Talk:Portugal/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Debt crisis

I think this subject should be added to the economy section. I know it already mentions a little, but since this caused a major blow to the portuguese economy I believe it should have more focus --DanielSantosDiaz (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

redirects

Please remove immediately the words 'Emplastro' 'Portuga' and 'O Papagaio' from the redirects.
http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=Portugal
Those words are VERY offensive.

I believe whom did write such thing should have jealous about what we did - and what we will do - to make a world more blue. No matter their own suckin' decisions and judgements.
Thank You.
MarCas--89.152.93.70 (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Porto.

National language

I have reverted a recent edit including the Mirandese as an official language in Portugal. That is not so. According to the Portuguese Constitution, the national language in Portugal is the Portuguese. According to the Law 7/99, of 29 January 1999, certain local rights are recognized to the Mirandese (see_here):

  • Artigo 1. O presente diploma visa reconhecer e promover a língua mirandesa (Article 1: the present law aims to recognize and promote the mirandese language);
  • Artigo 2. O Estado Português reconhece o direito a cultivar e promover a língua mirandesa, enquanto património cultural, instrumento de comunicação e de reforço de identidade da terra de Miranda. (Article 2: the Portuguese state recognizes the right to cultivate and promote the mirandese language as a cultural heritage, instrument of communication and reinforcement of the identity of the Mirandese land).

Thus there is no reason to insist on considering the Mirandese as an official language in Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's odd, because I've heard that there are 3 official languages in Portugal: the Portuguese, the Mirandese, and the Portuguese Sign Language. And it was the Cuidado Com a Língua who said it! (If you're Portuguese, you must know what I'm talking about.) Those guys aren't usually wrong... I'll search it, but do you think that the national language in Portugal could be only the Portuguese? Rereading those articles, please reconsider if, in your opinion, it actually leaves doubts that the Mirandese can be an official language or not... I might be wrong... -- Sim(ã)o(n) (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again I have reverted the edit made by Cristiano Tomás, who insists in inserting the Mirandese word for "Portugal" in the first line of the article. That is a useless and confusing piece of information that serves nobody, because the few thousand people that read Mirandese all speak and read Portuguese perfectly. The only Wikipdia article that I know where the name of the country is spelled in various languages is Switzerland, and those are official languages. Please discuss here before going on with this stupid edit war! May I remind all that this is the English Wikipedia? @Sim(ã)o(n): those guys (Cuidado Com a Língua) were really wrong, there is a very significant difference between an official language (the language used for official documents) and an officially recognized language. Dura lex sed lex! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The infobox's section asks for native languages. It does not ask if the people that speak Mirandese also speak Portuguese so there is no need. IT does not ask if other country articles include their languages in the infobox. It asks for the name of the country in its native languages, of which Portuguese and Mirandese are. It is not an official language but it is still a native language. Wikipedia is a place of knowledge and information, and we must inform all information. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted again (for the last time). The user who introduced this piece of information and (apparently) the only one supporting it is yourself (see here. The info box already mentions the Mirandese language, which has an article of its own. It doesn't matter whether the Mirandese is a native language or not because this is the English language Wikipedia. Brasil, the US and Canada (just to mention a few) all have various native languages but the articles don't show this kind of information. Not even the article about Portugal in the Portuguese language wiki does it. - Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe most of the people who read this article are Portuguese, but that should not be considered about which information to give. The amount of information should be the same in all Wikipedias. As the Mirandese language is a language which has no importance at all for Portugal, there should be no destak given to it. I think the infobox should include the Portuguese as the official language and the Mirandese as a officially recognized language (or at least a footnote saying it). The article itself should make few or no mentions to the Mirandese, and the name of "Portugal" in Mirandese language is completely unnecessary. But there must be made some mention, either on the infobox or on a footnote. Although "no one" really cares about Mirandese, let us not forget it completely. There must be made some mention, but not a lot. I think the best would be 1 either on the infobox or in a footnote, and 0 or 1 in the article itself. No more and no less than that. About the Cuidado com a Língua, I might have got it wrong. Maybe they didn't say "official languages" and I misunderstood it... -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 22:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. The Mirandese is indeed mentioned in the infobox. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the section "Performance"

On the section "Performance", the following paragraph:

"A report published in January 2011 by the Diário de Notícias, a leading Portuguese newspaper, demonstrated that in the period between the Carnation Revolution in 1974 and 2010, the democratic Portuguese Republic governments encouraged over expenditure and investment bubbles through unclear public-private partnerships. This has funded numerous ineffective and unnecessary external consultancy and advising committees and firms, allowed considerable slippage in state-managed public works, inflated top management and head officers' bonuses and wages, causing a persistent and lasting recruitment policy that boosted the number of the expensive and highly privileged redundant public servants. In addition to risky credit and out of control public debt creation, the state-run services and departments mismanaged a wealth of European structural and cohesion funds for almost four decades.[62]"

I find the phrase "causing a persistent and lasting recruitment policy that boosted the number of the expensive and highly privileged redundant public servants" very questionable and would like to see its the source. Particularly regarding the "expensive and highly priviledged redundant public servants".

Also how can "the state-run services and departments [have] mismanaged a wealth of European structural and cohesion funds for almost four decades" when Portugal only joined the European Community in 1986? That's not even 3 decades.

79.169.92.131 (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)rodrigo


Mirandese (again)

I have, once more, reverted the insertion of Mirandese in the first line of the article. This kind of surreptitious edit serves no useful purpose. Let me repeat what I have written above:

  • Once again I have reverted the edit made by Cristiano Tomás, who insists in inserting the Mirandese word for "Portugal" in the first line of the article. That is a useless and confusing piece of information that serves nobody, because the few thousand people that read Mirandese all speak and read Portuguese perfectly. The only Wikipdia article that I know where the name of the country is spelled in various languages is Switzerland, and those are official languages. Please discuss here before going on with this stupid edit war! May I remind all that this is the English Wikipedia?
  • The info box already mentions the Mirandese language, which has an article of its own. It doesn't matter whether the Mirandese is a native language or not because this is the English language Wikipedia. Brasil, the US and Canada (just to mention a few) all have various native languages but the articles don't show this kind of information. Not even the article about Portugal in the Portuguese language wiki does it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Fatima events template

Can someone work "1917 Fátima events" template}} into the article? Thanks. It can be found on Fatima, Portugal and other related pages. Randy Kryn 15:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Early History is a mess

The early history section starts by discussing its Latin name, given by the Romans; then goes back in time to talk about Celts; then comes back to talk about Romans again, the Barbarian invaders and the Moors; then goes again back in time even further by mentioning Neanderthals; then the Celts are mentioned again. This back and forth in time makes no sense at all. This section urges to be rewritten... Hobbes78 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It's a mess. I believe the inference that the Moors were expelled from Iberia (the Reconquista) by the Knight's Templar is inaccurate or to be charitable, incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.154 (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, the distinction between Neanderthal and Homo-sapien is inaccurate or at least controversial. Neanderthal is likely a subspecies of Homo-sapien. It would be much better to make the distinction by changing the reference to "Homo-Sapien" to "Modern Human" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.154 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Early history: Fringe theory

That early settlers spoke Tartessian is noteworthy and deserves to be included. But the sole point of its mentioning here is to make a fringe claim about the kind of language it is—a claim that's not accepted by the mainstream. Preserving the claim for posterity here:

The Tartessian language is claimed by some to be the first attested Celtic language.[1][2] [3][4][5] However, the linguistic mainstream continues to treat Tartessian as an unclassified language,[6][7] and Koch's view of the evolution of Celtic has not been generally accepted.
—Fluous (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Anthem

I had a report that the "Deutsch (de) subtitles" of the Portuguese national anthem (box at right, below the flag) are vandalised. In my computer I cannot see any subtitles (maybe a problem running the application). Furthermore, I don't know how to edit this part. Please check that. Thank you. Francisco Santos84.90.12.183 (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Length

A message at the top of the page says the article is too long, and that it should be cut to below 100 KB. But how can we ascertain the current size of the page and of any new, cut-down version of the page? Ricklaman (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • There is a Page information (under the Toolbox menu) that indicates, in addition to other information, the page length (currently 181,903 bytes). Alternatively, one could copy the article's "source code" and paste into a text editor that has a tool/feature to check the content's size. Best regards, Get_It (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Human Development Index

The first sentence of the last paragraph in the introduction states that Portugal has the 27th highest quality of life according to the Human Development Index, but Wikipedia's own article on the Human Development Index places it much lower than that (#40 on the normal HDI, and #30 on the "Inequality Adjusted HDI"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.59.2 (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It refers to a study done by the Economist, it has nothing to do with the HDI.

Califate123! (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional Sound

How about having in this article a British English sound for the name of Portugal? 85.246.216.136 (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Neolithic Portugal experimented with domestication of herding animals, the raising of some cereal crops and pluvial or marine fishing.[21]

HI, shouldn't it be saying "fluvial" instead of "pluvial"? since the second is about rainwater 195.33.125.228 (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Last European colonial power to give up overseas territories?!

In what way is this true?! I am removing it. UK still holds some (e.g. Gibraltar, Bermudas, Falklands and Sandwich Islands) France (e.g. French Guiana, Reunion, St. Martin, St Pierre et Miquelan, French Polynesia), Netherlands (e. g. Aruba, Antilles, St. Marteen), Spain (e.g. Ceuta, Melilla), Denmark (e.g. Greenland), and if you count with Antartica you can add Norway to the list of European countries still holding overseas territories. I even ask what can be defined by overseas territories, something that is separate from the main land? Something that is in a different tectonic plate and separate from the main land? Or something that is separate from the main territory and at a minimal distance of <insert distance defined by any recognized convention>? Under any of these 3 definitions Madeira and Azores might be considered oversea territories still held by Portugal.Learningnave (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right on that one, but in Portugal it's typical to use that expression in a slightly different way than what the words imply. The sense is that such colonies or overseas territories are not believed to be able to or to desire to achieve independence, and hence Portugal was the last european country to move out of all the territories that craved for independence and were able to achieve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.136.58.222 (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Double-counting in "Urbanization" section?

The table includes Sintra, as well as Sintra's freguesias of Agualva-Cacém and Queluz, but I suspect that the freguesia populations are already included in the Sintra number already. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Border length with Spain?

"The Portuguese border with Spain forms the second largest international border in the world, second to only the one between The United States and Canada"

It is always a bit fraught to define the length of a border -- fractals and all. But crude measuring at GoogleEarth suggests that the Argentina-Chile border is more than four times as long as the Portugal-Spain border. And there are others twice as long e.g. China-Mongolia and Russia-Kazakhstan and USA-Mexico

Maybe it should be "European border" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:FE:3D57:FDC3:E309:71DE (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

From Leon, not from Galicia

The 2nd paragraph says that Portugal achieved its independence from Galicia, but actually it was from the Kingdom of Leon after the Treaty of Zamora.--83.59.158.167 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Too many (and too poor) pictures

  • Today I went to the article and removed several low quality pictures. I understand that it is nice to have a picture of ours illustrating the article but the practise doesn't usually make it better. I remember that some very good images (including a couple of FP) used to illustrate the article some time ago. Now they are gone and were replaced by inferior ones. Before inserting a new image into the article please be sure that it is really necessary and check our galleries first. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have replaced some of the pictures with better versions, including a couple of FPs. But there is still a lot of research work to be done in the picture galleries of Commons. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Early Brigantine and Pombaline era

Minor editing heads-up. Para 6. Someone left the start unfinished or I don't know what: "Following an°° earthquake..." 92.152.28.68 (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop changing Portugal's System of Government

It's semi-presidential, not parliamentary, Portuguese president has the power to dissolve the parliament without any real restrictions and can lead the government, given that possibility, DO NOT change it. Furthermore, there were given sources to support this. --B.Lameira (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The president CANNOT dissolve the parliament without any restrictions! It must have strong reasons supported by the majority of the parliament or by the state council! Also, the president CANNOT lead the government! Get your facts right before you say nonsenses! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.189.166 (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Subregions of Portugal

In 1998, there was a referendum on regionalization in Portugal (about the creation of new administrative regions) which was rejected in 1998. Neither were any EU statistical regions approved, nor they were recognized by the people who had the word according to the 1998 referendum. Therefore, the NUTS regions (apart from Azores and Madeira which are autonomous regions and apart from Algarve, which matches the Faro District) should not be considered as Portuguese subregions, since they were only created and redrawn for statistical purposes.

I'd suggest that some sort of compromise could be made concerning to some particular regions, specially concerning to Ribatejo, since the NUTS II classification was made only for statistical purposes (and were redrawn, for those purposes, namely not to let some parts of the former NUTS II region of Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (Ribatejo and the North side of Estremadura) to be affected in relation to the allocation EU funds.

Besides that everyone in Portugal calls the territory roughly corresponding to the {Santarém District) as Ribatejo, not Alentejo (apart from Ponte de Sôr, which is in another district and sometimes is considered to be in Ribatejo though most of the times is considered to be in Alentejo. There are plenty of sites that show that Alentejo doesn't include Ribatejo, like the following ones: [1], [2], [3] (published by the Portuguese Government itself), [4], etc. (note: I only indicated maps published after the redrawing of the NUTS II region in 2011).

The other regions are also commonly called by their traditional names, but in a broader sense there are indeed the North, Center, Alentejo (this one not with the borders defined by NUTS II) and Algarve regions, along with the Metropolitan area of Lisbon, which corresponds to the NUTS II region of Lisbon. I don't disagree, at all, that the NUTS II and NUTS III are included in the location of the places, though I'd prefer that the proper context would be provided and the traditional regions would be added to the description (preferably those established in 1936), with an explanation that those regions are not administrative (since their administrative functions were later transfered to the districts), but they're historical and cultural regions, with their designations being broadly used in Portugal (unlike many of the NUTS regions). Thanks a lot the attention of the users who may wish to participate in this discussion. Greetings!

P.S.: Portuguese editors are very welcome to this discussion, since it's an issue that concerns to Portugal.Viet-hoian1 (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Portugal. 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries - Main page

Hi, just highlighting that if the yellow tagged issue with the unreference section on Tourist regions can be resolved, this article would be eligible for the selected anniversaries for Republic Day on October 5, which features on the main page. Whizz40 (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Table of contents

Aflis, please do not alter the structure of the table of content as did here. This is a standard feaure to ensure uniformity as you can see here and here and here and here. We can't around changing it willi-nilly everytime we find a new fact to add. If you feel that you have a valid reason to justify why the table of contents should be changed, please discuss at the appropriate level. For the record, the concept of "demographics" covers all aspects of a society, including weath distribution and similar aspects. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Time zones in infobox

B.Lameira, see France and European Union for example. I can clean up the time zones while still using the parameter but it will be more unclear. And for what reason? Just to use the parameters 100% correctly? Rob984 (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Basically either:

WET (UTC)
AZOT (UTC-1)
WEST (UTC+1)
AZOST (UTC)

Or

WET & AZOT (UTC±0 / -1)
WEST & AZOST (UTC+1 / 0)

Following the parameters for the sake of it seems pointless to me.

Rob984 (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am working on this subject, right now. --B.Lameira (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Good luck. Also the white space you have added by widening the infobox takes up far more space than the 3 extra lines you saved. Also I think it looks terrible, especially the white space on either side of the map. But each to there own I suppose. Darn Portuguese and their two surnames... Rob984 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
B.Lameira, how is that less concise version any more informative or clear? Rob984 (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You have literally took the information that is clearly shown, and expanded it to take up two note tags and a foot note... ? This country has two time zones, it really isn't that complicated.
See MOS:INFOBOX, specifically:
When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.
In other words, explain the time zones in the body, not a note tag in the infobox.
Rob984 (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, this version, now seems alright for me. --B.Lameira (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Portugal. 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Climate map

The climate map uploaded is not correct. For reference: http://www.ipma.pt/pt/oclima/normais.clima/. --B.Lameira (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Official Name of Portugal

At the top of the right pane on the page, it says 'Republica do Pereira'. If that is the spot for Portugal's official name, should it not be 'Portuguese Republic'. If I am wrong, and that spot is not for the official name, then please tell me so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.14.88 (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Largest city

The city of lisbon is not the largest city (municipality) in Portugal concerning to area. I think Beja is the largest in terms of area. So, on the right pane, that information is not accurate 109.49.178.239 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

actually, allthough most populous, lisbon is one of the smallest municipalities in portugal, it's quite evident for a portuguese citizen. you can check the area on the wikipedia page itslef! in the municipalities separator where you can see that lisbon is one of the smallest. to be absolutely sure: http://www.pordata.pt/en/Municipalities/Area-57 so the municipalitie/city Odemira is the largest (1.721 square km). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.69.89 (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In this context, "largest city" conventionally means most populous, not with the largest area. There is no need to make a change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Portugal. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Economy

@Peter K Burian: The included content, as pointed out in the edit summary fits more adequate in the main article and the article concerning the history. It is a recent information not necessarily relevant to its fullest lengt in this article.--Joobo (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is the way I see this. There is a long section about the Economy in this article. It provides some information about the financial crisis that Portugal has been going through. More importantly, it needs to explain the current status ... is there another crisis? Has the situation improved or worsened since 2014? The Economy section ended in 2014 until I added some content today. (Even an encyclopedia cannot ignore what has happened in three years.)
Even people who are not primarily interested in the Economy (and would not read the other very long Economy article) deserve to know the current situation. Not just the status in 2014.
How do other contributors to this article feel about this? The following is the information I added. Should it be deleted??
   The International Monetary Fund issued an update report on the economy of Portugal in late June 2017 with a strong near-term outlook and an increase in investments and exports over previous years. Because of a surplus in 2016, the country was no longer bound by the Excessive Deficit Procedure which had been implemented during an earlier financial crisis. The banking system was more stable, although there were still non-performing loans and corporate debt. The IMF recommended working on solving these problems for Portugal to be able to attract more private investment. "Sustained strong growth, together with continued public debt reduction, would reduce vulnerabilities arising from high indebtedness, particularly when monetary accommodation is reduced." https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2017/06/29/mcs6292017-portugal-staff-concluding-statement-of-the-2017-article-iv-mission
Peter K Burian (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest to give a concise synopsis regarding the ecnomiy of the recent years including the information of this text. That would bring major points into this article, more detailed aspects could be put into the main articles.--Joobo (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Let's try to get consensus on how this should be handled. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Portugal. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

President of the Assembly of the Republic

Could you please stop removing the name of the President of the Assembly of the Republic from the infobox!? Thank you! :-) B.Lameira (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Portugal. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Portugal. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph too laudatory

In December a user overly expanded the paragraph of the article header regarding current features of Portugal (the last paragraph of that header). The paragraph seemed very extensive and laudatory, disagreeing with what is done in the analogous paragraphs of (most of the) articles from other countries. I tried changing it in January and February, for something very similar to the paragraph that was stable for many years, but the user in question unmade my edits. I made a change again, and deleted the paragraphs:

Although historically a Catholic-majority country, in the last decades Portugal has transformed itself into a secular state with one of the world's highest rates of moral freedom. It was the first country to abolish life imprisonment[25] and one of the earliest to abolish capital punishment. Practices such as abortion, same-sex marriage and adoption, medically assisted insemination for single women and lesbian couples,[26] and altruistic surrogacy[27] have been legalized. In 2001, Portugal became the first country in the world to decriminalize the possession and consumption of all illicit drugs, focusing on treatment and harm reduction, with significant public health gains.[28]

This paragraph is an additional explanation of the so-called "moral freedom" and the "LGBTi rights", already mentioned in the same paragraph. It is only an additional dissertation already given in the body of the article, it is not necessary to do it in the heading of the article. Nor is it something that describes something essential of the Portuguese nation. Many countries have these characteristics (for example, gay marriage or abortion), and these are not, however, put in the heading of the article. It seems to me that the author has a special liking for these subjects and overvalues ​​them.

Portugal ranks above the OECD average in Mathematics, Science, and Reading, having been the country with the most expressive positive evolution throughout PISA's studies.[2]

Despite the appreciable growth, the result in its essence is only "above average", so it is not something that deserves so much prominence in the heading of the article.

Anyway, the paragraph as I wrote it now is cleaner, more traditional, more like the paragraph before December and more like it has been for years, and almost no information from the previous text has been thrown away.

Sorry my bad english. Haran (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Having been the country with the most expressive evolution in PISA's rankings isn't an irrelevant fact, especially when some part of the header should portray modern history/current society. Also, those combinations of freedoms mentioned aren't as common in the world as you've described, are relevant when describing Portuguese society nowadays and the societal shift that occurred, and can be found in other country articles, such as in The Netherlands. Not to mention the importance of Portugal's approach on drugs. The size of the last paragraph isn't something never seen nor is there a rule on the number of words. If anything, if something could be summarized it is three paragraphs on history. Laudatority is a somewhat relative term (see Poland and Hungary). Califate123 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Formatting messed up

Something seems terribly wrong with the formatting of the infobox 222.131.59.76 (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments and questions

I read with interest this article and I believe it covers just about every aspect of Portugal. I made a variety of minor improvements. I also improved the layout of the article. I have a series of comments and questions.

1. "Doges at this time were related to the monarchy acted as princes in all matters."

This sentence has a problem.

2. "Doges at this time were related to the monarchy acted as princes in all matters. Both 'governors' Wamba and Wittiza acted as doge (they would later become kings in Toledo). These two became known as the 'vitizians', who headquartered in the northwest and called on the Arab invaders from the South to be their allies in the struggle for power in 711.

King Roderic (Rodrigo) was killed while opposing this invasion, thus becoming the last Visigothic king of Iberia."

My understanding is that the Visigotic governors Wamba and Vittiza asked the Moors for help in 711AD. As a result king Roderic was killed. Does it mean Wamba and Vittiza were competing for the Visigotic throne with Roderic?

3. "In one of these situations of conflict with the kingdom of Castile, Dinis I of Portugal signed with the king Fernando IV of Castile (who was represented, when a minor, by his mother the queen Maria de Molina) the Treaty of Alcañices (1297), which stipulated that Portugal abolished agreed treaties against the kingdom of Castile for supporting the infant Juan de Castilla. This treaty established among other things the border demarcation between the kingdom of Portugal and the kingdom of Leon, where the disputed town of Olivenza was included."

Can anybody rephrase this passage?

4. "The Treaty of Zaragoza, signed on 22 April 1529 between Portugal and Spain, specified the anti-meridian to the line of demarcation specified in the Treaty of Tordesillas."

If any of you understand this sentence please rewrite it so that it becomes clear.

5. "In 1807, as Napoleon's army closed in on Lisbon, João VI of Portugal, the Prince Regent, transferred his court to Brazil".

This is redundant with the paragraph that precedes it.

6. "The Republic of Ireland was the only EU state to hold a democratic referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. It was initially rejected by voters in 2008. "

What does it mean?

7. "making him the first Secretary-General from Western Europe since Kurt Waldheim of Austria (1972–1981), the first former head of government to become Secretary-General and the first Secretary-General born after the establishment of the United Nations on 26 June 1945."

This is irrelevant and useless information. It should be removed.

8. "Portuguese military expenditure in 2009 was billion, representing 2.1 percent of GDP."

A number is missing after "was" and before "billion".

9. "The Navy (10,700 personnel, of which 1,580 are marines), the world's oldest surviving naval force"

A proof for this statement is needed (provide a source).

10. "The Portuguese government is heavily indebted".

Is it still the case as of July 2019?

11. "After the turmoil of the 1974 revolution and the PREC period, Portugal tried to adapt to a changing modern global economy, a process that continues in 2013."

This is 9 year old and it needs to be updated.

12. "n 2008, renewable energy resources were producing 43% of the nation's consumption of electricity, even as hydroelectric production decreased with severe droughts. As of June 2010, electricity exports had outnumbered imports. In the period between January and May 2010, 70% of the national production of energy came from renewable sources."

This paragraph needs to be updated with data from 2019.

13. "Although some 350,000 have since returned, Lisbon wants to tempt the rest to come home – in a similar scheme to the Irish one – as Portugal struggles with a low birth rate and an ageing population."

This is a bad passage. This sentence needs to be rewritten.

14. "This is the lowest of the Eur-A countries reporting and reflects the relatively adverse situation of the country in terms of mortality and selected morbidity."

Morbidity? What?

15. The section on Cinema should list a few classic Portuguese movies.

16. Pastéis de Belém and pastéis de nata are not interchangeable and equivalent. The pastéis are labeled with Belém only if they are made in Belém, the quarter in the southwest of Lisboa.

17. While reading through the article I noticed that the binomial style for naming kings and queens is inconsistent. In some cases I see the Portuguese names followed by the English names in parentheses. Sometimes it's the opposite. I think the article should use the name in English and add the Portuguese version in parentheses (since this article is in English).

ICE77 (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit war excitement

So, Melroross starts a slew of dozens of edits, none of them with an edit summary; Sumanuil reverts without an explanation; Melroross reverts Sumanuil saying "you didn't explain"--this is funny, at least for the outsider. Pot, kettle. Then comes TOPITIT in the reverting game, who can't be bothered to spell correctly or speak courteously (though usually they don't leave edit summaries at all, I can't call this progress), and they in turn were reverted by Cristiano Tomás. Great fun!

You all have two weeks to iron this out, here, on the talk page. I will be happy to block for incivility--that should really be a block for as long as the protection lasts plus two weeks. Unrelated edits can be made via an edit request. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC) All I was trying to do was clean-up incorrectly formatted/nonexistent images. Guess I'll leave that for someone else, though why it would be called 'vandalism' is beyond me, as is why I keep having to explain this type of action. - Sumanuil 17:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Hi Drmies, many thanks for pointing out ‘kettle vs pot’. Admittedly not an expert, I added relevant and valid content; whilst several others simply revert before I even finish. That is indeed incivil, to put it mildly. I will do my bit in the tidying up front. Happy Halloween. Melroross (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is Porto not the capital of Portugal yet Lisbon?

Portugal derives its name from Porto, no? Maybe it can be weaved into the article? Thy SvenAERTS (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@SvenAERTS: The etymology section already extensively covers the origins of the name Portugal. That the name originates in what is now known as Porto has nothing to do with the fact that Lisbon is the capital. I'm not sure what your asking or stating to be honest. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Cristiano Tomás: I thought that Porto used to be the capital but then Lisbon was chosen because it was more central than the northern situated harbor city Porto, but that the country kept its name referring to Porto. thy SvenAERTS (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Order of precedence protocal.

User @Tiago Lameiras: is attempting to rearrange the infobox leaders section to display President of the Assembly above that of Prime Minister based on Article II of Section 7 of this Diary of the Republic. This section merely refers to an order of precedence under protocol of state AKA the same way other state's list orders of precedence for ceremonial purposes. For instance, the Orders of precedence in the United Kingdom, members of the royal family, such as the queen's nieces, are listed higher than the Prime Minister. This does not insinuate anything other than ceremonial precedence. The two most important offices in Portugal are President and Prime Minister. Order of precedence does not equate to the President of the Parliament as being, either in practice or de jure, higher ranking in authority than the Prime Minister. If any admin can temporarily protect the page, that would be helpful. Best, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Another good example is the German order of precedence, which lists President of the Bundestag (head of parliament) before the Chancelor. But the Germany page infobox only lists President (head of state) and Chancelor (head of government), as those are the two most relevant leaders. There is no doubt that head of state and government outrank all other officers of state from a realistic view of any government's operations. Wikipedia article infobox's are not places to display nominal orders of precedence of states or a place to rank government officials by "statesmanship". Were that the case, Prince of Wales would be included in the UK infobox based off its order of precedence and South Korea's infobox would list the president of the constitutional court above prime minister in its infobox, according to its order of precedence. In any case, an order of precedence serves as nothing more than ceremonial rankings of nominal importance for ceremonies of state, they don't necessarily translate to real rankings of importance or power in a country. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Government Section of the Article's Infobox Incorrectly Displayed

According to the highlighted Portuguese Wikipedia Article concerning the Portuguese Republic, the country's Sovereign Bodies are comprised of the President, Parliament, Government, and Courts of Law. It is also mentioned in its infobox, particularly the Government section, that the President of the Republic, the President of Parliament, and the Prime Minister are in fact first, second, and third as far as statesmanship is concerned. In the Decree I shared with user @Cristiano Tomás, Lei N.º 40/2006, de 25 de Agosto from The Official Journal (PT: Diário da República Electrónico), the list of the aforementioned Sovereign Bodies is not only applicable to a question of protocol, but rather the statement of their legitimate hierarchy, as produced in Section III, specifically Articles 10-12, where the President of the Republic, the President of Parliament, and the Prime Minister place (yet again) first, second, and third regarding statesmanship. Therefore, my insistence in changing the order of the three statesmen in question to President, President of Parliament, and Prime Minister in this article's infobox Government section, as opposed to user @Cristiano Tomás' preference for President, Prime Minister, and Assembly President, is merely consistent with fact, for which reason I move my resolution be chosen as final for this issue.

Thank you. --Tiago Lameiras (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Native Portuguese speaker help needed

See Talk:Coval Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Joanine era and Age of Discoveries?

Should this not be Joanine era and Age of Colonialism? What is being claimed as 'discovered' was not really 'discovered', in the sense that the overseas Portugal territories were already known places which had normal business and multicultural interaction as was wont at that time. This was definitely an era of Portuguese colonial expansion , and the section heading should be renamed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.40.87.77 (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, for two main reasons. Firstly, it is not wrong to say that those territories were 'discovered': from the Portuguese perspective, they really were; using the verb 'discover' does not necessarily mean that no-one knew about the thing that was discovered, but only that it was unknown to the 'discoverer' specifically. Secondly, 'Discoveries' (Descobrimentos) is really the name by which people most commonly refer to this period of Portugal's history (it is a long established title still in use), which is why, according to Wikipedia's policies, I believe we should keep it. LongLivePortugal (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Quote 'Firstly, it is not wrong to say that those territories were 'discovered': from the Portuguese perspective' , exactly my point, Wikipedia does not subscribe to any 'nationalistic' viewpoint. So just giving a Portuguese perspective is not a NPOV. If we were to go by national perspectives, it would only be fair to to imagine asking the citizens of all the former overseas Portuguese territories on whether their land was 'discovered' or 'colonized'. I think we all know the answer to that. Also, which part of the wiki policy supports your claim to the section title being consistent with wiki policies, please cite specific sentences or parts of the policy which supports your assertion. Hence, I do not agree with both your counter arguments. This section can be renamed quite simply as 'Joanine era' or include an opening sentence along the lines of 'Joanine era , considered as the Age of Discoveries by some and as an example of colonialism by others'. There was a time when racism might have been considered as justified and homophobia a moral gift, but those times have passed long ago. A sordid history of colonialism and exploitation is now getting white washed with a section title like 'Joanine era and Age of Discoveries'
No, per WP:Common Name. The age is most commonly known as Age of Discovery (or in the plural), and especially in context of Portuguese history. Age of colonialism as a term has no precedent in this regard. Wikipedia follows consensus and academic prevalence, it is not a space for us to change titles according to our own morals. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
What part of the wiki article titles are you citing here to back your assertion? Please post the relevant snippet or refer to paragraph from this or any other relevant WP, just providing a policy page link as proof of your arguments means nothing. Your second argument seems to be the existence of a page called 'Age of Discoveries'. The second paragraph of this page has the sentence - 'It also marks an increased adoption of colonialism as a national policy in Europe'. Care to incorporate a sentence along similar lines under the Joanine era and Age of Discoveries section as the opening sentence in the paragraph? The wiki page for Brazil has a section , titled Portuguese colonialization. So, I propose 2 alternative suggestions. 1-Keep the section title as Joanine era , 2- Joanine era and Age of Discoveries and Portuguese colonialization. Hence, we do have precedence where colonialism is called exactly what is - colonialism. I also feel that having opinions on this from Portuguese citizens is not NPOV and leads to jingoistic bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.40.87.77 (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, it is not a 'nationalistic' viewpoint: those territories really were discovered! At most, it could be a 'national' viewpoint, which also makes perfect sense, given that the History of Portugal is narrated from a Portuguese perspective; this is not contrary to the WP:NPOV principle because of the specific nature of the topic which is a country's history. Secondly, I am referring to Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME policy, where it refers to naming articles, stating: "[Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used [...]". Although I recognise that this policy applies specifically to article titles, I think it makes perfect sense that the 'spirit of the law' be followed also in section titles. About your suggestion to rename the section only to 'Joanine era', I find it to be an insufficient and misleading name, as it suggests it covers only the period of the reign of King John of Avis, when it actually extends all the way throughout the Age of Discoveries until the Iberian Union (in other words, 'Joanine Era' doesn't accurately replace 'Age of Discoveries'). Finally, how do racism and homophobia have anything to do with this?! How does the 'Age of Discoveries' title 'whitewash' colonialism?! It is a perfectly normal and common name for a period of European history. When you accuse such a name of 'whitewashing' anything, you seem to be making a political statement about the validity of colonialism and attempting to get your political opinions to influence Wikipedia's writing. However, as you'll know, Wikipedia merely reflects what reliable sources write about any topic: if they refer to the Discoveries using that name, we are not to be the ones changing it because, in your opinion, the name 'whitewashes' any portion of Portuguese history. That is not how it works. LongLivePortugal (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The amount of exclamation points used in your response shows your anger, which is not exactly what one calls a level headed response. Now, coming to your questions or assertions. I have no gripes over your national(istic) viewpoint, but the moment you try to provide a view on territories in Africa, Latin America and Asia based on a Portuguese perspective. it no longer remains a NPOV. In passing I note that you conveniently ignored my second suggestion on the section title 2- Joanine era and Age of Discoveries and Portuguese colonialization. We can also consider renaming this as 'Age of discoveries and Portuguese Colonialism'?. Is that because you only want to believe in the age of discovery/age of exploration and want to ignore the aspect of colonialism? Here is an article from a balanced source (natgeo) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/colonialism , an extract from the same article 'Modern colonialism began during what’s also known as the Age of Discovery. Beginning in the 15th century, Portugal began looking for new trade routes and searching for civilizations outside of Europe. In 1415, Portuguese explorers conquered Ceuta, a coastal town in North Africa, kicking off an empire that would last until 1999.' You asked, 'Finally, how do racism and homophobia have anything to do with this?' Relax I am not accusing anyone of these. These are examples of what most people's attitudes would have been towards blacks or gays throughout history, until progress has been made on these in recent times. The comparison here is between attitudes. The name 'age of discoveries' was first coined by historians or writers many years ago and most conveniently ignores the rampant colonialism aspect. 'How does the 'Age of Discoveries' title 'whitewash' colonialism?!' It does so when this 'age of discovery' which also marks the beginning of modern colonialization is not mentioned as leading headers in articles and article sections. I would rather that everyone who reads this section also knows that the age of discovery is synonymous with colonialism, which you want to hide at all costs. I don't belong to any political party and frankly have not seen any modern political party anywhere in the world which is a 'colonial party' or an 'anti colonial party'. I also note that you did not respond to my earlier citing of wiki articles , quote Age of Discoveries'. The second paragraph of this page has the sentence - 'It also marks an increased adoption of colonialism as a national policy in Europe'. Care to incorporate a sentence along similar lines under the Joanine era and Age of Discoveries section as the opening sentence in the paragraph? The wiki page for Brazil has a section , titled Portuguese colonialization.'
Neither Brazil, nor Angola , nor Goa was 'discovered' in the age of exploration , they were already entities on maps which had mutual relationships and trade routes with neighboring territories. North America was a continent which was absent on most world maps till Columbus journeyed there. The same is not the case with a vast majority of the Portuguese colonial territories which were already known to most people in the world. In passing I might note that I am not recommending removing age of discoveries , merely stating that section/article headers like this have to mention of Portuguese colonialism in the same sentence. No scholarly article on the age of discoveries is complete without mentioning the accompanying mention of colonialism. That you chose to ignore that and use a few exclamation marks and cry 'politics' to make your arguments does not contribute much to the discussion. I stand by my assertion that this issue needs to be decided by a neutral and non-Portuguese citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.40.87.77 (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
To begin with, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from inferring my personal intents based on my choice of punctuation. Having said that, I have already explained that there is no violation of the WP:NPOV principle if we are merely narrating a country's history and using as titles the most common names which are used to refer to any such historical periods. I did not comment on your suggestion to rename it to "Joanine era and Age of Discoveries and Portuguese colonialization" because you had written that in response to another editor, not to me; but I can comment now: I find it unnecessarily long and redundant as it would refer to the same thing by two different names ("Age of Discoveries" and "colonialism"). No, I do not ignore the aspect of colonialism, and I am not attempting to hide it: I know it happened and I believe that the article section describes it adequately. Notice that the National Geographic article you quoted actually names the historical period precisely "Age of Discoveries", as is currently in the article ("colonialism" is used there, not as the title for a historical period, but instead as the name for the action or set of actions developed during that period against invaded territories). But your comparison with homophobia and racism should remind you that Wikipedia is not meant to conduct activism and effect "progress" in society by changing commonly used names into names which you, in your opinion, believe to be more appropriate or less hurtful, in an attempt to start a tendency that spreads elsewhere — rather, Wikipedia is meant to describe and reflect what reliable sources tell us.
Finally, as you seem to clarify in the later stages of your reply, if you only want the article section to make references to colonialism — by stating something like "It also marks an increased adoption of colonialism as a national policy in Europe" —, that sounds like a more reasonable suggestion than changing the section title (as you had suggested initially). But my question is: how and where? The current text already states, in the first paragraph concerning the Age of Discoveries: "During this period, Portugal [...] colonized selected areas of Africa. [...] In 1415, Portugal acquired the first of its overseas colonies by conquering Ceuta, the first prosperous Islamic trade centre in North Africa. There followed the first discoveries in the Atlantic: Madeira and the Azores, which led to the first colonization movements." Do you not think it is not clear yet, to anyone who reads this section, that, in the Age of Discoveries, Portugal colonised other territories? Where else would you like to add more references to colonisation? LongLivePortugal (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Usage of exclamation marks , unless done to praise or express a sense of wonderment is interpreted as shouting angrily in most types of formal communication. Be that as it may, and that is not the topic under discussion. If you find ""Joanine era and Age of Discoveries and Portuguese colonialization" inordinately long why not rename this as "Age of Discoveries and colonial exploitation". The natgeo article states 'Modern colonialism began during what’s also known as the Age of Discovery. Beginning in the 15th century' and this is exactly what I would like to do - namely reference the age of discovery and colonialism in the same sentence. I don't understand what you mean by quote - '"colonialism" is used there, not as the title for a historical period, but instead as the name for the action or set of actions developed during that period against invaded territories' The natgeo article is about colonialism, in fact the age of discovery in the above line is under a section titled 'Historical Colonialism' so i don't quite comprehend what you mean when you say - 'not as the title for a historical period'. Is not the beginning of the 15th century a historical period? If not, then what is?. I am not qualified enough to be an activist or capable enough to bring about progress in the scoiety, so that last part of your first paragraph is drivel.
Quote - 'Do you not think it is not clear yet, to anyone who reads this section, that, in the Age of Discoveries, Portugal colonised other territories? Where else would you like to add more references to colonisation' No, I don't think so. Section headers are there to summarize in a few words , the contents of the section therein. Hence, the section header in this case should contain a reference to colonialism in addition to the 'Age of discovery'. Alternatively and going by your argument since the age of discovery contains sentences relating to the overseas territorial discoveries, there is no need to have the term age of discovery in the section header, since sentences mentioning colonialism in the section is justification enough not to have it mentioned in the section header, the same logic should should apply to the term 'age of discoveries'.
In the same article, under the section 'Pombaline era and Enlightenment' , the last paragraph reads 'However, historians also argue that Pombal's "enlightenment," while far-reaching, was primarily a mechanism for enhancing autocracy at the expense of individual liberty and especially an apparatus for crushing opposition, suppressing criticism, and furthering colonial economic exploitation as well as intensifying book censorship and consolidating personal control and profit' Note - It says 'furthering colonial economic exploitation' which means that colonial economic exploitation begin somewhere earlier along the historical line, if not in the age of discoveries, then when?. So apparently it is perfectly all right to have section titles along the names of 'age of discoveries' and '...enlightenment' but not a single section header contains a reference to the term 'colonial exploitation'. If this is not biased and non NPOV then I don't know what is. This is exactly what 'whitewashing' is, namely, have no section headers referencing colonial exploitation and have sentences sandwiched in the article referring to the same. Does reading any of the the section headers in this page give you even one reference to colonial exploitation? The answer clearly is 'no'. From a Portuguese viewpoint that might be cool , but definitely not from a neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.40.245.5 (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
To begin with, I will say that I had used exclamation marks merely for emphasis in my arguments. I hope that, with this clarification, we can put this minor aspect aside.
What I meant was that "colonialism" isn't a historical period: it is an action, a kind of government policy. Colonialism has happened in multiple cultures over time, as the NATGEO article states. What we want here, in this article about Portugal, is a section header that identifies the historical period being dealt with (as is the case already with the headers for the remaining sections, such as "Prehistory", "Roman Lusitania", "Afonsine era", "Consitutional monarchy"...), not the actions that took place during that time (those are addressed in the text). And the common name we use to identify this period of Portuguese history that spans approximately two centuries (15th-17th) is "Age of Discoveries". That's what everyone calls it.
I think you're not entirely correct in stating that section headers are meant to summarise the contents of the section. Summaries would have to be much longer. Headings are meant to identify the contents, not to summarise them. (Otherwise, what kind of information would headings like "History", "Politics" or "Demographics" be summarising?) People don't read headers to obtain information: they read the text, and it is the text that should critically obey the WP:NPOV principle, which I believe it already does. However, if you want to suggest improvements to the text which you believe might make it even more neutral, I am open to that; but I am not in agreement with changing titles of commonly accepted names like 'Age of Discoveries' into hardly ever used and hardly recognisable names like 'Age of Colonialism' (it is my belief that that name simply doesn't exist like that, at least not to refer to the historical period). This is my opinion. LongLivePortugal (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Quote : 'not the actions that took place during that time". I don't buy this. When you have a section header like "Age of Discoveries", alternatively also called Age of exploration, you are talking about an age(a historical period) that is defined by actions, namely, discovering overseas territories unknown to the Portuguese or exploring unchartered territories. The age in itself is named after human actions or activities like discovery or exploration. Colonialism was also the result of human actions and did not drop from the trees on one fine day. Quote -'That's what everyone calls it' By everyone if you mean Portuguese or European historians alone, it would be a non NPOV or does your definition of everyone include reputed journals and historians from the former colonial territories as well?
You are misconstruing my statement on section headers , I had mentioned , quote 'Section headers are there to summarize in a few words' which you have reduced to imply that I had suggested one word section headers and provided some as examples. I am not claiming that my interpretation of section headers is infallible, but surely you jest when you imply by your examples, that I had mentioned having one word section headers. Now, going by your own words , quote - 'Headings are meant to identify the contents, not to summarize them'. The section 'Age of discoveries' already has a couple of sentences pertaining to colonialism as you had mentioned in your penultimate post. If headings are indeed meant to identify the contents of the section, then how come does the section heading identify the 'discoveries' but not the colonialism which is also an equally important content of the said section? Would it be permissible to to have a heading "Age of Discoveries and Colonial exploitation" if we add more text on the colonial exploitation under the same section? According to you, the section header would be perfectly positioned as 'Age of Discovery', since the section contents refer to the discovery of overseas territories by the Portuguese; but adding 'and colonial expansion / colonial exploitation' is wrong. although the same section does contain equally important stuff on colonialism. This seems to be particularly skewed polemics. If you are willing, then I will be more than happy to add more details on Portuguese colonial exploitation under the 'age of Discovery' section (with proper references) , if that persuades you to have a re-think on the section heading.
Quote 'People don't read headers to obtain information: they read the text, and it is the text that should critically obey the WP:NPOV principle, which I believe it already does.' I don't believe this is a practical statement. I would argue that often times people do scroll down through the section headings and might move on if they were to find no section heading which seems to address their area of interest. In this case, the heading 'Age of Discovery' does in no way signify that the theme of colonial exploitation is also being dealt with in the same section. I am prepared to meet you half way , in that I agree to keep the text 'age of discovery' but would again suggest adding 'and colonial exploitation/expansion' to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.40.245.5 (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Although I still disagree with your interpretation of the purpose of section headings and with your belief that the title "Age of Discoveries" and the section's current text are not sufficient to clarify to the readers that Portugal colonised territories during the Age of Discoveries, I can see that we will not reach an agreement unless we meet each other halfway, as you said. Therefore, I suggest that we change the title to "Joanine era, Age of Discoveries and colonialism". Do you agree with this change? LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Disagree completely. The title represents commons names for the time period, not simply descriptors. The common names are the Joanine era and Age of Discovery, not age of discovery and colonialism. This is a matter of nomenclature, not virtue signaling through title names. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Cristiano Tomás: I agree with LongLivePortugal's last suggestion. You are welcome to give your arguments with logical proofs rather than just assertions. For example, quote ' This is a matter of nomenclature, not virtue signaling through title names' is not far from being gobbledygock. What virtue is being signaled by the last change proposed by LongLivePortugal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.40.226.19 (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I can see that User:Cristiano Tomás hasn't said anything in a long while, [User talk:LongLivePortugal] shall we go ahead and implement your last suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.40.249.3 (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I think so. It's still not my favourite, but it is the best compromise we have achieved so far. Feel free to go ahead and make the change. I suggest that, in the edit summary, you link (or at least refer) to this discussion, in order to clarify the reason for the change. LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Consensus has not been established, lets wait to see what the rest of the community thinks. The proposed subsection title is clunky and unnecessarily so. I am open to other ideas, but mainly I would like to see what other editors invested in this article have to say. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Cristiano Tomás: This matter has been posted here for almost two weeks now, and no-one else has yet said anything. How long must we wait to implement such a small change in the article's text? Or what do you suggest we should do? LongLivePortugal (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@LongLivePortugal:, considering the only two discussing the topic are you, an editor of less than a month, and an unregistered IP address, I suggest waiting until literally anyone else who has contributed this article weighs in. Not that the matter is a severely important one, but I think the suggestion is hugely clunky. I'd suggest even "Age of Discoveries and Portuguese colonization" before the one presented. But like I said, Id like to hear what others have to say. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Cristiano Tomás: Again, this has been here for two weeks and more than a thousand people watch this article. Anyone willing to weigh in should have said something by now. Waiting indefinitely for a fourth editor who may never show up sounds contrary to the idea of improving the encyclopaedia. As for the text itself, I see how it is clunky and agree that your alternative suggestion of "Age of Discoveries and Portuguese colonization" is better; the disadvantage, of course, is that it removes the reference to the Joanine era, but it is really far from being the most important part of the section, as only one paragraph is dedicated to it. I think we should go ahead with it if the IP agrees. LongLivePortugal (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree @Cristiano Tomás and @LongLivePortugal
I think you can go ahead, then. LongLivePortugal (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
In my view, the title of that particular subsection is secondary to other issues, namely the focus of the content of the entire history section: history mostly conveyed by means of dropping people names and little to none social history. The Joanine bit can be thus easily defended as, taking the mentioned fixation with names into account, it's only natural subsections titled after monarchs and dinasties pop up. Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Asqueladd: You didn't seem to address the issue being discussed here, which is whether the header should contain a reference to colonialism or not. As for the issue of the "Joanine era" name, I personally don't like it very much: we don't use it, as far as I know. LongLivePortugal (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I know, @LongLivePortugal:. I just thought that if the content was different (and better) this debate could be different (and easier). I am not familiar with the "Joanine" term either, but with the (rise of the) "House of Aviz", by the way. And thinking out loud again: "overseas" is another recurrent adjective associated to Portugal missing in the subsection titles. But look at the content, it just superficially deals with the impact of Portugal in the Indian Ocean and beyond and it fails to address Lisbon's boom and the role in the Atlantic slave trade: it is somewhat poor (when in doubt, it defaults into listing "personal feats"). Quarrelling over section titles which should reflect on content and historiography, when the content is lacking is somewhat pointless. To be fair, as of now, while Age of Discoveries may be a fraught term, the article barely deals so far with the nature of Portuguese colonialism (and definitely it does not focus on the colonised ones) in that section. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed @Asqueladd and @LongLivePortugal , I had edited the section tile to "Age of Discoveries and Portuguese colonization" as agreed earlier but that one got reverted. So now, I have given up
  • Just a short note about a point that I don't see mentioned in the discussion: the section whose title is being discussed doesn't deal with colonialism at all. That is why I reverted the edit of LongLivePortugal. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that the wiki pages on Spain and Great Britain also do not have any section/section headings talking about colonial exploitation. The wiki page on Spain does have this text under the Spanish empire section - 'The year 1492 also marked the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the New World, during a voyage funded by Isabella. Columbus's first voyage crossed the Atlantic and reached the Caribbean Islands, beginning the European exploration and conquest of the Americas, although Columbus remained convinced that he had reached the Orient. Large numbers of indigenous Americans died in battle against the Spaniards during the conquest,[69] while others died from various other causes. Some scholars consider the initial period of the Spanish conquest— from Columbus's first landing in the Bahamas until the middle of the sixteenth century—as marking the most egregious case of genocide in the history of mankind.[70] The death toll may have reached some 70 million indigenous people (out of 80 million) in this period, as diseases such as smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus, brought to the Americas by the conquest, decimated the pre-Columbian population' . So here's the point, if we add a section on colonial exploitation for Portugal, then the same might be demanded of the respective wiki pages of other former colonial empires(countries) and doing that is certainly beyond my capabilities. At least the wiki page on Spain has some sentences scrunched somewhere on the detrimental effects of colonial expansion. If the means of maintaining a reasonably accurate historical wiki page (not just for the Portugal page but of all former colonial empires) means a cursory or often, no reference to the ill effects of colonial policy and that is considered NPOV and good wiki standards, then I have nothing more to add. I can now see(especially after reading the wiki pages of the erstwhile colonial countries, the wiki page on Portugal follows the same standards) that I have been fighting a loosing battle, I suggest we don't change anything and keep the section header as 'Joanine era and Age of Discoveries' , there is also no need to add any further content on colonial exploitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.40.226.188 (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"A portuguesa" anthem listed in infobox as a typical place names list of Spain?

I found that. Please, that topics are for special attention. Thanks. --AvellanoAve. (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"The Portuguese [song]"?

Currently the translation displayed in the infobox of the Portuguese national anthem's title is "The Portuguese [song]". LongLivePortugal thinks that inclusion of "[song]" is necessary as "English speakers will not understand what 'The Portuguese' is referring to without a noun." But the (proper) noun is already there in the title, making it clear that the song title refers to the Portuguese nation/people; its appearance within the sections in question, too, leave no doubt that what is being referred to is a national anthem. If anything, adding "[song]" within brackets is more confusing. It wrongly suggests to the reader that "song" is implied in the title "A Portuguesa." "La Marseillaise" or "Ja, vi elsker dette landet" need no clarification of this kind; neither seem to be translated as "The Marsellaise [song]" or "Yes, we [Norwegians] love this country [Norway] [song]". It would be helpful to hear other opinions on this matter. --CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it is rather obvious that the translation below the anthem is referring to the song. That noun ends up creating more confusion than clarity. I could understand if it was written as "The Portuguese [Nation]". As a non-native speaker of English, it is sometimes difficult to see (especially in a translation) if I understood a certain sentence because of my knowledge of Portuguese or because of my knowledge of English, thus not knowing if the natives find it difficult to read. So for this particular reason, I have to give the right to the native speakers of English. If, for some reason, a native-speaker of English is struggling to read that without the assistance of a noun, then we would have a reason to discuss its inclusion. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, @Average Portuguese Joe: I have responded to CurryTime7-24 in my talk page, right here. In summary, the problem with the translation "The Portuguese" is that, in English, this implies that the word "Portuguese" is a noun and forces the meaning "The Portuguese People" (and that is what it seems to me that CurryTime7-24 believes A Portuguesa means). However, as native Portuguese speakers, I suppose we both understand that, in the context of a song title, the phrase A Portuguesa means "The Portuguese Song". Removing the word "song" from the translation will change the meaning in English, but not in Portuguese, which means that, if we leave it at only "The Portuguese", English speakers will misinterpret its meaning. Do you understand what I mean? If you want a more detailed explanation, please check my talk page. Thank you! LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
LongLivePortugal very kindly explained their rationale for the decision to me. I’m satisfied with their decision. Thanks! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@CurryTime7-24: You're welcome! :) — However, perhaps the current state of punctuation didn't help. Currently, in this article, the translation displays: '("The Portuguese" [song])'. Since the concept of 'song' is part of the meaning of the title, shouldn't it be within the quotation marks, and perhaps even with a capital letter? I would suggest either '("The Portuguese [song]")' or '("The Portuguese [Song]")'. What do you think? Would these minor tweaks help an English speaker more clearly interpret its meaning? LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@LongLivePortugal: Apparently even I thought the title of the anthem was referring to "The Portuguese [Nation]" and not "The Portuguese [Song]" itself (both female nouns in Portuguese). Thanks for the clarification. I do not deserve my middle name anymore. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request for broken link and outdated information

Reference 237 has some very outdated information (from 2006) and a broken link. The data set and up to date information (2020) can be found here: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-statistics-data-browser?country=PORTUGAL&fuel=Energy%20supply&indicator=ElecGenByFuel


Would appreciate it if someone with access could make the update. EnergyAnalyst2 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ Koch, John (2009). Tartessian: Celtic from the Southwest at the Dawn of History in Acta Palaeohispanica X Palaeohispanica 9 (2009) (PDF). Palaeohispanica. pp. 339–351. ISSN 1578-5386. Retrieved 2010-05-17. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ "O'Donnell Lecture 2008 Appendix" (PDF).
  3. ^ Villar, Prósper, Jordán, Pilar Fernández Álvarez, F., B. Ma., C., Ma. (2011). Lenguas, genes y culturas en la prehistoria de Europa y Asia suroccidental. ediciones Universidad de Salamanca,Salamanca. p. 100. ISBN 978-84-7800-135-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Yocum, Dr Christopher Guy. "Aspect in Old Irish: the Case of 'ro-'" (PDF). Edinburgh University. Retrieved 28 August 2012.
  5. ^ Koch and Minard (eds.), John T. and Antone (2012). The Celts: History, Life, and Culture. California: ABC-CLIO, LLC. p. 163. ISBN 978-1-59884-964-6. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  6. ^ Broderick, George (2010). "Die vorrömischen Sprachen auf der iberischen Halbinsel". In Hinrichs, Uwe (ed.). Das Handbuch der Eurolinguistik (in German) (1st ed.). Wiesbaden, Germany: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. pp. 304–305. ISBN 3-447-05928-1.
  7. ^ "Tartessian". MultiTree. 2009-06-22. Retrieved 2012-11-08.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portugal/Archive_6&oldid=1161324999"