Talk:Edward, King of Portugal

message: Does anyone else share my disquiet at referring to this Portuguese King, who was referred to in his realm and lifetime and in all Portuguese literature by his Portuguese name, "Duarte", by the English equivalent, "Edward"? This looks like an anglophone/anglocentric attempt to draw attention to the fact that he was half-Plantagenet and descended from Edward III of England. in fact both "Edward" and "Duarte" occur in different parts of the article. I suggest this article should be "Duarte of Portugal", and "Edward of Portugal" should redirect to it.Cenedi (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Duarte is the modern Portuguese version of his name; it is entirely possible that the name was spelled differently during his lifetime and more than likely that he officially used its Latin version (Eduardus). His nationality and ethnicity are completely irrelevant. The fact that his mother was an English princess has nothing to do with the anglicisation of his name. The names of kings and emperors have been anglicised through history, which is why we have Henry IV of France, John II of Castile, Elizabeth of Russia, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and Edward of Portugal. Protesting against the title by saying that he was Portuguese is like protesting against the title of the article about Lisbon by saying that it's a Portuguese city. If Lisbon is called Lisbon in English, then that's what English language Wikipedia should call it; same for King Edward. Surtsicna (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, for the record, he was named Duarte by his parents precisely to draw attention to his Plantagenet roots.  It is not a name that existed in Portugal before that.  That said, no it doesn't trouble me at all.  He is commonly referred to as 'Edward' in English language sources. And his father was John (not Joao) and his brother was Henry (not Henrique).  Just as, conversely, in Portuguese language sources, the English queen Elizabeth is "Isabel" and not "Elizabeth". Walrasiad (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So we should be calling the first king of Portugal Alphonse Henry?Cenedi (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If that were how English language sources call him - yes. But English language sources tend to use A(l)fonso instead of Alphonse. That's what "English" means - the name used by English language sources. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward or Duarte? 

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Coat of Arms of the House of Aviz.png Nominated for Deletion

message: I restored the confirmed portrait of Edward in the lede, and moved the possible, but dubious, image from the Saint Vincent Panels further down, with an explanatory note.  The latter is not a confirmed portrait of Edward - it is speculatively proposed by some art historians, but vigorously disputed by others.  Indeed, it is quite frequently identified as a portrait of Afonso V of Portugal, not Edward. As the identification of the person represented in the Saint Vicent panels is uncertain and very contested, I don't think it ought to be placed in the lede spot, but relegated further down as a mere possibility. Walrasiad (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't notice this. As I explained in the edit summary: The National Museum of Ancient Art's official guide, and display at the museum, state that that image is of King Duarte I. The Museum is one of the most important in the country, the leading expert institution in Portuguese ancient art, and an incredibly credible source. As you'll notice, I put a footnote that tells of how some others claim it not to be Duarte. This being said, the fact that the painting is unique and a better image is good enought to be the lead. It has a museum backing it up and the footnote will tell of any confusion. The other painting is of a series of paintings, all incredibly posthumous, that are all monotonous in there style, lacking and real uniquity to the portrait, which the st. vincent panel image has. Thank you very much, cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I will make my arguement again tomorrow, as I am going to retire right now. I say this just so you know that I'm not leaving the discussion. Thank you very much, cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Look forward to hearing from you.  Just don't go disappearing.  I worry.  (Remember: controversy over the St. Vincent panels can be quite passionate - it even led to the suicide of the famous researcher Henrique Loureiro.) Walrasiad (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait of Edward 

message: his marriage year listed with reference 3 just above his list of children is after his and his wife's deaths and so impossible. 173.22.17.198 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  marriage date