This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Portuguese Empire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Portuguese Empire was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles
Find correct name
The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.
The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Macau, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to Macau.MacauWikipedia:WikiProject MacauTemplate:WikiProject MacauMacau articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colonialism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ColonialismWikipedia:WikiProject ColonialismTemplate:WikiProject Colonial EmpiresColonialism articles
There is way too much information now in the Age of Discovery section (just look at the size of the text under each heading - it is enormous). This article is an overview about the Portuguese Empire, not a list of every single discovery and event that happened. Detail should go into sub-articles. If we are ever going to get this to be a Featured Article, there needs to be a lot of trimming of this section and fleshing out of other sections. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 13:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
surely the British empire lasted longer - invasion of ireland in 1169 until, well, they still have Gibraltar,Malvinas,Sandwich islands, diego garcia - where they deported the locals a few years back... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.111.19 (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the recurring and polemic (but productive) discussions over the Spanish Empire anachronous map, I would suggest that the existing depiction of the Portuguese Empire map should undergo an upgrade. I don't know about many actual details of the Empire history, but -to exemplify- it is certainly anti-historical to transpose the actual map of Brazil (with its XXth century recognized borders) to the Empire map. Back in 1822 there were not even Portuguese claims over such a territory, not to mention the actual extent of State sovereignity. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well... in fact you are wrong! The present map depicts the exact borders of Brazil up to 1822, and does not present subsequent territorial changes in Brazil. Furthermore, those territories that were Brazil's in 1822 were much more than just Portuguese claims, they were de facto and de jure recognized as under Portuguese sovereignity. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by the way, I'm refering to this map...
and not this one...
which one did you mean? The Ogre (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I meant the first one. Can you show me any documents from where I can learn that extent of land was recognized potuguese territory, please? As for the actual occupation of most of Amazonia and Matto Grosso by 1822, I seriously doubt it, anyway. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the second one, I don't know what to say. If it is meant to represent the Portuguese Empire it is definitely flawed. If not, I'm not sure what does it represents.
BTW, this other map representing the empire in 1810 has another significant flaw: nor Cisplatina, nor Misiones were part of the Empire at that moment, not to mention the amazonian region et al. already mentioned.
Maybe you have some documents there. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the othe two maps you mention have severe flaws. But regarding the 1st one, you would be suprised by the rates of actual occupation, not to mention international recognition. For sources you may want to check Boxer's books, namely "Salvador de Sá and the Struggle for Brazil and Angola, 1602-1686 (1952)", "The Dutch in Brazil (1957)", "The Golden Age of Brazil, 1695-1750 (1962)", and first of all "The Portuguese Seaborne Empire (1969)". Meanwhile notice that, as it is said in Brazil#Portuguese colonization and territorial expansion (my bold):
The land now called Brazil (the origin of whose name is disputed), was claimed by Portugal in April 1500, on the arrival of the Portuguese fleet commanded by Pedro Álvares Cabral.[1] The Portuguese encountered stone age natives divided into several tribes, most of whom shared the same Tupi-Guarani linguistic family,[1] and fought among themselves.[2]
Colonization was effectively begun in 1534, when DomJoão III divided the territory into twelve hereditary captaincies,[3][4] but this arrangement proved problematic and in 1549 the king assigned a Governor-General to administer the entire colony.[4][5] The Portuguese assimilated some of the native tribes[6] while others were enslaved or exterminated in long wars or by European diseases to which they had no immunity.[7][8] By the mid 16th century, sugar had become Brazil's most important export[2][9] and the Portuguese imported African slaves[10][11] to cope with the increasing international demand.[7][12]
The first Christian mass in Brazil, 1500.
Through wars against the French, the Portuguese slowly expanded their territory to the southeast, taking Rio de Janeiro in 1567, and to the northwest, taking São Luís in 1615.[13] They sent military expeditions to the Amazon rainforest and conquered British and Dutch strongholds, founding villages and forts from 1669.[14] In 1680 they reached the far south and founded Sacramento on the bank of the Rio de la Plata, in the Eastern Strip region (present-day Uruguay).[15]
At the end of the 17th century sugar exports started to decline[16] but the discovery of gold by explorers in the region that would later be called Minas Gerais (General Mines) around 1693, and in the following decades in current Mato Grosso and Goiás, saved the colony from imminent collapse.[17] From all over Brazil, as well as from Portugal, thousands of immigrants came to the mines.[18]
The Spanish tried to prevent Portuguese expansion into the territory that belonged to them according to the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas, and succeeded in conquering the Eastern Strip in 1777. However, this was in vain as the Treaty of San Ildefonso, signed in the same year, confirmed Portuguese sovereignty over all lands proceeding from its territorial expansion, thus creating most of the current Brazilian borders.[19]
In 1808, the Portuguese royal family, fleeing the troops of the French Emperor Napoleon I that were invading Portugal and most of Central Europe, established themselves in the city of Rio de Janeiro, which thus became the seat of the entire Portuguese Empire.[20] In 1815 Dom João VI, then regent on behalf of his incapacitated mother, elevated Brazil from colony to sovereign Kingdom united with Portugal.[20] In 1809 the Portuguese invaded French Guiana (which was returned to France in 1817)[21] and in 1816 the Eastern Strip, subsequently renamed Cisplatina.[22]
Does all this reply to some of your concerns? Hope so. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry I do not have any actual chances to access not one of those sources. Moreover, there is not a single one of them on-line, as it seems. So I hope you won't mind, but I just have to rely on your good will to learn on this subjbect.
Actually, I'd like to see just one or two quotes from where I can learn that the -certainly impressive- inland expansion of the XVIth century did actually went that far, and that it involved more than mere exploration (i.e.: actual de facto dominion and/or coextensive veritable undisputed claims over the whole of those territories).
As well (and I hope I'm not really asking you too much), it would be important to me to learn that such extensive dominion/claim actually continued to exist as such for some continous period of time, or that at least it was veritably reassumed in the early XIXth century.
Thank you very much for your kind attention. I enjoy learning this kind of counterintuitive facts. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! But you must give some time... LIfe is not limited to wikipedia! See you soon. The Ogre (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These maps are always a little guesswork anyway. Please do not remove the map because of a minor technicality. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 01:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
was as if the world of all Albanians as would be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.210.138.254 (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are de facto Portuguese territories, but dispute only ended at the Treaty of Madrid, with some minor details fixed on treaties of El Pardo, Utrecht, etc. Some external sources:
Brazil's current territory was in fact established by law since the mid-XVIII century, there were only some future disputes like the Cisplatina's territory that would later evolve into Uruguay in the XIX century. So that is right indeed. The problem with that map is that this The overseas interests and areas of the world that at one time were territories of the Portuguese Empire. should have a better understanding, because that map is clearly anachronic (the Empire never was like that in any moment in History) and diachronic (The Map depicts the territories that were in different times in History part of the Empire). The latter is correctly noted on the Portuguese and Spanish wikipedia articles about the Portuguese Empire, but not in the French one, which even writes L'Empire portugais à son apogée, which of course is an awful mistake. --Good Hope Phanta (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is Portugal really the longest-lived colonial empire? France, after all, still owns French Guiana to this day. Kennercat (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By that token, Portugal still has the Açores and the Madeira. Just like French Guiana, they elect parliamentarians to the National Assembly and are considered an integral part of the national territory, rather than colonies. --Wtrmute (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Portugal kingdom braganza.gif Nominated for Deletion[edit]
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.
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.
It seemed to me that the only significant problem this article had was the citations needed to get this article up to GA status. I've added a at least a few dozen of them myself that I could find. The few that I couldn't find was probably done explicitly in some other language (I've encountered Portuguese and French sources), but am not well-versed in either language for transferring in those. Is it possible that anyone can find the last few citations needed so this article can get a GA renomination. I would like to see one of the significant colonial European Empires (I believe the British Empire is the only one with either a FA or GA) acquire that status. Thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the lack of adding where exactly I got the sources from on the colonization of the Americas section. I cannot pull them up right now, due to lack of sleep. As soon as I get back on Wikipedia on Monday, I will add those book sources, and continue trying to get this article to up to par for at least a GA status. LeftAire (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this article it acts like the Ottoman had totally given up on the Indias after the Second Battle of Diu, but if you go to the Ottoman naval expeditions in the Indian Ocean page it says that the Portuguese were fighting battles in the Indian Ocean all the way into 1580s. I am asking if someone who knows more about this works to fix things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.6.3.33 (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I propose splitting this article into three, but leaving a slimmed-down broad-concept article in summary style at this title. The three new articles would be:
Many works in English use this schema, including two that use it in their titles: Malyn D. Newitt, ed., The First Portuguese Colonial Empire (University of Exeter Press, 1986) and W. G. Clarence-Smith, The Third Portuguese Empire, 1825–1975: A Study in Economic Imperialism (Manchester University Press, 1985).
According to WP:TOOBIG, a page of this size (>100 kB) almost certainly should be divided. Srnec (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article is too big. There's way too much irrelevant (to an overview article) detail such as statements like "The price for one girl or boy from China was 15 or 20 ducats." I'm not entirely sure about splitting it up though. What will happen is that noone will edit (or look at) the 1st/2nd/3rd articles, and stuff will start creeping into the main article. That said, some people get revert-y if they feel stuff is being deleted from the encyclo (especially if it's stuff they added themselves). So being able to say that it's not being deleted, it's just being moved to another article can assuage those concerns. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 00:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so afraid about big articles? German articles are much bigger than English. No problem. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whose afraid? Srnec (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it is also slightly silly to claim the "Portuguese Empire" somehow lasted "1415-2002" (pt-wiki does this, apparently out of misguided patriotism). Yes, so Portugal handed over East Timor, but owning one single island hardly makes a country an "empire". The actual empire lasted from the 1400s to the 1700s. If the remaining colonies of the 19th to early 20th century make for a "Third Empire", so be it. If this "Third Empire" can be argued to have crept on until it was finally dismantled in the decolonisation of 1950ff, fine. But it is futile to pretend that we are here looking at any sort of identifiable political or territorial entity with a lifetime of six centuries. The kingdom of Portugal collapsed in 1910 along with its overseas empire, and whatever came after 1910 was at best some sort of afterglow.
Also, even if we do not split, coverage of 20th century events is completely overblown. This is the article about the Portuguese Empire, 1415-1974. Yet it has obsessively detailed coverage of events in Angola in 1916,
Throughout the year, Portugal dispatched contingents of troops to the Allied front in France. Midway in the year, Portugal suffered its first WWI casualty. Meanwhile, in Portuguese Africa, Portugal and the British fought numerous battles against the Germans in both Mozambique and Angola. Later in the year, U-boats entered Portuguese waters again and, once more, attacked Madeira, and sunk multiple Portuguese ships. Through the beginning of 1918, Portugal continued to fight along the Allied front against Germany, including participation in the infamous Battle of La Lys. As autumn approached, Germany found success in both Portuguese Africa, and against Portuguese vessels, sinking multiple ships. The Portuguese contingents grow discernibly weary of battle, and so their involvement becomes limited. Then, after nearly three years of fighting (from a Portuguese perspective), WWI ends, with an armistice being signed by Germany.
The Portuguese colonial empire remained very real down to 1974. It was hardly an afterglow. It would be far better to describe the preceding centuries—when Portuguese control remained minimal outside of coastal factories and trading posts—as a "pre-glow", and describe the last years of the monarchy and the first half-century of the republic as an era of colonial expansion and consolidation, resulting in a real overseas empire ruled by Portugal.
We should probably dispense with any dates (or even an infobox) at all, since the phenomenon of the colonial empire underwent many changes during the period of 1415–2002. Srnec (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that the "Portuguese Empire" was "real" 1910-1974 (but hardly to 2002... I think imperial ambition was entirely a thing of the past after the Carnation Revolution). The "Portuguese Empire" is still about 1415-1660 or so. If you want to consider this a "pre-glow" to the "Third Empire", that's fine. Which would return us to the question if it would not be better to treat Third Portuguese Empire as a standalone topic.
I agree that the infobox doesn't really help here. I note that this article is far better developed than the kingdom of Portugal on. The latter page should probably be developed into a summary page on the history 1139 to 1910. But then we already have well-developed articles History of Portugal (1139–1279), History of Portugal (1279–1415), History of Portugal (1415–1578), History of Portugal (1640–1777), History of Portugal (1834–1910), so this might mostly be an effort in content duplication. Its a topic comparable to Roman Empire, and I do think it will make sense to work towards splitting it up. --dab(𒁳) 12:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can people please tell everyone what they are doing?[edit]
At least in edit summaries?
I am certainly no expert in this area, and I am sure the article can be improved, but edits such as this are simply not helpful.
no edit summary. It isn't clear what was the point of the edits
renewed focus on the modern period. Why must the infobox on the Portuguese Empire (1415-1910) note what the national anthem of Portugal was during 1911-2011? Why is it an improvement to have the infobox sport the coat of arms with heraldic supporters introduced in 1640 rather than the plain coat of arms as used during the entire period of 1481-1910? Maybe you have a smart rationale I didn't see, but how am I supposed to second-guess your intentions if you don't give as much as an edit summary? And let's be honest, on the surface of things, this change is counter-intuitive.
restoration of a rambling tale on selected periods of Portuguese history in the WP:LEAD. This is supposed to be a WP:SS article with the job of the lead simply to lay out in front of the reader the rough organisation of content. If we begin to burden the lead with lengthy prose, where will it end? It's 500 years of history, and every editor will find yet another paragraph important enough to add to the existing lead, until we have a full standalone history of Portugal just as the article's "introductory paragraph".
complete loss of the distinction of "First", "Second" and "Third" Empire. Look, I don't know how common this division is, but we have established that the terms are in use, and the problem is that the titles First Portuguese Empire, Second Portuguese Empire and Third Portuguese Empire all redirect here. And now these titles redirect to a page where the terms aren't even mentioned. This will not do. I am not trying to impose organisation along this division on the article if there are coherent reasons not to, but then your job will be to lay out these reasons, and then fix the incoming links to become short articles about the respective terms.
I hope the above makes clear that I am not trying to WP:OWN the article and I'm perfectly happy to let people with special knowledge on the topic take over, but the above changes were clearly ill-advised not necessarily on grounds of content but simply as editorial decisions.
--dab(𒁳) 05:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here! Sorry for such the delay! I didn't even realize that you had replied to the message that I sent you around 7-9 days ago. I sort of like the setup of it so far, I just need to figure out what aspects of the page need to be trimmed down. Hopefully I'll be able to go to the library this weekend to acquire some of the books that I used to originally cite articles on the Brazil and the Americas page. I'm also going to start doing some re-reading of the Iberian Union period and begin re-editing that section regarding the Protestant Powers. The section about Jan Huyghen van Linschoten is probably entirely unnecessary excluding a sentence reference. I just need see if I can find the sources at my University library in town to properly add it along with the section talking about the Dutch-Portuguese War. Thanks for fixing up the titles and the flag! If you want, I can send you some of the links from Google Books to particular sources you don't mind making edits to. I'll try to help where I can in that matter if necessary, I'm just trying not to get bogged down by my upcoming errands to much to the point that I forget to offer assistance. Thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the contretemps of "Portuguese Overseas" vs. "Overseas Portugal"[edit]
I believe that if one reads "Overseas Portuguese" in its own context of the words that follow it in the lede: "(Ultramar Português) or the Portuguese Colonial Empire (Império Colonial Português), was the first global empire in history," it makes sense and is grammatically correct if you see it as a corollary of "Portuguese Colonial Empire". Carlstak (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What neither of you two seem to know is that "overseas" is not a noun in English, so a literal translation of ultramar português is impossible. Here is Oxford if you trust it more. In "Overseas Portuguese" and "Portuguese Overseas" it is "Portuguese" that comes off as the noun (i.e., we're talking about Portuguese émigrés). Srnec (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be stroppy.;-). Actually, "Português" is the adjective that modifies the noun "ultramar". Changed it to "Portuguese Overseas (Ultramar Português) Empire". This better gets what I was aiming for. Carlstak (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't get it. In English, "Portuguese Overseas" means "Portuguese folks who are abroad". It does not mean what Ultramar Português means because "overseas" is not a correct translation of ultramar. Why? Because the former is an adjective or adverb and the latter a noun. Srnec (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are the the one who doesn't get it. You are not being consistent, because "Portugal" is not a correct translation of "Português", either. "Portuguese Overseas" in English can function as two adjectives modifying the same noun, so it works perfectly well. Carlstak (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except now you're adding a word that's not there in the original. I never cared about how literal the translation was in the first place, so how am I being inconsistent? I just want a readable lead sentence! Yours is not an improvement. Srnec (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In all good fellowship, it seems to me that "Portuguese Overseas (Ultramar Português)", with the Portuguese term in parentheses and the word "Empire" following, is intelligible and serves well enough as a compromise between Cristiano Tomás's preference and yours. I admit that "Portuguese Overseas (Ultramar Português) Empire" is not ideal, but neither is yours, nor his. Carlstak (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I meant to say that "Ultramar Português" does not refer to "Portuguese folks who are abroad"; it refers to the Portuguese territories abroad. Those territories were the Portuguese "empire".Carlstak (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this map, with its dots (forts or feitorias) always have been controversial, it is clear POV by some foreign historian, whose name I cant tell, and not just that, it's not conventional at all, but it keeps appearing in wikipedia articles for years. Just for India, even wikipedia can help understanding the map is useless. read -WELL- the Portuguese section on the vassal Kingdom_of_Cochin and get to see its territory. This is one example. It would be useful if someone get maps from History books.--Pedro (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some time cleaning up the Footnotes + Bibliography section, and there are references which can't be distinguished between multiple books by these authors:
Marley
Metcalf
Newitt
Ooi
Pearson
Russell-Wood
For example, "Marley, p. 76" can point to page 76 in either of these books:
@IAmAmanisY. All of those errors should be taken care of. Long time to respond, bu now I have (some) time... LeftAire (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Portuguese Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Portuguese Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Portuguese Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Being the first global empire is a claim that gets thrown around about both the Spanish and Portuguese Empires from time to time. The reason that the claim can be made for both is that it's such a nebulous concept to be a "global empire", and as such it's ripe material for potential POV-pushers. I would argue that the term is not informative but rather ambiguous in a way that contributes to confusion, and should as a result be avoided at all times. TompaDompa (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's far from nebulous; the Portuguese crown was the first to exert some authority in the continents of Europe, America, Africa and Asia simultaneously. Crenelator (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
East Timor gained independence from Portugal in 1975 and gained independence in 2002 from Indonesia. The Portuguese Empire should be listed as ending in 1999 with the transfer of Macao in 1999. The article even agrees with this sentiment. I vote the article reflect this by changing the end date of the Portuguese Empire to 1999. LoneWolf1992 (talk) 5:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 4 external links on Portuguese Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
@JamesOredan:, @TOPITIT: As an alternative to reverting each other, might it be worth having a conversation about this issue? Just so it's clear, I have no bias: I am Scottish, and have no particular connections with Portugal or Spain (other than a fondness for port after a big dinner, and rioja during big dinners).
The sentence By the monopoly exerted by its armadas on the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans route and related networks in the 16th century, and by the precocity and geography of its bases and territories, it has been described as the first global empire in history is problematic because it is hard to read - few native English speakers know the meaning of the word 'precocity', and the sentence contains nouns phrases that are so long that they are hard to follow. It's really awkward!
The bit stuck on the end about the Spanish empire is sort-of relevant, but it doesn't advance our knowledge about the Portuguese Empire other than adding a kind of this might not be true element to the rest of the sentence.
My proposal is this: ditch the whole sentence. The lead too long anyway per MOS:LEAD, and cutting down on unnecessary clutter would be a good thing. The map shows perfectly clearly how extensive the Portuuese empire was; we don't really need excess puffery about whether it, Spain, or anyone else was the first global empire. GirthSummit (blether) 22:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me and a moderator agreed to do it that way. Both the Spanish Empire and the Portuguese Empire are mentioned as the first global empires. Therefore, in each article it is named that the other empire was also. The discussion has already taken place. I just limit myself to preventing an individual from unilaterally deleting a phrase supported by reliable sources and agreed by moderators. The moderator is Doug Weller. He and I agreed that it should be mentioned in the article of the Spanish empire that the Portuguese Empire was also the first global empire and vice versa. JamesOredan (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have indented your comments - I hope that's OK? Please provide links to discussions with other editors, so everyone can take them into account? previously unsigned comment by GirthSummit (blether)
In the history of the editions of the article of the Spanish Empire you can see it. Or if you have doubts, talk to him.
In fact, it was he who included in the article of the Spanish Empire that the Portuguese Empire was also called the first global empire. And he told me that I could do the same in the article of the Portuguese Empire. JamesOredan (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've indented your comments again - I hope you don't mind? If you're interested, take a look at WP:THREAD and/or WP:INDENT, they contain useful advice on how to use talk pages to make it easier to follow discussions.
I had a look at the Spanish Empire history, and I see the edit summaries left here and here by yourself and Doug Weller. I agree that if we say it on one page, we should say it on both of them, but I still think that the sentence, as it currently stands, is really difficult to read. I'll try and write something that's easier to make sense of, and ideally a bit shorter.
Just for future reference, we don't talk about 'moderators' here; we generally call them admins, but you'll also see people referring to them as sysops, or mops. Admins tend to be very experienced (Doug Weller definitely is), and they always have a good understanding of policies, but their status is technical, not authoritarian - they don't automatically get the final say in a dispute about content. Saying 'an admin told me I could do it' isn't a good alternative to reasoned discussion about content. GirthSummit (blether) 11:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've changed that sentence - I basically just inverted the one at Spanish Empire, using the same sources - it's unambiguous, and easier to read. I also simplified the one immediately before it, which was very long and convoluted. GirthSummit (blether) 15:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
In this wikipedia page List of largest empires, it's stated that the portuguese empire didn't include Brazil. I have been all day trying to convice them that Brazil was once part of Portugal providing a lot of sources. Yet they are still trying to make people believe the portuguese empire was smaller than reallity. I feel like they don't want the portuguese empire to be big, by some reason..
I'm here to ask for help in order to put the things right.
Thank you Roqui15 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the Portuguese Empire, not part of Portugal. Portugal's boundaries are pretty static, and has always been part of the Iberian peninsula.
This source has been used to claim that the Portuguese Empire was one of the ten largest empires in world history. Of course, Business Insider is a financial news website, which is a far cry from being a WP:RELIABLE source about the relative sizes of historical empires. Anyway, this series of peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical empires contradicts that assertion.[1][2][3][4] We need to follow the WP:BESTSOURCES in order to comply with WP:NPOV, which in this case means going by what the peer-reviewed scientific articles on the topic say. TompaDompa (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Business Insider is not a reliable source for this sort of analysis. Furthermore, an "empire" is a complex and amorphous entity. Attempting to label one as the "biggest" or "first" or "best" is fraught with all sorts of difficulties. I would hesitate to include any such definitive label on any empire. This particular instance seems like pushing a personal point of view. Glendoremus (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2021[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Portuguese Empire (Portuguese: Império Português), also known as the Portuguese Overseas (Ultramar Português) or the Portuguese Colonial Empire (Império Colonial Português), was the first global empire [1][2][3] and considered the oldest of modern European colonial empires.[4] It was composed of the overseas colonies and territories governed by Portugal. One of the longest-lived empires in world history, it existed for almost six centuries, from the capture of Ceuta in 1415, to the handover of Portuguese Macau to China in 1999. The empire began in the 15th century, and from the early 16th century it stretched across the globe, with bases in North and South America, Africa, and various regions of Asia and Oceania.[5][6][7]Mendesjuniorm (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bestagon (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Portuguese Empire → Portuguese colonial empire – This topic is fundamentally colonial in nature, also referred to as the Portuguese Overseas. I've noticed in English-language literature that "Portuguese empire" is often written with a lowercase 'e.' It's worth emphasizing that a colonial empire represents a distinct category of empire, and for the sake of precision, the title should reflect that. In almost all other cases of colonial empires, the title includes the words "colonial" or "overseas." Examples include the Belgian colonial empire, English overseas possessions, Scottish colonization of the Americas, Danish overseas colonies, Dutch colonial empire, French colonial empire, German colonial empire, Japanese colonial empire, and Swedish overseas colonies. While in some of the cases mentioned above, the term "colonial" becomes necessary to differentiate them from non-colonial empires sharing the same name (such as Danish, French, German, Japanese, and Swedish), in other cases, these states did not govern any empire apart from their colonial empires. Examples include the Belgian, English, Scottish, and Dutch overseas. The British Empire is a well-established exception, and the Italian Empire is requested move as well. The Spanish Empire is a bit more complex because it included not only overseas possessions but also other territories. Kpratter (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. In the case of empires that are fundamentally colonial in nature, the title should reflect that. AFAIC this should be also the case for the Italian colonial empire. "British Empire" (including the uppercase E) is the long-standing exception.--Lubiesque (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The German Empire had colonies. So did the Swedish Empire. 🔥Jalapeño🔥Stupid stuff I did 12:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dutch Empire has been renamed Dutch colonial empire, Belgian Empire has been renamed Belgian colonial empire. Eventually, for the same reason, Portuguese Empire will be renamed Portuguese colonial empire.--Lubiesque (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The Dutch colonial empire and Belgian colonial empire should be moved back per commonname as well. 🔥Jalapeño🔥Stupid stuff I did 12:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as you could make the same pedantic case for many other empires but in practice and common usage, nobody bothers with his long-form distinction. I also agree with the remarks by @ModernDayTrilobite that the pages on the Dutch and Belgian empires should not have been moved. Killuminator (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
1573
1709
1789
1822
. All of those errors should be taken care of. Long time to respond, bu now I have (some) time... LeftAire (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bestagon (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
