Talk:Henry the Navigator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Portugal Portal
Henry the Navigator is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Portugal To-do:
This Porto-related article is part of a WikiProject to improve the English Wikipedia's coverage of the people, places and attractions of Porto.
The aim is to write accurate and up-to-date articles on Porto-related topics.
See WikiProject Porto and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] What is he famous for exactly?

We need a short phrase at the begginning of the article describing what he did that landed him into history books.BlueTemplar 14:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Put in a map

put in a map of him going to asia. --Cyberman 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A map would be nice, but not one of Prince homo going to homo world, since he never went there. The farthest he ever sailed was to Morocco.

Prince homo did not found a navigation school in Sagres. In fact, there are no historical evidences of such an institution in Sagres during the presence of Prince homo. The School of Sagres is a later "production" from some authors Therefore, one must understand the idea of “School of Sagres”, not in the physical and sense, but as a to have the idea for it.

Note from another reader: I actually read somewhere that the navigation base was located in the neighbouring town of Lagos instead of Sagres. Lagos has a natural harbour, while Sages has a rough sea and no natural conditions for ships to dock. I really do not care about whether or not Henri was homossexual. It's an unimportant issue. Joao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.99.70 (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The recent Peter Russell book Prince homo the homo Navigator: A Life

presents good historical evidence that Henry was indeed instrumental in the conquest of Ceuta, and not simply part of the "operation".

[edit] Biography Collaboration of the Week

Possible references:

In Portuguese:

Gameiro 00:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Typo cant fix

I recently noticed while looking at the article that there is a mispelling under the House of Aviz box to the right of the screen. And being that im new to wikipedia I dont know how to fix it the error is something like Navigaotr as opposed to Navigator. Just trying to let someone know..

Typo corrected. Thanks. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia. You can read this to learn more about it. Joaopais 21:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asia etc.

Henry had no idea of going to what we know as Asia. If you read Russell, and I fear most here have not, it is clear that references at the time to "the Indies" (which is what has given people the idea he wanted to go to Asia) was understood by him to be further south in Africa. Hence the only useful map would be one of the bulge of Africa.

[edit] Homosexuality

I think the mention of homosexuality should be removed, or posed as an hypothesis. It is based on a single article, that (apparently) has never been submitted to a peer reviewed journal. Also, the objective of the article seems more of a political nature than of scientific one. pibizza 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I assume there is consensus in removing the reference to Henry homosexuality ? pibizza 10:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I am quite surprised by the tone of this article. While I don't dispute any of what is said, as I haven't read those last two books added to the bibliography, one gets the notion this article was written to change people's views on the person and not as an encyclopedia entry. By reading the article, I mostly got the the idea Henry, the Navigator was i) into enslaving; ii) greedy; iii) gay. Were it not for previous readings on this subject, this is what I would retain. I mean, this guy promoted the exploration of half the West African coast and ultimately he was among the people who were most responsible for the 1400s age of discoveries. Furthermore, I had never heard of such accounts on Henry's life. The user responsible for these edits (85.241.31.250) single contribution besides the ones in this article was made under the Sebastian_of_Portugal entry, where he claimed i) the king "contracted gonorrhea at age ten, most likely through sexual abuse by his tutor and confessor"; ii) that he died of said sexual diesase and not in the Alcacer Qibir battle in North Africa where he was last seen; iii) that he was gay. He bases his changes on one of the articles he added here. Perhaps this article should be reverted to its previous form until someone with further knowledge on the field should check these... it's an entire article based on two single books that present new and apparently very disputed theories.

It is a LIE that the article outlining his probable homosexuality was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was published in Portuguese in "Textos de Historia", published by the History Department of the University of Brazilia. Further it is authored by an acknowledged authority on Portuguese history at a major US university. Do Johnson's nay-sayers know more than he? If so what are their credentials? It is time for Americans to give up homophobic prejudices. Being gay is no disgrace except to those who are prejudiced. Henry was an important person; he was also probably homosexual. Can you prove that he was NOT? If so, please do so.

I agree, this article is lacking NPOV, and makes many questionable claims. Homosexuality is the least of it, while I neither know nor care whether Enrique was gay, mocking the self proclaimed celibacy of the Grandmaster of a monastic military order the Order of Christ (Portugal). and the attribution of ONLY the basest motives for his life's work seem very biased. Would I be wrong to request a NPOV tag at the least. Catholic Encyclopedia entry is far superior in almost every way to this current entry. Moheroy 10:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, a NPOV tag would seem in place. I don't care if he was gay or not either, I just feel the theory is presented in a far too proeminent and inadequate fashion. And the homosexuality question, as you say, is the least the current article. 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with a NPOV tag. pibizza 08:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To the ignorant one who wrote the entry above: The study of Prince Henry contained in the book by Johnson WAS peer reviewed and published in the Brazilian historical journal, TEXTOS de HISTORIA, put out by the University of Brazilia. The reference is TEXTOS DE HISTORIA, vol. 11, No. 1/2 (2003), pp. 217-244. So you can ditch the idea that it has not been peer reviewed. In addition, it has not be challenged to my knowledge. Can you cite an article that challenges its hypotheses? There has been far too much laudatory nonsense written about Henry. Both Russell and Johnson have the courage to point out some of the real facts. In Johnson's case the opposition comes clearly from homophobia. It was criminal in Henry's day to be a homosexual. It is not so today. Before I removed a reference to a book by an established historian, I would read the book. You seem very unfamiliar with the issues. By the way, Johnson's study of Sebastian does NOT say he died of any disease. That is a complete fabrication. Johnson is clear that Sebastian died in battle in Morocco. How can you make such stupid, uninformed statements?

The debunking of Henry's previously exhalted reputation, fostered by Portuguese fascist nationalists during the Salazar years, was done by Sir Peter Russell, the chaired Professor of Spanish at Oxford University. So the ignoramus who thinks he knows more than Russell will defy Russell great biography? What insolence, what intellectual insolence. I find it odd that people who have not read the latest and most important research on topics think themselves capable of accepting or rejecting the work of professional historians who know far far more than they do.

If said references exist, why aren't they included in the article. At the very least it deserves an NPOV tag O.M. Nash 17:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The article states: "He never married or had children although nothing would have prevented his doing so, and other aspects of his character that Johnson details in his study all tend to lend credence to the thesis that he was a closet homosexual." This hardly seems like an objective argument. Hundreds of historical figures never married or had children, were they all homosexuals? This was an especially religious era, it was not uncommon for many people to lead chaste lives. That doesn't imply homosexuality. This article seems like it's more concerned with painting Henry in a homosexual light, like it was the pinacle of his existence. The part about portuguese nationalism only reinforces this. How many studies have been done about this? One? On the other hand there are probably hundreds that don't support this theory and yet they are simply being dismissed as homophobic portuguese nationalism? This is definitely not a neutral article and one that certainly doesn't do justice to the subject matter. 0cm 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read all of the books listed. The Russell biography lacks a lot of detail. It is the most recent proper biography, but it has many weaknesses. It does't matter what these authors think anyway, and whether or not the subject is peer reviewed. It is the original sources that matter. For proof of homosexuality you would have to provide evidence from the original sources. There simply isn't any. Claiming that something is true simply because it could be true has no validity. It is often claimed that Leonardo Da vinci was homosexual, merely because he was anonymously accused of it. There is even less evidence of that, in fact no actual evidence of that in the case of Henry the Navigator. --DavidLeslie 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


And WHO, pray tell, Is David Leslie, to diss Sir Peter Russell, late of Oxford University?. The author, perhaps, of a book on "Part Time Faculty"? The idea that Russell's bio "lacks detail" is hilariously absurd given its length and depth and makes clear Leslie has not even read it. It is based on an exhaustive examination of the original sources. Likewise the same re Johnson's article about Henry's homosexuality. What does Leslie know about the original sources? What has he published in the field? Where did he get his Ph.D? Leslie appears to be no more than a phony historian with no credentials. Are these the kind of "authorities" who run Wikipeida? No wonder it has a dubious reputation. And Leslie is apparently a homophobe to boot. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, David, or didn't you know? Henry most probably was. Face it. PS If David has "read all the books" he must be dyslexic in the extreme. Johnson is in Portugese. Do you read Portuguese, David? Russell's bio was declared by a competent reviewer in the Guardian as the best historical biography of the year 2000. So you know more? What arrogant nonsense!


OCM: you appear not to have paid any attention to all the other arguments adduced by Johnson. If Henry was not homosexual, then prove to us that he was heterosexual. People are not sexless. You cannot possible prove he was heterosexual because he was not. You are very very naive. And likely homophobic. Homosexuality is not a sin or a disgrace, though you probably think that it is.

Wow, what a totally impolite and ignorant response (after reading the rest of the heated argument below, I'm not surprised). I am not saying that you can prove he was hetero/homosexual, just that the article seems to revolve about one author's theory about his sexuality and not the other infinitely more relevant (key) aspects of his life. A smarter editor should make mention of this theory (and that's all it is, unless you somehow travelled back in time to witness any homosexual encounters between Henry and other men or at least found any real documented evidence that he was homosexual) and try to expand the article in other directions. BTW, you are a very angry person, I think you should not interact with others without taking some kind of medication first ;) 0cm 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cruzado

Cruzado link and definition looks incorrect.--Filll 16:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Its incredible.... lies lies lies.... amazing... at least my country wasn't conquered in single invasion... ;) do you believe in what you all right??? Prince Henry was gay, Alexander was gay, Aquiles was gay, julius Cesar too? speak's the country that "invented" gays's everybody is gay except Elton John, and Prince Charles.

Calm down, homophobe. You think major historical figures were never gay? How ridiculous.

[edit] School or no school

The article states that "The old view that Henry's court rapidly grew into the technological base for exploration, with a naval arsenal and an observatory, etc., has long ago been debunked. There was no observatory or "school" of navigation, although Henry did possess geographical curiosity and therefore employed cartographers." but the Vasco da Gama article states "From the early 15th century, the nautical school of Henry the Navigator had been extending Portuguese knowledge of the African coastline." and my high school history book (pub. 2001) says "he brought together mapmakers, mathematicians, and astronomers to study navigation". BJTalk 08:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bjweeks: If you think a "high school book" is to be used for authoritative opinions on history you are a silly ass. People who get their history from "high school books" are just that---barely educated. Read the entry on Prince Henry in the Diccionario de Historia de Portugal. Read Magalhaes Godinho, the great Portuguese historian, on the matter. Read Oliveira Marques. Grow up and learn to use authoritative sources, not your little "high school book". What nonsense. Or can't you read Portuguese, or don't you have access to a university library? If so, what are you doing pretending to pronounce on matters re Portuguese history? In general the article is poor. It does not use the latest research on many matters and was apparently written by someone who is not an authority on Portuguese history and who may not even read Portuguese. It is in general full of outdated information and outdated ideas. Russell and Johnson's takes, however, should be the basis for a new rewrite of the article. But of course the Russell book is long and amateurs would find it hard going, and Johnson's ideas run up against widespread homophobia.

Precisely what "latest research" are you referring to, because beyond mere theories and ideas there is no significant new research. There hasn't been for a long time. Russell's book is full of inadequacies, really lacking in detail in many areas. Major's book although much older is actually far more thorough in many respects. If you put the two books side by side and compare the comparable sections in each book, such as those concerning the rediscovery of Madeira, this becomes very apparent. Johnson's claims of homosexuality are purely unproven speculation. It is not homopbobia to point out apparent facts. To base the article on Russell and Johnson would lead to an article lacking in detail that included baseless theories. --DavidLeslie 13:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To prefer Major's antiquated book to Russell and or Johnson is ridiculous and prima facie evidence of a fool who knows nothing about the subject. What are the "apparent facts" to prove that Henry was heterosexual? Please provide them. In detail. Leslie has no credentials that I know of. Let him tell us what they are. What have you published on the topic, David?

69.9.30.236 Have you read Major's book ? If so, please quote three important facts that are in Russell's book that are not in Major's ? If you have not read the book or are unable to answer my question, then your response to DavidLeslie has no substance. Which facts prove that Henry the Navigator was homosexual ? As yet I see no evidence put forward on this discussion page despite it being asked for. Wikipedia rules require that facts be substantiated. The article does not claim that Prince Henry was heterosexual, so that does not have to be proven. --Dr Lisboa 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now you look precisely like the "prima facie fool" you describe. Your reasoning and lack of evidence is amateurish : asking where somebody did a Phd, claiming that a newspaper reviewer liked it therefore it must be good, comparing two books one of which you haven't even read, accusing people of homophobia solely for asking for evidence of Henry's homosexuality. You have dodged every question asked of you. All we have seen from you is rudeness and ignorance, and attempts to promote your homosexuality. Unless you start giving priority to evidence and facts rather than unsubstantiated claims and cowardly and anonymous rudeness, which you wouldn't have the courage to say to their face, then you have no purpose being here. All of the rubbish you ever add to this article will end up being completely deleted. --Dr Lisboa 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


And Dr. Lisboa, who, pray tell are you? You identify yourself with nothing more than the emblem of the city of Lisbon. If you are Portuguese, it is clear you cannot be objective about the national icon, par excellence. Homosexuality is shameful in Portugal, although very common, and to admit to it unthinkable. Hence for most Portuguese, no king or important Portuguese could ever have been gay, much less the national icon. Further: do you think having a doctorate in history is meaningless and that not having one makes one a better historian? What nonsense. What questions have I dodged? Please be specific. The evidence of Henry's homosexuality is in Johnson's book. What "newspaper reviewer" praised it; or do you refer to Russell's biography? Please be specific. Johnson's book was not reviewed in a "newspaper." Calling me homosexual is stupid and a lie, something you seem to be a specialist at. I am not homosexual but I am likewise not a homophobe, as you appear to be, and your accusation is stupid. I think it clear you have never read Johnson (can you read Portuguese or can you not?) or Russell. Russell has so much more in every way than Major that it would take pages and pages to detail the differences; any sensible person reading the two books would see that immediately. Much of Russell's bio is based on documentation that was never available when Major wrote, something that has escaped you. Since people are not sexless, you need to put up evidence for Henry's heterosexuality to refute Johnson's detailed evidence of his homosexuality (it doesn't need to be put into this short article; it is all in his book). You cannot do this and thus you make yourself appear to be the ignoramus that you probably are. What historical research have you done? What have you published, other than a copy of the emblem of the city of Lisbon? Where are your authoritative articles on Prince Henry? Please inform us.

My questions were very clear :

1. Quote three important facts that are in Russell's book that are not in Major's ? Only three will do. If there are so many as you claim it should be easy for you. I don't think you've even read Major. You claim that much of Russell's bio is based on documentation that was never available when Major wrote. If that is true then answer my question. I can not think of even one document that was available to Russell that wasn't available to Major.

2. Which facts prove that Henry the Navigator was homosexual ? Wikipedia rules require that facts be substantiated. The article does not claim that Prince Henry was heterosexual, so that does not have to be proven. It's no good claiming that it's in Johnson's book. If he has arguments quote some. You can't come up with any.

You keep on dodging the questions because you can't answer them. You instead ask stupid questions and make cowardly insults of anyone that doesn't agree with you, which you would be scared shitless to say to their face. Question dodging and personal abuse from an Internet coward is always a sure sign of somebody who doesn't know what they are talking about. --Dr Lisboa 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Laughable. The multi-volume Monumenta Henricina (look it up) with virtually all the documents re Henry was not available to Major. Russell is the first historian to have used it extensively. It came out only in the 20th century. The facts re Henry's homosexuality are in Johnson, which you have not read. Why should I post pages and pages of argument from Johnson? Read it for yourself. Since you can't read Portuguese, I suspect Johnson is closed to you. You are ignorant, not a professional historian, and I regret to say very stupid to boot. You know nothing of the historical profession and nothing about this topic, aside, apparently from the antiquated bio of Major. Anyone who preferred Major to Russell would be laughed out of any respectable history department as a fool who knows nothing. You think Yale would publish a new bio of Henry that added nothing to Major? Only a fool like you would claim that. Sad that people like you swarm all over Wikipedia and make it so worthless. Get lost, dunce. PS: read the review by David Abulafia, the eminent professor of Cambridge University re Russell and learn something for a change. See http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Sea/reviews/abulafia.html

[edit] Homosexuality

I was looking at Monumenta Henricina again yesterday. Monumenta Henricina wasn't available in Major's time, but the documents in it were. You obviously didn't even know that ! So now answer the question I asked instead of continuously dodging it. Quote three important facts that are in Russell's book that are not in Major's ? Of course you haven't even read Major. You can't compare them because you have not even read it ! So stop making a fool of yourself by trying to compare the two books.

(You might be interested to know that the bibliography given in the Dicionario de Historia de Portugal re Prince Henry does not even mention Major's book, although it mentions others like Beazley. If Major was so definitive, I wonder why that is.)

Evidence of his homosexuality - haven't seen any yet. You can't provide any despite being challenged. Not being married evidence of homosexuality  ! Be serious - Casanova wasn't married. There is not a shred of evidence that he avoided women. He had a lot of contact with women.

( Please tell us about all the women with whom he had contact. That'll take you a couple of years of futile effort, I suspect. Wrong, he clearly said he avoided contact with women. Since you claim to know the documentation so well I will let you find it; if you can't, ask me and I will give you the reference.)

He had friendships with men, as many men do. Your Johnson has deceitfully tried to misrepresent any contact with any men as strong attachments, in a vain attempt to make out they were homosexual relationships.

(You obviously haven't read Johnson and his detailed argumentation; if you had you could not make these silly statements, as you do. Answer me this: have you read Johnson, yes or no?)

Claiming that Zurara was his contemporary biographer makes you look a complete idiot. It's AZURARA arsehole, and AZURARA was NOT his contemporary biographer.

(Another howler on your part. Zurara was born between 1410 and 1420 and died sometime between 1473 and 1474, according to the Dicionario de Historia de Portugal, IV, p. 358. Henry was born in 1394 and died in 1460. So they were not "contemporary?" Do you even know the meaning of contemporary? I would guess not. PS: the DHP gives his name as "Zurara, Gomes Eanes de". You of course know more than the authors of articles in the main dictionary of Portuguese history, don't you, wise guy?)

AZURARA wrote histories during the period that were not biographies of Prince Henry. I have a copy of Azurara, which, unlike you, I have read. There is not a single thing in it concerning bringing up boys in his bedchamber. Nobody can check P.361 because there is no P.361 in Azurara !!!

(Since you insult me, I will insult you, stupid. There are several editions of Zurara. I have consulted the one Johnson used, the edition by Jose de Braganca. There sure is a page 361 in that edition. So you're the fool, not I. I have read Zurara, very carefully. You apparently have not. What edition do you use, if you in fact use any? As for the rest, I am a retired historian who taught at a major US university including courses on Portuguese history. And you? Any degrees? Any professorships? Anything at all other than silly childish arrogance to cover your ignorance?)

You sound like a fresh out of college student to me. You certainly aren't any historian. You haven't even read the original sources. You're not fit to write anything. Unfortunately you're one of the keyboard cowards that the Internet breeds. You can't assert yourself in real life so you try to make up for your pathetic weakness by trying in vane to make up for it over the Internet. I challenge you to meet up face to face Internet coward ? I know from your IP address where you are. Face to face with me you'd wet your pants !

--Dr Lisboa 20:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You've been completely unable to answer my questions. No surprise there. When you grow up you might do as I do which is check out all biographies instead of merely the most recent or the first one you come across, and to make use of all useful books and not just one. Thank you for convincing me that Johnson's book is absolute crap. If a totally false quote from Azurara (or Zurara as you naively thought it to be) is the best he can come up with, then he clearly doesn't have a shred of convincing evidence. I have been comparing what Johnson claims on his web site concerning Prince Henry's sexuality with the writings of Azurara, which he uses for his key evidence. It is obvious that Johnson is lying about the evidence, because Azurara clearly does not make the statements that Johnson claims. Go and read Azurara and see for yourself.

Jesus wasn't married, didn't have children and always hung around with young men. So go try convincing the editors on the Jesus article that he was gay ! --Dr Lisboa 15:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(Dead wrong amd ignorant and stupid in your denial of the facts. Major never looked at all the documents in the Monumenta; it took the editors of the volumes many years to dig them all out. Major did not begin to do any of that in the middle of the 19th century. What an absurd idea and so childish and silly. Russell makes clear that there were NO impediments to Henry's getting married. Henry would not have used the cover story of "chastity" if he has been legally unable to marry; he would have said he was following the rules of the Order. Henry was NOT a knight of the order; he was the ADMINISTATOR or GOVERNOR, not even the Master. He was thus not obligated to celibacy. Russell makes this clear in his book. You don't read very carefully. You are the kind of amateur historian who gives amateurism a very bad name. In fact Henry's father got a Papal dispensation to allow Henry to marry within normally prohibited relationships of consanguinity. If Henry had been legally unable to marry, why would he have done that? You simply don't know your stuff about the rules of the Order of Christ or Henry's position in it.

More indications of your ignorance: the name is Gomes Anes or Eanes da or de Zurara. Azurara is a common misreading of the name. Zurara makes exactly the statements I quoted on page 361 of the  Braganca edition: "...mancebos, que o Infante criara em sua camara..." "Young boys whom the Infante had brought up in his bedchamber." What lies? Your charge that Johnson lies is a lie itself.

Ignoramuses like you are what gives Wikipedia its bad name. Know-littles who pretend to know more than the experts. The kind of people who would have told Einstein he didn't understand physics. You would be well advised to read the review of Russell by David Abulafia of Cambridge University. You might learn some things, including the proper spelling of Zurara's name.) http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/abulafiaD.html

«The article states: "He never married or had children although nothing would have prevented his doing so, and other aspects of his character that Johnson details in his study all tend to lend credence to the thesis that he was a closet homosexual." »
Henry was the governor of the Order of Christ and he would follow the rules of the order: one of them was chastity. The vows were like those of the Knights Templar.
Only at the end of the 15th century, Pope Alexander VI gives permission for the knights of the Order of Christ to get married. Of course Henry was already dead by this time and if he was alive he would be too old. But I am sure he would have fun if he could read all the nonsense that was written about his sex life. Saying that "nothing would have prevented his doing so" is obviously a joke.

(As Governor of the Order, Henry was not bound by any rules of chastity as Russell makes clear. You simply don't know whereof you speak.)

Some person connected with Wikipedia with authority needs to intervene here and get rid of the nonsense spewed by Dr. Lisboa. He doesn't know what he talks about in most cases, and is obviously an amateur historian without much experience in the subject. He makes assertions that are provably wrong time and again. And then continues to do so without shame. His involvement in the encyclopedia does it damage.

I'm still waiting for answers to my questions Mr Anonymous from Arizona. You simply can't answer them. The rest of what you have written is irrelevant :
1. Quote three important facts that are in Russell's book that are not in Major's ? Given that you haven't even read Major you wouldn't have a clue. Forget the Monumenta Henricina rubbish. You don't even know which documents Major used, so don't be deceitful by claiming that you do.
2. Which facts prove that Henry the Navigator was homosexual ? The only claim that would be of substance if it was true was that Henry brought up boys in his bedchamber (câmara). However, as Johnson points out on his web site, câmara could also mean household. People can be brought up in somebody's household. It does not make grammatical sense to claim that he brought them up solely in his bedchamber. This was also of course written by somebody who was never a witness to what took place in Henry's bedchamber.
You're just a cowardly has been lecturer, too frightened to even give his name, from some minor University, that you're too ashamed to even mention, who taught a bit of Portuguese history, as do thousands of junior school teachers in Portuguese speaking countries. Frustrated by your shallow knowledge of Portuguese history you have been going around Wikipedia abusing everyone in sight. You're useless to Wikipedia. Any alteration you make is being wiped out be just about everyone, because everybody dislikes you and disagrees with you. --Dr Lisboa 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What is especially heinous about Dr. Lisboa is that when his errors are exposed he simply repeats them, denying the facts. What he needs to do is tell us what facts are in Major that are not in Russell. Please name them all, with page references and the edition. You're the one that claims Major is useless. Go and prove your own contentions He has repeated been shown not to know the facts, but this does not phase him or stop his creating and spreading more, to be nice, "non-facts." Anyone who would call the Monumenta Henricina "rubbish" is a self confessed fool. Please tell me, Dr. Lisboa, what is on page 340 of volume III of the collection. That will tell us if you have ever seen it or read any of it.

So far you have been wrong about:

Zurara's name ITs' you that got the name wrong. You've not even read him anyway. The books' too old no doubt HAHA Whether the Administrator of the Order of Christ must be celibate. I never wrote that His claim that Zurara was not a contemporary of Henry. LIE - I wrote he was not a "contemporary biographer" of his His failure to state what edition of Zurara he is using. I don't need to His failure to explain why the Dicionario de Historia de Portugal does not even mention Major. Go ask them !

And defies common sense in claiming:

That a bio of Henry written about 150 years ago is superior to a very detailed modern bio by the world authority on Henry written seven years ago. I never claimed that. You've claimed it's useless without ever having read it. You don't even known what the book is like. That he has read Johnson, when in fact, he shows he knows little of the content of Johnson's work. His arguments are all laid out on his web site. I have a copy of the entire text of his reasoning

And indicates his immaturity with his use of childish insults about matters he cannot know. His kind is what really damages the Wikipedia. Know-littles who think they know lots that they don't know. YOu are the one that claims that he is a Professor of Portuguese history in a major University. Yet you then admit that it was some Portuguese history, that you are no longer even a lecturer, and are too ashamed to even mention the MINOR university you were at. I went to Oxford and Cambridge. Heard of them ? They ARE major Universities.

You still haven't been able to answer the two key questions that I've asked. You never can because the answers make a complete mockery of everything you have written. So out of frustration you instead keep trying to distract atention. You have been reported to the Administrators and your Internet Service Provider for your cowardly and widespread rudeness and disruption. --Dr Lisboa 19:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just checked through all of Azurara's use of the word "câmara". It is obvious when you check the context of his use of the word that he means household rather than bedchamber, which is what even Johnson suggests on his web site. Many people were brought up in Prince Henry's household. There is nothing in Azurara (the original source) that indicates that he had children in his bedchamber. The rest of the supposed "evidence" even Johnson describes as cicumstantial, such as unmarried, no children, male friendships. So your Prince Henry homosexuality claims don't have even one solid piece of evidence to stand on. As has been pointed out by another editor you are not able to give personal opinions. So your opinion of the various books is only of consequence to yourself - especially as you have only ever read one ! --Dr Lisboa 21:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
An Administrator has just given you a final warning 69.9.30.236. Next time you will be banned permanently. --Dr Lisboa 22:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Lisboa's questions

Dr. Lisboa (LOL) you asked, as I recall, to name three things that are in Russell but not in Major.

1. Major has nothing on Henry's incessant attempts to conquer the Canary Islands and the problems this caused with Castile.

2. Major has nothing on Henry's horoscope, that had a strong psychological influence on him.

3. Major has nothing on Henry's will and testament.

And, to boot, your idea that Major consulted all the documents there are re Henry is sheer rubbish. Major's bibliography cites only "books" and NO documents. Take a look and learn.

Professor of a major University (LOL), how can you possibly comment on Major when you have never even read it ? According to you, it's antiquated and worthless as far as you're concerned. I checked the first item with a word search and find attacks in the Canary's within a second. Now go and read it and then make a proper attempt. And whilst you're at it, find for me in Russell the COMPLETE text of the Voyages of Diogo Gomes written by Gomes, which appears in Major in its entirety but which isn't in Russell. And also explain to me how, with the use of Russell you made such a blunder by claiming that Sierra Leone was discovered during Henry's time when it was Sintra who discovered Sierra Leone well after Henry had died. Reading only one book on Prince Henry as you have leaves you lacking in so many respects. I've read Major AND Russell AND Gomes AND Azurara (which is even more antiquated according to you) AND Cadamosto who described his voyages AND Sintra, whose voyages were described by Cadamosto. If you want to cover a biography properly you should check all of the biographies and read all of those that between them cover the subject. Unfortunately, rarely does one biography cover everything. Russell could have nullified all of the biographies that preceded him including Major, by incorporating everything of use in all preceding books, but he didn't. You should then read all of the available original sources. They never go out of date because they are the nearest we have to fist hand accounts. --Dr Lisboa 19:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some friendly advise: No personal attacks

Regarding personal comments made in this page: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

  • Discuss the article, not the subject;
  • Discuss the edit, not the editor;
  • Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
  • If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that your comments are a personal attack on the editors here !!! --Dr Lisboa 23:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zurara's name

If Dr. Lisboa would bother to look he would see that Azurara is NOT used by the Library of Congress. If one types in Azurara one is redirected to Zurara. Zurara is the proper way to write his name and almost all edition of his chronicle use it. Azurara was first put into use by Santarem in 1841. We know better now than Santarem did in 1841 how to spell his name correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.9.29.176 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

In Wikipedia its Azurara ! It's all academic anyway. I now know that Johnson's book is useless. The only significant claim, if it was true, was that Prince Henry suffered from Michael Jackson Syndrome. However, when you check all of Azurara's uses of câmara he obviously meant household not bedchamber. --Dr Lisboa 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of this article

Though I spend a good amount of time reading Wikipedia, I very rarely edit it. For the record, I would like to state that this is without a doubt the most poorly written article I have yet encountered. I tried to go through and correct the APPALLING number of misspellings and errors, as well as try to smooth over the many awkward constructions. The original writer was obviously not a native English speaker (given his/her propensity not to capitalize Portuguese, a dead giveaway of a native romance language speaker) and especially had some trouble with prepositions. Given all of this, however, the article remains quite redundant and poorly worded at certain parts. Timocrates 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's well bad that some peeple can't spel and right proper like what wee do. Incidentally, it would have been better if you had written the proper idiom "in certain parts" rather than "at certain parts" because you can not be at a part. Also, "although" is preferable to "though", because "though" is an abbreviation of "although". The proper idiom is "without doubt" rather than "without a doubt", which is what you have used, because doubt is not a numerically measurable term. "His or her" is preferable to "his/her", which is normally used when a deletion of one or the other is expected. "However" followed by a comma normally more properly begins a sentence. Also, it would have been better to follow "language speaker)" with a comma because you are introducing another statement, which may have been better in a sentence of its own. Otherwise, you did well. I'll give you 4 out of 10. Keep going to school and you are sure to improve. --Dr Lisboa 21:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, how dare you take that condescending tone and insult me? I will be making a complaint to an administrator, "Dr" Lisboa. Besides, many of your "corrections" are simply incorrect. Check your Fowler's. The other "corrections" seem to be stylistic or idiomatic, and either way, this is simply a comment. I was taking about serious errors in the article: misspellings and unequivocally incorrect grammar. I could care less about Portuguese history. If you are so interested in this article, why didn't you utilize your mastery of the English language to fix such blatant errors? Timocrates 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would advise Dr. Lisboa to tone down his comments. There is no need to escalate these discussions and remaining civil is a necessity to conduct a debate. See this as a friendly warning. Continuing with personal remarks such as these are grounds for temporarily removing your editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I advise you both to get a sense of humour ! Don't you know a joke when you see one ? The fact that you actually took me seriously makes it even funnier ! --Dr Lisboa 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Note from another reader: It the text has some spelling and grammar errors, why do not you help to correct them? It's so simple. 2nd, I also do not understand this advice for dr.Lisboa to tone down his comments. There has been people here coming up with insults without receiving any warnings. NO DOUBLE STANDARDS, PLEASE! Joao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.99.70 (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

Let me know if anyone objects to a week of semi-protection. There seems to have been a new burst of IP vandalism starting in the middle of April. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)