template in a WP:FNNR section also gets around the problem of having an what appears to be an empty section (even if it contains a {{reflist}} template) and informs an inexperienced editor where references should be displayed. -- PBS (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New RM

[edit]

The first RM was 12 to 4 in favour of the move, the second was 11 to 6 in favour, is it not time for a new RM? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Let's not beat a dead horse, any further. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_III_of_Portugal&oldid=1209726801"