Talk:John II of Portugal

Acclamation or Coronation?

This is in response to recent edits by User:Walrasiad. Pay attention to pages 179-180 about information regarding the Roman Pontifical of Braga and Coimbra dioceses from 12th and 13th centuries (why bother including a coronation rite if it's never performed?): https://repositorio.ucp.pt/bitstream/10400.14/17362/1/V02402-173-194.pdf The entire Latin ceremony is described from page 185 onwards. Pay attention to section 14 (pages 189-190). The metropolitan bishop alone crowns the King's head, intoning the words: "Accipe coronam regni..."

Here's also a video of a professor from the University of Coimbra discussing the Coronation of Sebastian of Portugal: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MG0dcJ9ZiOg

Untitled

Here's an interesting quote from: "John II." Encyclopedia of World Biography Supplement, Vol. 21. Gale Group, 2001. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Thomson Gale. 2006.

"John left a legacy as a benevolent ruler. He took in Jewish refugees from Spain's famous 1492 expulsion, and founded what was the most modern medical facility in the world at the time, All Saints Hospital in Lisbon in 1492. In 1498, his widow Leonor founded a charity to aid the poor and cure the sick, the Brotherhood of Our Lady of Mercy, also known as Misericordia. As a testimony to his influence, it was John's Castilian foes who nicknamed him El Principe Perfecto, or the Perfect Prince."

Should some of this information be added to the article? Dawn22 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Colombus and Portugal's true discoveries

The three paragraphs about the possible role of Colombus and whether Portugal found the Americas before Spain has absolutely no sources despite the text speaking about "recent proof". Gdo01 00:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually this ins't recent proof, it's old proof. Proof and indications that portugal reached the americas before spain exist, from the exportation and records of products that only exist in the americas, to even the routes of the voyages that pass right next to the shore of brazil. Second, it's John II's position concerning the tordesilhas treaty, this behaviour of his in further pushing the lines was because he knew the existance of the americas. The consensus of modern historians, both portuguese and foreign is that the during the reign of John II brazil had already been discovered and there where colonies in terra nova and terra do labrador. Heck, even in Discovery channel they asked a famous german researcher and a computer scientist to determine if portugal had discovered the americas before and in the end their conclusions were of at least 1484 or earlier. Direct records don't exist, yet indication and small direct proof exists. A know(recorded) fact was that the portuguese were alrady exporting red peper and other resources from brazil in the 80's and they then headed to the island in the coast of Africa where those products where finally registered and recorded in documents and the reason for this was to trick and confuse and give the idea that these resources came from africa. Third, there was an extreme secrecy policy during the reign of John II(and also before), there was even a time when the schoolar cousil wanted all foreigner to leave Lisbon for a year but John II suggested that a super intense policy of desinformation was created. You ask me where are the records? I tell you, all records where in the house of india and overseas house, these houses were destroyed during the 1755 earthquake and then the following fire destroyed all secret documents.

This is the consensus of modern historians, both portuguese(who have the best access to sources) and foreign.

This article does not say brazil and the other lands were discovered before the know official records, but gives attention to this consensus.

Thorius Maximus 21:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I spent about 45 minutes combing the internet for even a mention of a controversy or theories about when Brazil was discovered. I found one website saying "caution must be exercised when one encounters the claims, frequently made by Portuguese writers, that the Corte-Reals were preceded in Newfoundland waters by their countrymen by several decades. There is no evidence that Europeans of any kind were present here before Cabot." http://www2.swgc.mun.ca/nfld_history/nfld_history_early_exploration.htm Then a bit later, I found a one actually making the claim (http://www.marcopolovoyages.com/Articles/BarnesArticle.html) but it does not seem particularly credible as the guy who wrote it is not a historian and has received no recognition.

Since this has been uncited for months and appears to be a fringe theory at best, I'm removing it. --Jieagles (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Could some native speaker correct the English of this article? Some sentences are so "Portuguese" that I doubt most English speakers can understand it. 213.22.86.134 18:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I went through the article today a made some small changes in the spelling (but not the spelling of names) and the flow in English as seemed best to me. Please look them over and see if they should remain. Thanks.JGC1010 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this all intensely dubious? Wouldn't there be some direct evidence of this, if it were true? Why would the Portuguese hide their discovery? Please provide some sources on this subject, instead of vague references to supposed consensus, or it ought to be removed. john k (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding new infomartion and restructuring a bit the article

This article needs to be updated and there is both some incorrect detail in it as well as important missing detail that needs to be mentioned. New sources(books) will be mentioned but not quotes.

I suggest that any changes amde be then better organized to improve the article's structure.

Thorius Maximus 07:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

John/João Discussion

An RfC/RM discussion has opened up on the talk page Talk:João VI of Portugal#RfC, about the spelling of the article title for King John/João VI, which will probably be relevant to this article. Should the name be spelled in Portuguese or in English? Please give your comments and opinions over there. Walrasiad (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of the House of Aviz.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Coat of Arms of the House of Aviz.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Coat of Arms of the House of Aviz.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Portrait of John II of Portugal.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

He is João II not "John II"- crucial to preserve the authenticity of their names in their original linguistic form

When discussing historical figures, particularly those as significant as King João II of Portugal, it's crucial to preserve the authenticity of their names in their original linguistic form. Translating "João II" to "John II" not only undermines the rich cultural and historical context that the original name conveys but also reflects a colonial Ethnocentric hegemonic practice that compromises the neutrality of the topic.

Names are not mere labels; they carry with them the essence of a person’s identity and the specific historical and cultural backdrop of their time. King João II was a pivotal figure in Portuguese history, known for his role in the Age of Discoveries and the consolidation of Portuguese power. His name, "João," is deeply rooted in Portuguese heritage and signifies his place within that cultural and historical framework. Translating it to "John" not only dilutes this connection but also risks misrepresenting the historical and cultural context in which he operated.

Moreover, translating historical names can lead to confusion and inaccuracies in academic and historical discourse. It perpetuates a colonial mindset that prioritizes the language and perspectives of dominant cultures over those of the regions they impacted. By retaining the original Portuguese name, we maintain consistency, respect for the historical record, and acknowledge the diverse cultural landscapes of our shared history.

In short, the practice of translating names like João II to John II does a disservice to the historical figure and the cultural context he represents. It reflects a broader, colonial Eurocentric practice that undermines the neutrality of historical discourse and diminishes the integrity of the historical scholarship. Preserving the original name honors the true nature of historical figures and respects the rich tapestry of Portugal’s past. Talencar (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, preserving names does not appear to be crucial at all on Portuguese Wikipedia, which you also edit. pt:Carlos III do Reino Unido, pt:Carlos XVI Gustavo da Suécia, pt:Henrique, Grão-Duque de Luxemburgo, etc. It is also doubtful that the authentic form is João since at the time the name was spelled Joan in Portugal. Surtsicna (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)