This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to thePedro II of Brazil article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (center,color,defense,realize,traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofBrazil andrelated topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, pleasejoin the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofphotography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography
This article is part of theHistory of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize thehistory of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion. You can also help with theHistory of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
I'm quite concerned about the neutrality of the article. It feels as though this article treats Pedro II as a saint throughout it. I have simply never seen an article that glorified an individual to such an extreme extent than this one. Though, considering that this is an FA I'm hesitant to put a neutrality concern tag on the top of this article as i don't want to seem hasty which is why I've made this section instead. Maybe I'm wrong about my judgement. Who knows.Onegreatjoke (talk)00:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that virtually everyone who has read this article was left with the same impression. Judging by this, @Onegreatjoke, it is very unlikely that your judgement is groundless.Surtsicna (talk)13:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Historiography, at least in Brazil, does view Pedro II favorably, but that’s (I imagine) because the Empire was overthrown to make way for authoritarian regimes. I’ll remove the tag.~2025-37982-49 (talk)15:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you think the article is biased, please be more direct and point out which sources were distorted or which were completely ignored in it. Otherwise, it sounds like the kind of thing someone unfamiliar with the history would say.~2025-37982-49 (talk)15:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editors who wrote this article did so with an evident passion, and for that I commend them. The article is impressively engaging, but if so many other editors are left with the impression of bias and if every year we have to have this discussion, then is it not likely thatsomething is off?
Pedro II was seen nationwide as a legitimate source of authority, whose position placed him above partisanship and petty disputes. He was, however, still no more than a boy, and a shy, insecure, and immature one. His nature resulted from his broken childhood, when he experienced abandonment, intrigue, and betrayal.
I have no doubt that this is all factual and verifiable, but the writing clearly strives to elicit in the reader a sympathy for Pedro.
By then Pedro II had matured physically and mentally. He grew into a man who, at 1.90 meters (6 ft 3 in) tall with blue eyes and blond hair, was seen as handsome. With growth, his weaknesses faded and his strengths of character came to the fore. He became self-assured and learned to be not only impartial and diligent, but also courteous, patient and personable.
The impression of idolization one gets from reading this would be at least reduced if we were to drop the "with growth" sentence.
Pedro II was hard-working and his routine was demanding. He usually woke up at 7:00 and did not sleep before 2:00 in the morning. His entire day was devoted to the affairs of state and the meager free time available was spent reading and studying.
Again, not a question of facts, but of presentation: the content appears designed to hammer into the reader just how dilligent Pedro was. He was hard workingand he had a demanding routineand he spent his entire day workingand he only had little free time.
"I was born to devote myself to culture and sciences," the Emperor remarked in his private journal during 1862. He had always been eager to learn and found in books a refuge from the demands of his position.
This is the fourth time in the article that we are told just how learned Pedro was and how he sought refuge in books from his hard, hard emperorly life. One cannot escape the conclusion that the most pitiable man in 19th-century Brazil–a country where over a million people were literal slaves and almost all the rest lived in rural poverty–was the emperor himself.
In one of the cited sources I am reviewing, I see potential character faults that I am unable to find in this article. Barman quotes a close associate of the emperor as saying that the latter "always had the odor of a king. He thought that he was made of a different metal and superior to other people." Barman in his own voice describes him as "remarkably self-centered" and stubborn. The inclusion of these and a mere reduction of repetition would make it that much less likely that we need to discuss the article's neutrality on a regular basis.Surtsicna (talk)17:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've generally retired from editing here, I don't have much stomach for engaging in this sort of endless disputation. I will repeat, however: Issues of neutrality were discussed at the time this article was nominated for FA status and resolved. That it has been raised since is irrelevant. Most of the subsequent objections turned out to be with the "tone" of the article lead, which does sum up the article accurately. That is not the place to "tone down" the consensus of historians which is reflected in the body of the article. Pedro II is unanimously regarded in favorable, even glowing, terms by every well-regarded scholarly source of which I'm aware. That was also the conclusion of uninvolved editors who bothered to look at sources and/or consult with academics who are familiar with the subject. While Wikipedia requires that editors abstain from inserting their own voice and POV, it also requires that articles reflect the sources used. The article does that, and unless reliable sources are introduced that paint Pedro II in a much more negative light, then changing the language to reflect any editor's conception of neutrality is unwarranted. • Astynaxtalk20:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tag disputing the article's neutrality should be removed. No valid sources have been cited in initially placing it on a FA-level article. Instead, this only appears to be based upon editor opinion. Try this with other FA that have more watches and you would not have gotten so far. • Astynaxtalk20:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Astynax, this is an endless dispute. Editors continuously come here to complain about this. Should that alone not be a sign thatsomething is off? Is it really likely that all these people are deceived by their own eyes? Mind you, nobody is disputing the veracity of the content. Nobody is disputing that Pedro was a remarkable man. The problem has been illustrated by four specific example. Can we not address the issue and solve it here together, or do you really prefer to have this dispute pop up time and time again? The alternative option is to hold arequest for comment to get more attention or even aFA review.Surtsicna (talk)21:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've long been aware of those essays, and if the "value judgements" do not reflect the assessment of the cited source(s), then they should definitely be reworded. That's not what I can see being disputed here, as the article does indeed reflect what are in fact broadly viewpoints held among the cited academic sources, but which seem to be misinterpreted as editor bias. In addition, the article does also include criticisms leveled by those same academic sources. • Astynaxtalk21:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with changing or flagging specific instances within the article body. The objections being raised in this latest resurrection of charges of POV, however, seem more to do with style than article neutrality. Based on that and that this has repeatedly been raised with the consensus that the article does indeed accurately reflect the cited sources, I'm going to remove the POV tag. If there are specific sentences/paragraphs in which the language does not accurately reflect the source(s) cited, then I encourage tagging those instances rather than casting doubt upon an entire FA article. If there is other, perhaps more recent, academic research offering alternative perspectives on a portion of the article, then by all means add those the existing passage. If one believes the entire article to be irretrievably biased, then perhaps asking for a FA reassessment would be a better option. • Astynaxtalk21:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is ratedFA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
.svg)
.svg)
