Talk:John III of Portugal

message: We need to stop the "English monopoly" of featured articles regarding kings.
Let this article be one of them.
The article was lamely translated from Portuguese and help correcting it is needed.
Help from Portuguese speaking and English speaking wikipedians is needed also for correcting facts, adding info, adding images, maps, etc
List of improvements needed:
* :Image:Lisbon 16thcentury.jpg, :Image:Portuguese flag 1495.gif, :Image:Portuguese elm.jpg, :Image:Macau oldmap.jpg have no copyright information.
* There are no references besides the 1911 Britannica.
* Too many language problems to be ready for FAC. It needs a good copyedit, preferably by someone reasonably proficient in Portuguese, as there are a number of sentences that are hard to understand 
* The paragraphs are too short throughout and need merging.
* Linking needs to address the readers' information.
* Non-standard use of italics. removed italic in quotation. more missing?
* Ensure the first three paragraphs are a good summary
* This is supposed to be a biography, yet the entire 'The_Empire' section looks like it should be moved to History of Portugal. So I propose the not to be moved but be integrated in the spirit of the article, as a characterization of John's reign.
* Center the quotes in this article to a standard quote format.
* Some links are missing - better red then none. From first few paras, I'd like to read on: Maria of Aragon, Portuguese theatre, Tomás de Torres, D. Diogo Ortiz de Villegas, Luís Teixeira, Isabella, princess of Portugal, Catherine of Austria...
* Monarch infobox
* Change the king's box at the end to the one used in Afonso I of Portugal.
* Enlarge Culture, International relations and Problems of the Empire
* More links using See also in the middle of the text.
* Drastically enlarge the king's life. Impossible to say more...
* Get more pictures
* Create and improve links related to the king (wife, issue, close people, enemies and events)
* Add a chronology or a timeline.
* Add external links.
* Add a map of the Portuguese Empire at its peak.--Gameiro 02:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: PLEASE HELP

message: Translated article usually have the following reference:
*This article draws heavily on the corresponding article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia, which was accessed in the version of xxx, 200x.
--Fenice 06:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention translation as reference

message: The second sentence of the second paragraph indicates "During his rule Asian possessions in Portuguese hands were extended by further conquest and systematic colonization of Brazil."  I don't think Brazil counts as an "Asian possession".  I don't know much about the topic, so I haven't changed the sentence, but I think you're trying to say "During his rule Asian possessions in Portugese hands were extended by further conquest, and Brazil was colonized systematically."  Actually, that version isn't very good, so you might want "John III oversaw the extension of Portugal's Asian possessions by continuing conquest, and the systemic colonization of South American holdings in Brazil."  Have fun,  -- Creidieki 03:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q:Brazil as Asian possession? 

message: I don't think we need two different templates for his children and life. We need to merge both templates. --Pedro 10:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why there are two different templates

message: Note: I do not speak Portugese, I have no knowledge of John III and little knowledge of Portugese history. My comments are simply based on reading the article critically.
Typically I would make direct edits or more specific suggestions, but I am not familiar with the subject, therefore I offer suggestions and ask questions which I hope are helpful.
------
"It was also during John's reign that Portuguese contacts with Ming-dynasty China and Muromachi-period Japan (Nanban) were established."
for 
"It was also during John's reign that the Portuguese first contacted Ming-dynasty China and Muromachi-period Japan (Nanban)."
More active.
----
Regarding: "John III was responsible for the evangelization of the Far East and Brazil, partly through the introduction of the Jesuit missions."
The assumption is that "evangelization" refers to the introduction of Roman Catholic Christianity to the Far East and Brazil. The implication is that there was little to no evangelization or extant Christianity prior to John III's efforts and that it was his sole initiative to set up Jesuit missions there. Is that the case? Wether it is the case or no, this could be written more directly.
Related to the entire paragraph: "John III was responsible for the evangelization of the Far East and Brazil, partly through the introduction of the Jesuit missions. However, the Portuguese Inquisition was introduced in 1536, having disastrous effects on the commercial prosperity and social stability of the Empire. In the later years of John III's reign, Portugal fell into the stagnation that characterized the rule of King Sebastian, who succeeded him when John died of apoplexy in 1577."
The second sentance implies that there was a connection between John III's evangelization efforts and the Inquisition, the outcome of which was commercial and social instability in Portugal which affected China and Brazil. Is that the case?
Another implication of this paragraph is that "evangelization led to Inquistion led to instability led to stagnation which carried on into the reign of John III's successor". If these events are not related in this way they should be in separate paragraphs. If these events are interrelated then the paragraph needs to be rewritten to state that case clearly.
--------
'General Comments on the Introduction'
I look to a biographical introduction to provide several things: common names by which the figure is known, when the person lived, where they lived, significant actions, events and effects credited to the individual -- their "place in history" in a nutshell.
Typically I read the introduction to understand if this is the person I want to know more about or to see if there is anything that piques my interest. I find with this introduction that I am moved to read on because I'm rather confused by the "actions, events ..." which look rather tangled. 
I think this needs to be written less ambiguously. Normally I would take a stab at it, but I am completely unfamiliar with the facts of John III's life and while my prose might read more clearly I'm not sure it would be factual.
Best of luck.
Erraunt 21:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for the Introduction to the Article 

message: There are still many small errors of fact and interpretation in this article that need to be removed or corrected. In correcting the dynastic crisis section the image got lost or at least it no longer comes up when the final result is accessed. Someone who knows how should get this straightened out. There was no dynastic crisis during John's reign. That came only after Sebastian became king and failed to produce any offspring. See his entry for more information. The early Brazil material has also been corrected, more or less. The previous presentation was flawed. The whole article appears to have been done by people who can't read Portuguese or who, if they can, are not aware of the latest research. Someone who can read Portuguese should get the Paulo Braga biography and use it to correct the whole article. Make it accurate and up-to-date, something that it is not now.
The statement that the head of the Inquisition always came from the royal family is DEAD WRONG and a good example of the ignorant writers here who don't know what they are talking about. I will let the author of this howler correct it himself. There are others of the sort in the article.
Whoever wrote that Prince Joao, father of Sebastian, died of tuberculosis hasn't a clue. He died of juvenile (type I)diabetes.
Sebastian was born on January 20th, 1554, the day of St. Sebastian, hence his name. See recent bio by Maria Augusta Lima Cruz.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.127.184 (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  still many errors in article 

message: The Portuguese empire did not decline under João III. If the revenues from Asia declined those from Brazil were rising. In fact at his death Brazil was just beginning its sugar industry, an economic boom that created enormous wealth in Brazil. The nonsense about the decline needs to be removed.
:Manuel I is normally called the peak of Portuguese power, and thus the reign of John III must be one of "decline".  This would be a perspective which I would guess is mostly found in older works, and generalist ones. john k 13:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  decline nonsense 

message: This section is not directly related to John III. It's about Portugal and Portuguese colonies and this article should focus on John III's life. He is barely mentioned in the whole section. I propose removal of the entire section or incorporating that text into History of Portugal. Surtsicna (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Portuguese Empire under John III" 

message: 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) 03:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  John/João Discussion 

message: I can't find an English language source for the claim introduced in rev836879313 that John III is nicknamed "o Colonizador".  In particular, the Portuguese version of this article renders his nickname as "o Piedoso" (English: The Pious), not "o Colonizador".  Can someone with subject matter knowledge fact-check this addition and consider introducing a source for those interested in the usage of this nickname? Suriname0 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can't find English source either.  But I do see the "O Colonizador" is used in some Brazilian publications in the 20th C.  But in Portuguese publications he is consistently "O Piedoso", and has been for longer.  I guess it merely reflects how the two different nations have chosen to remember him.  Found one publication calling him "the Hypocrite". ;)  Walrasiad (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname