From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Portugal (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Version 0.5      (Rated C-Class)
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated C-Class on the assessment scale.

westernmost capital[edit]

I changed the article to reflect that Lisbon is the westernmost capital on mainland Europe, as opposed to all of Europe. Many people forget that Iceland is part of Europe, and Reykjavík is about 12° further west than Lisbon (21°56' W vs 9°11' W). I said Lisbon was the second westernmost capital, but technically this is still not correct. If you don't distinguish it as a national capital, other provincial, territory or autonomous regional capitals may also count; the [Canary Islands], part of Spain, come to mind. --Farnkerl 04:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC).

If you consider the islands, then the Portugeuse islands of Azores, still considered as "european", are the westernmost territory of Europe. --BBird 01:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)Bold text

Yes, but the capital is not in Azores, so, Reykjavik is still the westernmost capital. Afonso Silva 00:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

....but if you read the (anyway old) original comment, it was referring to the Canary Islands, clearly east from the Azores... --BBird 15:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, Iceland is located in North America. Part of that island is indeed in the North American tectonic plate. Also, there's a much shorter distance between Iceland and Greenland (part of North America) then between Iceland and Britain or Norway. If one considers that the continent an island belongs to is the one with the shortest distance by sea, Iceland is a nordic speaking country in North America. Joao — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

moved from article[edit]

The following was added by an anon to the description of the Vasco da Gama Bridge. I found it incomprehinsible (and probably only marginally encyclopedic), so I cut it. "In 98 a know Detergent brand organized the biggest lunch table on the main plataform of the bridge with 20 km, beeing listed as one of the biggest in world at Guiness Book of Records." If anyone knows what this means to say and thinks it's worth saying, feel free to rewrite it comprehensibly & re-add, or to write it here in Portuguese or whatever else within reason & someone can translate. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:57, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Good edit. That was part of an ad campaign led for that detergent (*cough*Fairy*cough). IMHO it's worthless for an encyclopedia. Nuno Correia

I understand what that means and it is probably true. However, I don't think that is relevant for an encyclopedia. It might go to the "Curiosities" section but even for that section its relevance is almost null at least for an article about the city of Lisbon. It can go to the curiosities section (if it exists) of an article about that bridge.

Ricardo, from Lisbon

It did happen, it really was in the Guiness, and yes, it is irrelevant other than as a minor curiosity. --Pedrojpinto (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

moved from article[edit]

There might be a few more things to be "squeezed" out of the Dutch-language article. My Dutch is not great, so I might have missed something. (Use the article with care, though, there appear to be a few errors there, although it was clearer than the Portuguese on the reconquista.) I chose to leave out some information in that article that seemed to me to be general history of Portugal rather than of Lisbon. I also chose to omit the mention of Bosch and Dürer works in the National Museum. I supposed having Bosches is notable & could be added (preferably with some specifics as to what works), but what major European national museum lacks Dürers? -- Jmabel 07:15, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

lol Rita Guerra is a prominent person? this must be some kind of joke

Well, I suppose it is questionable (I didn't add her) but if you think not, you should probably nominated the article about her for deletion. -- Jmabel 16:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The following was added by an anon to the description of the Vasco da Gama Bridge. I found it incomprehinsible (and probably only marginally encyclopedic), so I cut it. "In 98 a know Detergent brand organized the biggest lunch table on the main plataform of the bridge with 20 km, beeing listed as one of the biggest in world at Guiness Book of Records." If anyone knows what this means to say and thinks it's worth saying, feel free to rewrite it comprehensibly & re-add, or to write it here in Portuguese or whatever else within reason & someone can translate. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:02, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)


Glad to have all these pictures, but the current layout is a disaster. It may work at some screen resolution, but it's a sloppy mess on the one I use. There are ways to do this so it scales. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:28, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Lisbon page reform and city flag[edit]

I've totally reformed the layout of the pictures and much of the content, mostly when I wasn't registered as TintininLisbon. I was hoping someone could take out the current map and put a map of the municipality or the city itself. I was also wondering if someone could upload the flag and coat of arms of the city. I'm sorry but I don't know how to add or change images.

The current map is highly inaccurate, as it is a map of the Lisbon district and not the city of Lisbon.

The Moors?[edit]

Quite frankly, the Moorish rulers of Lisbon, from 711 to 1147, aren't given enough credit in this article. The rule is concluded in two sentences. Did the city just dissapear and reappear in 1147? Lisbon was a thriving city under Moorish rule, and we need to mention that. Go in depth. Mention how the populace spoke Arabic, some retaining the Romance, and that the majority of the population was Muslim during this time. Somebody needs to do research and write as much about the Muslim rule as is in the Roman rule. Thanks!

Go for it!!! --BBird 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, go for it! But sources are important. I had the idea that a great part of Lisbon's population (Muslim and Christian) had been killed by the Crusaders. This should be checked. The Ogre 13:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be the case, as in fact the whole neighbourhood of Mouraria, a very big (by the standards of that period) and populous neighbourhood, seems to have been created in consequence of the ressetlement of the mourish population outside the city's walls. So, expelled from their homes, yes; mass slaughtered, i shouldn't think so.--Pedrojpinto 23:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This section now looks like like almost apologetic for the reconquering of Lisbon, and makes Lisbon the paradise on earth under Moorish rule. I really doubt it is accurate. Some sources and some balance might be of use here.--BBird 00:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not "apologetic" for the reconquest. All I tried to do was make the differences in Lisbon's life then and now jump out at the reader. You have to admit that life was much different then. How was it "paradise on Earth"? Is it because I said that Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived peacefully together? That is the truth. It is 100% accurate. You're sounding biased or almost mad that Muslims ever came to Lisbon. Stallions2010 21:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Not mad at all. Muslim rule is part of Lisbon history. I don't know much about

this period but I doubt (i) everything was so peacefull and tolerant, repeated twice or 3 times (ii) that Lisbon florished (no mark is left from the Moorish period except the castle wich existed already and the moorish wall). Which mosques were converted in to churches?. Anyway, this was almost 1000 years ago, and this period is far from being the best period in Lisbon story.Th woule descripriton seemed vague and common place. sorry -- this was my reading. BR. --BBird 22:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

See, I just don't see why there is a doubt about the tolerance. Throughout the Moorish kingdoms there was tolerance and peace. Occasionally there were uprisings, but they were very rare. The reason why there is so little Muslim material left is because the Christian reconquerers destroyed everything that they could. It may or may not be the best period in Lisbon history, but I lightly touched on this. The 16th century, when Portugal had many colonies, is looked upon in this article as the Golden Age, not the Muslim period. Can we at least give some credit to the Muslims who were in Lisbon? The Moorish rule left much more than you think. True, there is little physical evidence left. But many placenames exist that are derived from Arabic - the Alfama, for example, is derived from the Arabic "al-hamma". And Lisbon's name itself, pronounced Lishboa in Portuguese, is more directly derived from the Arabic name of the city, al-Ushbuna, than the Latin Olissipo. The azulejos that are so common on streetsides are originally Muslim in style, and the word "azulejo" is derived from an Arabic word. Therefore, credit should be given to the Moors. All reason points to it. Stallions2010 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are little to no uprisings in North Korea, so I guess it proves that it is a country filled with "tolerance and peace" :D. Seriously though, I (and I know that this comes 3 years after the discussion) find that part of the article partial, a sort of apologetics for Muslim occupation, not unlike your comments (which are fine, as long as they stay here and not in the article). Lisbon was taken/lost several times before (beginning with Afonso II of Astúrias in the VIII century), and I find that your linguistic reinterpretation of how we say "Lisboa" (which is baseless) goes a bit above mere speculation, you seem to be heavily invested in "giving them credits", even if for non-existent things. When you say "credits should go to the Moors" and "can we at least give them some credit?" you make it sound as if this was an end in itself, some sort of "price" that must be reflected in the article, facts be damned. By the way, the "azulejos" that you speak about didn't even exist in Lisbon at the time, they were introduced in the 15th century "from above" since D. Manuel liked the effect and started to order it from Spain. Heck, IIRC they were imported from Flanders before they started being home made. As for the "Golden Age", to even put this name in the same sentence as "Moorish rule of Lisbon" is, well, really weird.
So, to recap: tolerance is as usual misused here, there were uprisings, killing of natives several times, the usual "dhimmitude" that passes as "tolerance and peace" to many times, the Christians are apparently the ones that have the burden of guilt (they "destroyed" everything that the benign, advanced Moors had built! How savage of them!), placenames mean very little (but warrant notice in the article), the name of the city has nothing to do with the Arabic work, tiles were introduced much latter, the city was already large before and became larger after, and there is no "credit to the Moors" to be given as if that in itself was something to strive for. Also, I'll be researching and altering the article since I do find it extremely partial to "Moorish rule" and blowing it out of any sense of proportion in terms of significance. Which is NOT to say that the objective is the complete opposite of this. --Bellum sine bello (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not interely tru. The Visigothic name for the city was already Ulishbona.
"The reason why there is so little Muslim material left is because the Christian reconquerers destroyed everything that they could." This was a silly comment. Most written material was in Lisbon and was destroied in the 1755 earthquake. The rest that disapeared was during the Spanish rule, many things were relocated to the capital of the kingdom, and Napoleon Invasion.
Indeed, and anyway, from Olissiponam, it's easy to derive Lisbona (which was the very early name of reconquered city) using regular sound-changes which took place in all of western Romania. If Lisboa derived from al-Ushbuna, the name of the city would probably start with an a (*Alusbua or *Alusbunha) like nearly every other word in Portuguese derived from Arabic. Finally, the zh sound in the modern pronunciation of Lisboa didn't show up until the 17th or 18th century, due to French influence, I think. Wtrmute 01:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I tend rather to think what you wrote above -- factual interesting informative -- would be of bigger value in the article than the generalizations that were inserted in the article. mind you, I agree the Moorish heritage is important, just like the others. Thanks. --BBird 10:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If I have a doubt, it's justified. Many modern Portuguese don't like the Muslim heritage. They see the Moorish rule as being disastrous and Muslims as uncivilized. An example is at this link:

Based on what do you say that? Based on a forum post of someone that changed from being an over zealous christian to an over zealous muslim?

Anyway, as you wish. I'll put them into the article, as well as the generalizations previously listed. Stallions2010 22:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely have my doubts that Muslims were "converted" to christianity after the invasions. From what I know most muslims were captured and killed during the Reconquista. THis should be checked.

The muslims had to pay a ransom to be freed and then were free to go to the neighbouring muslim kingdoms. Just like the Christians had to pay a ransom when captured.
Most of the street grid around the castle is the result of the historical evolution of the muslim street grid. There is little evidence that the city was radically transformed after the christians took over and, again, the whole neighborhood of Mouraria derives its name from it being a "suburb" where the muslim population relocated to. Although I have no source for the percentage of the population that remained in the city, there is ample evidence that the christian rite survived through the muslim domination, as did very significant christian and jewish communities. They were not all slaughtered, evidentely. In fact, there is ample evidence that most were not. The most valuable document may be the letter written by one of the cruzaders (De expugnatione Lyxbonensi, portuguese translation here: where it reads: «[the council between the cruzaders and the King [Afonso I]] agreed with the muslim emissaries that the [muslim] mayor would be set free and allowed to keep his belongings and that each and every man in the city [that is, families] would keep their food and the city would surrender; otherwise, they would face combat. (...) This was confirmed by both parts and a force of 140 man-at-arms and 160 german and flemish cruzaders would enter peacefully and occupy the upper castle, where the enemy would submit all their money and belongings. Afterwards the city would be inspected to atest that all goods had been surrendered, and in case something was to be found, the owner of the house was to be executed. (...) [A few german and flemish cruzaders], having entered the city ahead, were tempted and pillaged, and abused some of the residents. They cut the bishop's throat [that's the mozarabic christian bishop of Lisbon], against the law of god and man and imprison the city mayor himself, after emptying his residence. (...) Having at last come to sense, our men begged them to have the remaining areas of the city shared peacefully among us (...). Dishoned of their belongings, the enemies in the city were witnessed exiting continuously through the three city gates [during five days], producing such a crowd as if the whole of Spain was flowing through them. (...) [in their large mosque], there were 200 deceased, plus 800 hailing, due to the filth [derived from the siege]. Restoration of the diocese with a new bishop and purification of the Mosque (November 1st). (...) The miserable condition of the moors: afterwards there came a pest so big between the moors that throughout the vast fields, vineyards. villages and squares, as well as throughout the ruined houses, there lay thousands of corpses abandoned to the beasts and birds (...)». So, there were obviously casualties and some abuses, but far from a widespread slaughter. The muslim community was mostly relocated out of the city's walls, but were allowed to stay either in out-of-walls neighborhoods just outside or in the villages and fields nearby. See also the discussion under the subtopic "Middle Ages" --Pedrojpinto (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


I think the demographics section needs references. Especially this sentence: It's expected that the population of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area will increase to some 4,5 million by 2015 and more than 5 million by 2020. It's the fastest increasing region in Portugal.. By 2020 Lisbon will concentrate 50% of the Portuguese population? (I think the population will not increase very much from the current 10,500,000). Where does this come from? I agree that a paragraph about demographics should be included, but with coherent and verifiable data. Afonso Silva 23:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, a softer reference to specific numbers should include the idea that this is only an estimate, and in no way the most accepted projection.--Pedrojpinto 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lisbon as the largest city[edit]

Lisbon (...) is the capital and largest city of Portugal.

List of capitals and larger cities by country lists Lisbon as only the second largest city in Portugal. I truly believe Lisbon's bigger than Porto, as stated in this artice, although as I'm not sure, I'll not edit that list. jοτομικρόν | Talk 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As a Portuguese, I can assure you that Lisbon is considerably larger than Porto. That was changed in the other article. Afonso Silva 08:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a recent discussion in Portugal, but a somewhat pointless one. The fact is that if a generous criteria for building clusters of urban areas was applied to Northwestern Portugal, then the Porto Urban Agglomeration would be the biggest urban area in Portugal; this would, however, mean that cities like Braga or Guimarães would be considered functional parts of the Porto agglomeration. Even though there is some proximity and normal economical co-dependence, anyone who's ever crossed the region will recognize there are some very sharp breaks in the urban continuum, that lead to the conclusion that Porto should be considered as separate urban entity from what is also known as the "Minho conurbation". There is a very interesting book on the subject, published by DGOTDU (a portuguese governmental agency on regional and urban development) called "As Regiões Metropolitanas Portuguesas no Contexto Ibérico", in which the two portuguese metropolitan areas are given, for i think the first time, an objective and unbiased evaluation of total population, using two european methodolgies (NUREC and GEMACA) and the one used by the US Census Bureau (CPSV) for the american metropolitan areas. The results are (i also show the results for Madrid and Barcelona, for context)
        • NUREC - Lisbon 2,261,458 ; Porto 1,282,283 ; Madrid 4,314,778 ; Barcelona 3,195,918
        • GEMACA - Lisbon 2,463,142 ; Porto 1,547,961 ; - ; -
        • CPSV - Lisbon 2,871,350 ; Porto 2,195717 ; Madrid 5,010,747 ; Barcelona 4,348,272

--Pedrojpinto 00:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Torre de Belém[edit]

We need a photo of Torre de Belém in this article.

Snowfall in Lisbon[edit]

"Climate" section, "However, snowfall can occur. The latest one happened on January 29th 2006."

I think this two sentences are deceiving for two reasons.

1. On January 29th 2006 it sort of snowed for less than 20 minutes in Lisbon and I don't even know if that was technically snow or just hail. Anyway, whatever came has imediately melted in the ground.

2. Before that moment, it also snowed 60 or 80 year before, I am not sure whether it is 60 or 80. Thus, snow is something that can occur only in extremely rare circumstances. In the last 100 years, if it really, technically snowed at all, the sum of "snowing time" was less than 60 minutes. "snowfall can occur" doesn't lead to the idea that snow can occur 60 minutes or less every 100 years.

I suggest that ""However, snowfall can occur. The latest one happened on January 29th 2006." be removed because "snowfall can occur" is misleading and the other sentence is not relevant: making a register of the two or three times that it "sort of" snowed in the last 100 year in a city doesn't seem relevant enough for an encyclopedia. I believe an encyclopedia should be extensive but can save some words and some reader's time by not including what are mere curiosities of low relevance or including those curiosities in the "Curiosities" section, as long as they are not deceiving.

I was in Lisbon last time it "snowed". I asked some German friends about this snow and all of them said "this is not true snow". Even if it was true, not controversial snow the two arguments above still hold.

Ricardo, from Lisbon

You are correct. I was in Lisbon on that day (29th January,2006) ( Restelo) and didn´t saw any snow. Maybe in Lisbon, aurora borealis ocurrence are as rare as a simple flicker of snow, but heat indeed has much more expression. The summers that temperatures got 40ºc or more aren´t very rare and occur quite periodically.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 

Snow in Lisbon is an extremelly rare event that may however occur. In the 1950's it snowed and the amount of fallen snow stood on the ground for quite long. Before, on a winter during WWII, the amount of snow on the ground reached 1 meter high. It's indeed rare but not impossible. The idea of Lisbon having subtropical climate is in my opinion debatable (as debatable is the definition of subtropical climate). Lisbon is located at the paralel 38,7. The rain, humidity and lack of snow is due to its marine climate, not due to proximity with the tropics. The are places in the world closer to the tropics that experience much colder winters and warmer summers because they are not located at the west coast of a continent as Lisbon. Besides Lisbon is on a peninsula (Lisbon's peninsula) that is located slightly westwards than the rest of Portugal, making it more exposed to the sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The last time it fell enough snow to make a layer on the ground was in the 1950's. Before it fell also in the early 1940's. It's true that snow is an extremely rare event, however the temperature chart is misleading. The lowest recorded temperature is not 0º or 1º. In 2005 it was -3º in the middle of the night which was lower. -3º at night is vary rare too, but not impossible during drought winters. Frost happens regularly during dry winters outside Lisbon's peninsula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Education in Lisbon[edit]

Another major public university, eventhough its name doesn't start by the word "university" is ISCTE (Instituto Superior de Ciências do Trabalho e da Empresa). This institution is important for many reasons, for instance it is one of the oldest institutions offering undergraduate and graduate Business programs; its organization is different from the other universities, being a kind of experimental project.

A common mistake is saying that the Universidade Católica Portuguesa is a private Portuguese university. It is not private and it is not Portuguese. Its law status is "public foreign university": it "belongs" to Vatican which is a person of public law. I don't have a documental prof of this, I only can state that a friend of mine holding a PhD in law and who also was both an undergraduate and graduate student in UCP told me that.

Finally, it probably is not considered as a major university but Universidade Aberta might deserve a mention in this section: its headquarters are in Lisbon and it is one of the few or the only one university in Portugal that teaches their students by correspondence and using such media as open chanel tv educative broadcasts (usually in RTP2). It is also an important producer of text books that encompass many different fields and that are used by students from other institutions (for instance, from the Goethe-Institut Lissabon).

Ricardo, from Lisbon

ISCTE is not a university. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

Phoenician foundation of Lisbon?[edit]

The following was moved from "Talk:Prehistoric Iberia".

The article Prehistoric Iberia states the following:

The myth of a Phoenician foundation of the city as far back as 1300 BC, under the name Alis Ubbo ("Safe Harbour") is unreal.

However, the wiki article on Lisbon states:

Archeological findings show that a Phoenician trading post existed in the place that, since 1200 B.C., has occupied the centre of the city. The magnificent natural harbour provided by the estuary of the river Tagus made it the ideal spot for a settlement to provide foodstuffs to Phoenician ships travelling to the tin islands (modern Isles of Scilly) and Cornwall. The new city was named Alis Ubbo or "safe harbor" in Phoenician.

Olavius 13:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the reputed Portuguese historian José Mattoso (vide Mattoso, José (dir.), História de Portugal. Primeiro Volume: Antes de Portugal, Lisboa, Círculo de Leitores, 1992 - in Portuguese) there were no Phoenician colonies, settlements or trading post in Portugal, other than the one in Algarve (namely in Tavira). So I believed the story about the Phoenician foundation of Lisbon should be regarded as myth. Even if the Phoenicians did maintain comercial activities with the rest of the modern Portuguese territory (other than the Algarve), and that is why one can find Phoenician pottery and such. At best Lisbon was an ancient autocthonous settlement (what the Romans called an Oppidum) that maintained comercial relations with the Phoenicians. I'll correct the articleon Lisbon. Thank you. The Ogre 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

New external link[edit]

I'm going to add an external link about a photo essay with captions on the old Lisbon's districs of Alfama and Castelo.

Feel free to revert and discuss. Panex 17:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to Gloria[edit]

You do mention elevador da Gloria in your article, so I figured it might be relevant with a link to a traveller's tale about Gloria, "Lisbon's Own Queen". Keep it if you like. There are no commercial interests behind my initiative. Scribbleman (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you are Terje Raa . Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself and your articles. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Scribbleman consist entirely of promoting Terje Raa / / and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be Terje Raa/ related only. Please do not continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. It has become apparent that your account are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote yourself, right? --Hu12 13:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Egas Moniz[edit]

I notice that in the list of people born in Lisbon has an error Egas Moniz did not born in Lisbon but in Estarreja Aveiro district and he only moved to Lisbon and died there not born.Just making it clearJorgeonfire (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Someone needs to trim the history section as it takes up almost half the article. I created History of Lisbon so any new material should be deposited there. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


This is merely a suggestion, but shouldn't we have more pictures at the top of the article, instead of the city flags (or maybe have them smaller) to make the article more like those of the other capitals of european countries (like London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid and Amsterdam?). W2ch00 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I have taken the liberty to add photographs to the article, as I believe they will give a much better idea of what the city is like: namely in the "Transports" and "Parque das Nações". This is not muddle or making Wikipedia a photo server, but merely adding another dimension of description to what is a very comples and 3 dimensional topic (cities). In fact, it would be great if one could add videos with respective thumnails :). In that regards, I have the somewhat adantage of having been born and bread in Lisbon, so I know the city I live in very well indeed.

Regards to everyone, Moon in Scorpio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon in Scorpio (talkcontribs) 18:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

merging sights with tourist attractions[edit]

I have merged two different sections containing very similar/same information. Some of Lisbon monuments were included under "Culture and Sights" section, whereas other were under "Tourist attractions". As a result, the two sections were incomplete and I merged them, slightly altered the structure and included some monuments that were previously omitted. Hitesh1977 (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Weakly supported claims about population, economic role and wealth in the introduction[edit]

This article seems very well written and highly informative. However, I found a few dubious claims being made, especially at the start of the article. Given that I am only objectively and totally sure of the problem with the third point below, I only changed that one. However, I believe points 1 and 2 need serious consideration from the authors or some knowledgeable people about these topics to verify their truthfulness. Exaggerated and weakly substantiated claims might hurt the credibility (and usefulness) of an otherwise excellent article.

The points are:

1. Limits of Lisbon Agglomeration: "3.34 million people live in the broader agglomeration of Lisbon Metropolitan Region (includes cities ranging from Leiria to Setúbal)." --> Considering a territory which includes Leiria (which is 150 Km away from Lisbon) as part of the urban definition of Lisbon seems a bit too generous, thus I would remove this figure... Nevertheless, as this is a relatively subjective decision I opted not to do it myself and leave it to the consideration of the author, or other authors more involved in the maintenance of this article. At the minimum, I believe readers who do not know Portugal should be able to understand better the claim being made and the distance between, say, Lisbon and Leiria, e.g. you can check it here: [[1]].

2. Economic Role and Ranking in Iberian Peninsula: "Due to its economic output, standard of living, and market size, the Grande Lisboa (Greater Lisbon) subregion is considered the second most important financial and economic center of the Iberian Peninsula." --> This statement does not seem true. I checked the source and could not figure out the connection between the source and the claim. In any case, as it is a referenced claim, I did not remove it. If this is true, given that it is a somewhat controversial (or at least surprising) statement (given the two large metropolitan areas of Barcelona and Madrid in Spain), I would suggest the author to be more specific in terms of the reference (page number, table, exact figure...). I also checked some sources myself that seem to cast serious doubt on this claim. In particular, in the website of the Association of Municipalities of Lisbon ( you can find a document from João Ferrão, a Geographer and Researcher from University of Lisbon (and also Secretary of State for Territory issues), entitled "Para uma área metropolitana de Lisboa COSMOPOLITA E RESPONSÁVEL" (Toward a Cosmopolitan and Responsible Lisbon Metropolitan Area:, which seems to refute this claim. The document is in Portuguese, yet you can easily check in the first table on p.318 (Quadro XIV. 1 - Comparação das Regiões Metropolitanas Ibéricas com base em indicadores de dimensão) that Lisbon is the 3rd metropolitan area in most indicators like Number of Companies (Empresas), Number of Large Companies (Grandes Empresas), and PIB per capita (4th column of table 2 - Quadro XIV. 2 - in page 319). The only indicator where Lisbon is actually ranks second in the peninsula is in terms of air traffic related to the transportation of commodities, an indicator that measures the volume of commodities transported by plane in tons... Therefore, unless the author is able to provide a stronger reference or indicator to support the claim being made, I believe this sentence should be removed.

3. Wealth: "The Lisbon region is the wealthiest region in Portugal and it is well above the European Union's GDP per capita average – it produces 45% of the Portuguese GDP." --> Lisbon is indeed the wealthiest region in Portugal. Yet, this figure is an overstatement. On the website of INE - Portuguese Institute of Statistics ( - you can find the official data which shows that, in 2007, Lisbon's share of the GDP was about 37%, not 45%. Specifically, Lisbon's GDP in 2007 was EUR 59,722 million while the total GDP of Portugal was EUR 163,119 million.

You can find these figures in the follwing table at INE's website: To see the data for Lisbon you need to click on 'Change selection conditions', then, on the left bar, on 'Geographic localization (NUTS - 2002)', and then drill down in the selection in the main window (Portugal>Continente>Lisboa).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC) 


Hi y'all, I rearranged all the images in the history section, added new descriptions to them and replaced some for better ones. This section of the article was cluttered with images, which had no meaning in respect to the section of the article they stood in. This is not a travel guide, but an article! Also, a lot of the same images were multiple times present in the article or, for instance, you had three pictures of the Torre de Belem in the article. I've taken care of this. Hope you guys like, what I've done. Gr. --17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My recent changes[edit]

User:Fredtheanimal put a note directly into the article asking for a cleanup of the History-Contemporary events section. That's the wrong thing to do, so I reverted it, however I did take a look and made a bunch of changes [2], which I'll try to explain here. I removed a few things altogether which were either non-notable and/or mentioned elsewhere already. And I moved a few items to either the Culture or Sports sections. Basically, I feel that the History section should be reserved for truly historic events, i.e. things that would go into scholarly books about general history. Notable events are different than historic events in a way, historic events affect the course of history, i.e. they cause changes elsewhere. Really big rock festivals are notable, but they very rarely change the course of history.

I'm not familiar with the way that regular editors here wish to structure this article, so of course please feel free to review and revert anything I've done wrong. The Contemporary events sub-section just looked like a collection of miscellany added by various editors over time, without any great regard to sourcing.

One more thing: the Sports section, to me, is a little confusing. It seems heavily concentrated on football, which I do understand. But maybe it could be split up a little better to separate national leagues from euro leagues? And like many other city articles, it is lacking in discussion of amateur sport and amateur leagues. I've always felt that these give a better picture of what a city is all about, rather than just the three most-famous clubs. Just a note...

Oh, even one more thing: Culture could be sub-sectioned in more ways than the city districts. But I know even less about Lisbon culture than I do about football, so I put the rock festivals into Culture!

Hope my changes were beneficial! Franamax (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The article of Portugal was deleted[edit]

Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bridge Builders[edit]

From other sources in wikipedia, I note that the 25th of April bridge was constructed by the same company (American Bridge Company) as the San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge, NOT the Golden Gate Bridge, as in this article. This makes sense since the former has cross-bracing. However, the colour is certainly similar to that of the latter (International Orange), rather than the former, which is silverish. I suggest that the maintainers please correct. --Muchado (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent information to add[edit]

Lisbon was considered by World Travel Awards 2009 as:

- Europe's Leading City Break Destination
- Europe's Leading Cruise Destination
- Europe's Leading Destination

You can verify this information on the World Travel Awards official website: I think its a information that could be add in the Lisbon article. (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


Under partner cities, Budapest is mentioned twice... I don't have any wiki experience so I'll leave it to someone else to fix --Eror11 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Main picture[edit]

I think we need to come up with a new main picture for this article, as the one we got now is clearly inadequate. We're supposed to have something that comes up as a symbol of the city, not a hundred pictures crammed together in a mosaic (there's even repeated stuff there!). Wikipedia is not a gallery, we have too many pictures in this article as a matter of fact. We got Commons to serve as a picture repository. I think the main picture should be replaced with a single picture of e.g. Lisbon's downtown, or the castle, or Belém Tower. Húsönd 13:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur, the montage would not be the type of picture I would use in this article. When I recently updated the Geobox, I was tempted to replace it, but did not. I would suggest something like the picture of Eduardo VII Park, the Lisbon City Hall, OR Padrão dos Descobrimentos (showing the 25 April Bridge), yet not the Belem Tower, since it is already used for the UNESCO designation; the picture needs to be an ex-libris and cultural icon for Lisbon. Visually, when you mention "Lisbon", what is the first thing one thinks (i.e. landscape or architectural symbol)? Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest something like the picture of Los Angeles also London, only 4-5 (on 1) pictures of most characteristic places in the city or panorama or skyline of Lisbon (if it is on the Commons). Subtropical-man (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not oppose a mosaic, as long as it contains a reasonable number of pictures, i.e. 5 at most. That said, I think that mosaics were not a very good idea anyway. Readers would sometimes like to enlarge a picture that belongs to a mosaic, but clicking on it will lead to the mosaic, not to the separate picture and that's frustrating. A single, good quality picture of Lisbon's skyline or a distinctive landmark of the city, would in my opinion be the best option for the article. Húsönd 21:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The lede is out of date[edit]

Currently the Portuguese government has cancelled the High speed rail projects to Spain, so Lisbon is not going to be linked to Madrid & the rest of Europe in 2013, and I doubt Lisbon could be considered a high speed rail hub compared to Paris, Madrid, Brussels or London.

Portugal suspende a linha de alta velocidade Lisboa-Madrid

Suspenso TGV entre Lisboa e Madrid

TGV Lisboa-Madrid deve ser suspenso (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

When Lisbon came under Visigothic rule?[edit]

The Suebi took Lisbon first time in or around 448 but lost it in 456 when a Visigothic intervention restored the Roman administration. In 469 the Suebi took Lisbon again. However, it seems the city came under Visigothic rule even before the final incorporation of the Suebi kingdom (585). So when exactly Lisbon did fall in Visigothic hands? --Roksanna (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Patron Saint[edit]

It says here that Lisbon's Patron Saint is Saint Anthony of Padua, this is a common mistake. Lisbon's Patron Saint is Saint Vincent. The Portuguese Wiki article is correct. I'd appreciate it if someone could edit this since I have limited experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


Changing the word "important" with the word "significant" is not a grammatical correction. Grammar is a different discipline. Please write correct summaries to your contributions. Gantuya eng (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Lisbon Monatage.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Lisbon Monatage.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 December 2011
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.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Notable persons[edit]

The notable persons section is just too large. I propose that it is just limited to the name, liftime, and one simple sentence on the person. This section is taking too much space on the article and cluttering it. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should "thin the herd". I offer the following, since I don't believe there really is an issue of this section being "too large": concur with the suggestion (limiting to name, date references and notability of the citizens), but also that only those born and died in Lisbon should be included (with verifiable citations or cross-references to Wikipedia articles with cited proof). I also offer that, many tend to throw into this section people who "lived" in Lisbon, which may have created bloat. I refer to the example of the situation in the Coimbra city article, which includes people who were born, died, lived or "involved" in the affairs of the town. Regarding your comment on "cluttering" the article: I don't see it. The section, in list format, does not create confusion and provides context for notability (per Wikipedia guidelines). Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I Agree and/or I understand, I did expand the article, as well as some names I added to Porto and other district capitals. It was hard to put a summary in one line, hence the expansion of space. They are all born in Lisbon here, all (this was accurate, at least is certain in most cases or presumed by historians in others - You can link all of them) with only one exception: João da Nova. There are not even mentioned some notable figures of Liberalism, Art and of the colonial world etc., for example, and I'm talking about important figures in history according to the opinion, historians and the general idea. Kings, Queens and Princes born in Lisbon, being Lisbon the capital and so on (the greater part of them in the case throughout history) were not included in this list (but included in some other Portuguese cities or villages in the Anglophone wikipedia; inconsistent criteria or not depends?!)... Maybe the existence of this section has to be reviewed in all cities. There were citizens or temporary residents born outside longer tied to a city or even more culturally "important" for it than some also considered notable born there, depending on each case. --LuzoGraal (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Second lead paragraph is too dense and almost unreadable[edit]

The second lead paragraph is stuffed with unimportant and dubious "facts", a clear case of statistical puffery. I propose that it be trimmed, and the dead weight of superfluous information be moved to other appropriate sections of the article, if it is supported. Carlstak (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


This article is one of great importance to many differant subjects and yet it is in complete dissarray. While the content may be well done, the structure of the article is no way near the par that it should be, in order to equate to the Madrid, London, and Paris articles. It is scatered, withough organization, and lacks continuity. I would like to restructure the article, alongside any who will help, into being an article of good organization. I would start off by giving it the proper infobox of a settlement, as every respectable city on wikipedia uses. From there I will give organization through tables and charts to the dissaray of freguesias and sister cities. After that I will, I have not decided, but this structure is needed. We must bring this article to the level of expectance that wikipedia has for its articles. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

While there may be contextual errors and internal disorganization, the article is setup and structured to meet the conventions of Wikipedia:WikiProject Portuguese geography. There is no disarray, as the content is divided into the appropriate sections and Geobox format established in that community. While I support a re-write on many of the sections to allow it to flow, the need to diverge from the established format/structure in that community is not supported. Can you specify what structural "errors" exist?. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you do a rewrite in your sandbox and submit it for review, Cristiano. The article as it stands now is not that badly written. Carlstak (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
That is what I am doing, Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Leading picture[edit]

I have replaced the previous leading picture (which was of terrible quality) with a much better one, showing some of the most iconic places of the city. Unfortunately, one particular user acts (again!)as if he is the owner of article. Thoughts? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. In this situation, user Cristiano Tomás is right. Picture in infobox is main picture of article. If you want change of picture, first: discuss; second: consensus. In particular, that your new image has drawbacks, for example: two panoramas next to each other and this view, who needs pictures of roofs of buildings? Subtropical-man (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
To my mind, the perfect picture should consist of pictures:
Subtropical-man (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This issue of main photo seems to be a recurring trend very often. Is there a way to reconcile the image quality issue with the mosaic format that has been suggested? Although, Wikipedia is fluid and temporary, we can at least get some consensus from the main editors? Sorry, just my two-cents. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Tourism ad or unbiased article?[edit]

Seriously. This article sounds more like a marketing text from a tourist brochure than an unbiased Wikipedia article. As I recently visited Lisbon, I was looking for some information on the changes in economy and demographics which have left most buildings of the city in a poor state of repair (at least externally), many of them even totally abandoned since decades and still standing only thanks to the crudely installed steel beam framework. It is a city of amazing contrasts, where you can find the Gucci flagship store on one side of the street and an abandoned alley on the other side where the buildings look more like ruins in war-torn Mostar, totally overgrown by weeds and gaping holes or bricks where there once were windows. In many ways the overall look of the city reminded me of Latvian port city Liepaja which I visited in 1998 in all its post-Soviet glory. But apparently Lisbon is as rich and prospering as any European capital. / (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Middle Ages[edit]

This section is full of non sequiturs. I fixed the one, two need analysis.

  • "The reconquest of Portugal and re-establishment of Christianity is one of the most significant events in Lisbon's history, described in the chronicle Expugnatione Lyxbonensi, telling that the local bishop was killed by the crusaders and that its residents were praying to the Virgin Mary." --- What is the connection?
  • As spoken Arabic lost its place in the everyday life of the city, many of the remaining Muslim residents were converted to Roman Catholicism by force, or were expelled, and the mosques were either destroyed or converted into churches." So, because Arabic is no longer spoken, people convert???? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Both isssues fixed. Carlstak (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Great stuff. It it was originally your work, then great, you would know what you did - both times - and therefore got it right; if it was someone else's work, it now works from a language point of view, but would that be what the original editor wanted to say? It is still a bit odd - why would there be a bishop in a Muslim Lisbon and why would the attacking Christians kill the bishop (a Christian)? Shouldn't we rather leave out the Bishop? It is anecdotal and unsourced anyway. What do you think? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
As memory serves me, during the Islamic occupation of the Iberian peninsula, much like other areas controlled by Islamic forces, they permitted the Christians to live and follow their own faith. The primary obligation of occupying forces was that the peoples under their dominion should follow their laws. Also, in the case of Lisbon, during the Reconquista, after Christian forces sacked the city the Christians who did not battle or resist Muslims, and then lived under their rule, were considered to be traitors to the "true faith". During the occupation, the bishop of Lisbon remained, to serve the Christian faithful. But, when the city was recaptured by the Christian forces he, as well as those Christians who hadn't fought the Muslims, were considered traitors, murdered and/or persecuted by the conquering forces. So it is possible to be a bishop in Muslim Lisbon. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
True. You are right. There was a mozarab Bishop. Just a point, if you permit me: All Christians and Muslims were to be fully respected - and they were, but not all, unfortunately (as I describe below). And Christians beyond respected, remaining so. The Moors were left for the suburbs (saloios) or departed. As the agreement stipulated.
The agreement Portuguese-European Cruzaders-Moors stipulated that the looting was promised only to foreigner cruzaders, which (some also enter first in the city or by stages or areas, each group (in the framework of the surrender agreement rules) should be with order and based on rules of entry at private homes and property. the locals should allow that, positioning themselves in accordance with the agreed.
And all did so, except a group of Flemish and German soldiers (at the wrong time, entering before the others, and only by themselves), who violated the treaty and killed various Moors and Christians, including the Christian bishop, which greatly angered and outraged King D. Afonso Henriques, the Portuguese and all the other Crusaders of various nationalities, outraged by such deaths, either of Christians or Moors (they did not expect such savage act). Also describing now, only by memory, the Chronicle of Osberno (correct me, please, if necessary). I have the chronicle (a modern translation) Have many details. With so many centuries! Amazing report! But I read some time ago.--LuzoGraal (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ZEORYMER and LuzoGraal. Good stuff. I knew that Christians, Muslims and Jews all lived hrmoniously together - before and after the Reconquista (until the Inquisitioin madness), but I was not aware that the Crusaders would kill fellow Christians to punish them for not fighting the Muslims. Perhaps that needs to be worked into the text, otherwise I am sure that quite a few readers will be equally puzzled. LuzoGraal, perhaps there are some interesting angles in your sources that you could still bring in? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Rui Gabriel Correia, And thank you also for the encouragement. Sorry, I've been a little busy and I just now returned. About this subject, I need a more careful reading. After rereading some things (diagonal) I have to change the information about what we both leave here by memory. It was a peaceful, negotiated surrender after a months siege. Yes there was a death , the bishop of Lisbon ( Bishop of long age, Mozarab or an Northern left decades before, during the first occupation of the city ​​by King of Leon), and the abuse of some women, perpretated by some Flemish and Colonese. They returned to the order after these crimes, apologizing again (see below for an earlier mutiny among the Crusaders themselves), and the peaceful and orderly occupation began, as agreed.
Several were killed during the siege, especially among the besieged, more by disease (also by disease and epidemics among the last ones, the Moors, after the delivery of the city). After the battle the very tragic irony is that apparently (?!), was the Christian Bishop the only one murdered by some Crusaders after the surrender.
The letter of the English crusader is a stunning document, by himself, by the speeches of the bishop of Porto and the Archbishop of Braga, and by the reporters on the spot. From the sermon of the Bishop of Porto, D. Pedro, to the Crusaders (with the appeal of D. Afonso Henriques), to the speech and appeal of the Archbishop of Braga, D. João, to the Moors before the siege. The archbishop of Braga, before the siege, next to the walls , calls the Moors for the recognition of the Christian determination, that the Moors and Moabites occupied a city (Lisbon) who must return to christian hands, to the rightful king and to the kingdom of Lusitania(sic) to which it belongs. The Moors were free to get either keeping their religion freely, or converting to Christianity, as its also appeals (free choice). Indeed in his message, the Archbishop recognizes that many were already born and were natural of the city. It is a message of an ultimatum that precedes a conquest or an occupation, of a time of crusades (and of that time in part), but with a tolerance (large for those times) that covers all argumentative aspects of our own present 21the century ideas of tolerance, to some extent, and much ahead of his time (Comparing with the greater Eclesiastic intolerance of the sixteenth century, you can do the evaluation. The archbishop of Braga knew vastly the classical and Christian history of the Peninsula (and of the Islamic presence), and of Lisbon in particular, mentioning the first Christian martyrs of Lisbon and the classical historical figures of the peninsular hagiography and politics. The Archbishop of Braga and the Bishop of Porto demonstrate both great erudition.
There is something depressing or uplifting : People like the English Cruzader, the Bishop of Porto and the Archbishop of Braga, nine hundred years away, in Theology, exagese and biblical knowledge, speculation and philosophical thought and debate, moral thought and justice, would win (they would crush) for comparison, and by K.O. on the first round (rsrs), many (if not the majority) of modern preachers, priests and even senior clerics, whatever their religious Confession. But we already know that the 12th century was an early first "Renaissance", and even across the high and lower Middle Ages, among some elites, intelectuals and monasteries. We can mention renowned historians on the revision (in the good sense of the word) of such concepts about those times, at least until certain point (on what Christian Europe concerns, even on its previous high Middle Age. Middle Ages were of initiation, rediscovery and light, especially from the twelfth century on. About the "Dark" Ages, maybe only the dark side of the Force in Star Wars, if I am allowed to parody.
Worthy speech of the Archbishop of Braga and response also worthy of the Moors, there cited. Great dignity on both sides.
The English Crusader also puts emphasis on the idea that Lisbon is a turning point in the Christian Reconquest of Hispania, in the interpretation of Divine signs and folk tradition, taken in Galicia (signs to their passage and notice of them by the locals), and the celestial events on their arrival at Tagus river.
It is also quite partial to the idea of giving honor, dignity and civilizational tolerance to his fellow English and Normans in comparison to his idea of greed and materialism of some Flemish and some German. Maybe " neutral" on the Franks. The effect of reporting almost any event or the riot between the Crusaders and against the King, the Moors and other crusaders, by some Germans and Flemish (not all of them), while negotiating the surrender of the city - and before, about the first meeting of all Crusaders with the king, is also superb (as real reports).
Apart exhilarating chronicles (many apocryphal and formal) on King Afonso Henriques, the English Crusader approach us, even for rare moments, of the first king of Portugal (treating him only as king), personally - in person - is my idea . The Crusader gives us an idea of his intelligence and honor .
The defense that the King makes of his honor and word (to the Moors and to the Crusaders), threatening to abandon the siege, before the mutiny of some German- Flemish Crusaders during the negotiations with the Moors, the apologies of their leaders (Flemish and German) who call them to reason, and later of themselves to he king, and the conclusion that everything will be done according to the word of the King are eloquent. The king withdraws his troops from the siege, just getting some Portuguese commanders and men of trust, to ensure that the spoils are only for Crusaders and in n the next day the King announces his decision that the surrender and the delivery the city shall be and will be as the Moors asked.
Having resisted before the surrender, the Moorish population has to leave, and in large crowds leaves the city by its 3 major gates.
Later, the King walked by the city and by the highest battlements and towers of the highest Castle, today the castle of São Jorge. --LuzoGraal (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The Sermon of Porto, written (Porto, then, yet, for the Crusaders, Portugalam or Portugala, (Porto / Porto and Gaia)) given by Bishop Pedro, was copied by the English Crusader on the trip by sea from Porto to Lisbon. The Bishop of Porto also came to Lisbon in the fleet (historical fact), and everything indicates, in the ship of the famous and enigmatic author of this amazing document. Then they joined the Portuguese at Lisbon (where they were for many days), D. Afonso Henriques, the Archbishop of Braga, all their bishops and prelates of the diocese of Braga, the army men and military orders. The letter indicates the presence of them all in Lisbon.
Some of those same northern Europeans had been in a previous siege to Lisbon in 1142, as the letter indicates.
There were, everything indicates, men from Scotland to England, Normandy, France, Britany, the Netherlands (here mainly Flemish), Germans, mainly from the north - and Koln for example and Danish. And great nobility and chief heads of all these nationalities.
High concentrations of Western European figures in the same place at the same time, by the way - and in what would be the most successful event of the 2nd Crusade, of many different expeditions (1147), under the patronage of the great Bernard of Claraval, cousin of D. Afonso Henriques, and spiritual father of the Templars. Begins to be understandable why this Order was in Portugal (on "the edge of the world", then) since 1126 (6 or 7 years after its fundation in Jerusalém and three years before his papal officialization in France, Troyes.
Some ideas, by memory, inspired by new refreshed readings, diagonally, from the translation into portuguese of this long Letter, taken from "Carta de um cruzado Inglês / Conquista de Lisboa aos Mouros em 1147" Livros Horizonte (coleccção Cidade de Lisboa) 2004 --LuzoGraal (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Vs. Geobox[edit]

Since I can remember, this page (and all pages on Portuguese cities and administrative units) has always stood out (and not in a good way) from the rest of the reputable cities of the world in its use of the geobox instead of the infobox. Apart from my own personal distaste for the disorganization and cluttered feel of the geobox, I find it unnecessary to break consistency of the infobox with Lisbon. I understand the structures of cities in Portugal are one of relative uniqueness when compared to a regular city, but it is not so revolutionary that it would warrant a special box. Let us finally decide on the matter, as a community, using democracy and logic, above all. Shall we use the infobox or the geobox. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox versus Geobox[edit]

Community Comments[edit]

I would like to first apologize for the confusion during the lead-up to this debate. In reference to User:Cristiano Tomás' comments on Geobox versus Infobox, I offer the above presentation of both, to argue my points. Apart from the aesthetic differences (using the Vector-based formating), I offer that this format is neither disorganized nor cluttered, easily providing a structured example of all components identified in the Infobox. The Geobox begins with toponomic information, follows into geographic statistics (divisions, point reference, dimensions) , histo-political information, administrative codes, before social information. The Infobox, in comparison, starts at divisions, then history, then government, then physical dimensions, then social, followed by administrative codes before jumping back to social. I find that the Infobox "jumps" around far more then the Geobox. Meanwhile, the Geobox design encapsulates the important geographic and socio-political references, allows enough customization to add new groupings, automates the calculation of dimensions (area, distances, etc), and integrates directly with Wikimedia Commons, within a more compact structure then Infobox format (lateral page size). It has been discussed in the past (can't find the reference) that the Geobox positioning of the map might not be the best, but even that does not dissuade me from preferring, what I feel is, a content-rich layout of the Geobox. Its just MADE for this type of data summary. I note that there many details that can not be duplicated within the Infobox: in fact, I will concede to Infobox (against my dislike), if it is possible to duplicate the detail already based in the Geobox format. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Negative population density[edit]

So, what we got: urban area has 958 km2 with population of 3,051,000. Metro area has 2,957 km2 with population of 3,035,000. Simple math says that –16,000 people live in the remaining 1,999 km2, giving population density of –8 persons/km. I guess that Lisbon city center attracts more people than a black hole, and laws of physics collapse into a singularity in a similar manner. No such user (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of word "region"[edit]

For someone who does not know anything about the politico-administrative divisions in Portugal, the use of the word "region" in this article will be very much confusing. Portugal is a partially and peripherally regionalized country: it has only two proper regions in a politico-administrative sense: the Autonomous Region of Açores, and the the Autonomous Region of Madeira. Mainland Portugal is *not* a region: anyone living there is subject to the national government, and to local government, but it is not subject to any intermediate level administration. "Districts" do not qualify as an intermediate level administration, as there are no district parliaments nor district governments.

Hence, the use of the word "region" in this article, plus the expression "region of Lisbon" leads reader into the wrong belief that there is such thing as a "region of Lisbon". Lisbon is a municipality, with many parishes; municipalities and parishes are part of the local level political administration.

Lisbon is a NUTS II region. NUTS regions are used by the EuroStat to collect data; they need not coincide with any existing politico-administrative regions; NUTS regions exist for the statistical purposes of EuroStat and other statistics offices, they are not political-administrative entities.

Hence, I am changing any reference to "region of Lisbon" to NUTS II region of Lisbon. As this may be visually annoying (or reader unfriendly), one may just erase the word "region" whenever it is improperly used, that is, almost all the times in this article.

aw5678 at gmail dot com — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Aqueduto das Águas Livres[edit]

Aqueduto das Águas Livres is in Campolide, not Alcântara! Please correct the picture subtitle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Thank you. Carlstak (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "US Board on Geographic Names". United States Geological Survey. 2007-10-25. Retrieved 2008-01-31.