Talk:Aníbal Cavaco Silva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Protect for a while?[edit]

Someone set this page protected and it was reverted. Wouldn't it be reasonable to effectively protect this page for a while? It has been much vandalized since the electins... --Rotring 14:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection is a last resort. There does not seem to be an overwhelming amount of vandalism on this article. Now, while the news is fresh, is a time when many contributors might add new information to the article. We just need to be vigilant. --Nelson Ricardo 17:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Article cleanup needed?[edit]

I was reading this article (the reason was pending legislation on same-gender marriage), but I noticed that most of the article feels like a translation of the original Portuguese. I think some clean up is needed to make it more syntactically correct in English. Thanks Reidca (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversial decisions?[edit]

The article refers to a few 'controversial' moments in Silva's presidency. Neither are these supposed controversies backed up with citations or do they seem especially controversial. For example:

The assembly of the republic passes a bill for the holding of a pre-legislative referendum on the legalisation of abortion in Portugal…

Bill is approved by parliament (no word is given to whether this itself was controversial, drawn out or approved by an unusually narrow margin). The bill is for a pre-legislative referendum.

So in essence the elected representatives of Portugal table and pass a bill for a public vote for the legalisation of abortion. The President's omission to veto the bill which would override both the legislature and judiciary is somehow considered controversial. Surely it would be controversial for the President to overrule both the chamber of elected representatives and the highest court in the land which found the bill constitutional.

This is compounded by the fact that the bill was not even to legalise abortion itself but merely to put the question to the people directly by holding a referendum.

Even when the supposedly controversial referendum went ahead barely a quorum of the electorate responded. Surely if the issue itself was controversial (ie. giving rise to public disagreement) then the turnout would be extremely high?

Of those who voted a majority voted for legalisation. Undermining the notion that legalisation of abortion is a controversial issue for Portugal, but that is entirely besides the point. What is intimated in the article is that not that legalisation of abortion is a controversial issue in Portugal but that the President's decision not to veto a bill is controversial.

I find it hard to accept that a decision or non-decision not to veto can be considered controversial in these circumstances.

The article goes on to state (almost incredulously) that President chose not to wield his veto power when the low-turnout of the referendum rendered it non-binding. Is this noteworthy? Do we expect all Presidents to veto wherever possible? Just because he could of used his veto doesn't give us any reason to believe that it is noteworthy that he didn't.

Similar arguments can be applied to the case of the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Portugal. Why is it controversial that he chose not to veto a bill that parliament had passed? It isn't a case of 'to veto or not to veto'. Its not a dilemma that the President faces whenever a law is about to be passed. As far as I'm aware you don't veto unless you have strong constitutional (or other) grounds to fly in the face of the elected majority and supreme court. It is a part of the checks and balances of the system of government in Portugal, not a mere alternative to assent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Leader of the Opposition[edit]

I just want to remind that the post of Leader of the Opposition does not exist in Portugal, as does not operate in a Westminster system or have a pure parliamentary system, like in Spain. Indeed, the use of such designation is a language abuse made by the press. - B.Lameira (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aníbal Cavaco Silva/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I believe some minor clean up, and some more facts would make this article go up to A rate easily.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves/Saoshyant talk / contribs 14:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has been sabotaged: The voting procedure is being referred to as "erection" rather than "election".

JOR, January 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 08:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aníbal Cavaco Silva. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)