Talk:Flag of Portugal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Flag of Portugal is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 10, 2007.
Selected content star Flag of Portugal is part of the selected content on the Portugal Portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality Portugal-related article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] older entries

Given the size of the flag, the detail is abominable. Certainly the castles should be somewhat clearer and the sphere should be more spherical. --Brooklyn Nellie 06:01, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Flag of portugal

Contents of this new page which duplicates this page should be merged here and Flag of portugal redirected. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:33, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ugly

Deleted: «The flag is also considered a bit ugly by most people.» For being irrelevant. We should not classify symbols as beautiful or not. And yes... I'm portuguese.--Nabla 17:11, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

  • I consider it ugly. The shield is beautiful. Angola also has an ugly flag, and it will change to a more African style of flag (it is very beautiful). We also should change to a more Portuguese flag! I think the monarchy flags are way much more beautiful and way more in the style of the Portuguese culture. But honestly, I think only in 2004 people start really adopting the current flag. Now changing it will be difficult. Doesnt the red means republic? Many people say is the blood of the french when they took the bastille. this articles seems biased and unfactual:
  • 1149 - The Venusians defeat the Martians in the Solar System War II

that thing of the empire (sunset etc, I've never heard in life) -though it seems a nice theory. About the Iberian theory that seems a nice way to change people's mind to adopt another flag. I prefer a white background with the shield.

why this article is slightly biased: [[1]]
evolution of the flag, shield and sphere: [[2]]

we should readopt a version from these flags: [3] [4] so many centuries evolving to end with green and red. And yes... I'm from the Kingdom of Northern Lusitania and we, the Condoms Northern Lusitanians, don't accept a red and green flag. We want a referendum and choose a new flag!!!-Pedro 21:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

condoms? Nelson Ricardo 04:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • I was kidding! -Pedro 08:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
The article is not biased. It was me who included the Iberic Federalism mention, as José Hermano Saraiva puts it in his História Recente de Portugal and many other history scholars argue. Once again, the article states that it is just "speculated" that the red/green scheme was based on such ideals, although highly probable. --MiguelFC 2 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
  • Maybe that's a good reason for changing the flag, and to remove that red! red has anything to do with Portugal. Although I continue believeing it is biased, and more with your answer. BTW José Hermano Saraiva is just widely known but is not exactly the most neutral historian known in Portugal. Ask any history student. -Pedro 2 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
I also dislike the flag - and yes, I'm portuguese, and also an History student - but I don't get your issue with the red. Red is present in the Arms of Portugal since D. Afonso III (via the red border with gold castles borrowed from Castile). If anything it's the *green* that always looked completely alien. I'm not advocating a fully red flag BTW, blue and white are the main colours of course, but red and gold are the two other colours that can associated (e.g. they were many times used as the colours for the mantle when the Arms were fully represented)--Bellum sine bello 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The article should mention the criticism that exists about this flag, because it goes against several flag stuff rules, like the colours (red-green don't match). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.239.233 (talk)

Yes, I don't know why I didn't add info about that. Thanks for remembering! Parutakupiu talk || contribs 01:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that I've researched a bit, the field colors mix is OK according to heraldry rules, because the stripes of a divided background are considered to be "next to each other" not "one over the other", so the rule-of-thumb "metal over color/color over metal" doesn't apply to the colors green and red on the background. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 03:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you give some sources for that? I know that there are example of it but it has always been discouraged in heraldry. They are sometimes said to be "sewed" when used that way but in a more purist view they should be avoided at all costs (otherwise the "colour on colour" rule wouldn't mean much, since heraldry uses partitions extensively). Flags do not necessarily use heraldry rules though, vexicology as a different, more relaxed set of "rules". But as far as heraldry goes the usage is, if not plan wrong, at leat discouraged and absent from the usage of ancient heralds.--Bellum sine bello 00:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mourish"

Is that how it's actually spelled? Thanx 68.39.174.150 23:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • nope. it should be Moorish.-Pedro 00:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Green

I thought Green meant hope. And yes, I'm Portuguese, never heard about it being about the woods...

Just make your own fado and forget hope

[edit] Colours - Definite Explanation

When I first wrote the original article, I had mentioned that the colours of the flag - green and red - had strong masonic association, mainly with the Carbonari. This explanation was, however, relegated to the second plan, and the Estado Novo interpretation (blood + hope) was given priority.

The fact is that in spite of our political beliefs or what we want to show to foreign people, Wikipedia should be a primarily objective and neutral information source. Few historians and vexillologists have doubts about the connection of the flag's current colours to the Carbonari and Freemasons, and their Iberic Federalist ideals. In fact, red and green were the colours of St. John, the patron saint of the Carbonari. These two colours were widely used by the Carbonari during the late 19th century uprising against the monarchy, and eventually became themselves the colours of Portuguese Republicanism.

--MiguelFC 01:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] great article

we should have more articles like this. I didn't know what the flag of portugal looked like until now.

Sigh. Sic transit gloria mundi... --Bellum sine bello 06:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colour blind-friendly

The colour blind-friendly version is in .jpg, and so appears blurry. Is it possible to make a colour blind friendly .png or .svg? --Joffeloff 12:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply going to remove that, because the user that added it didn't substantiate his reasons and when I asked him to explain them he just deleted my message on his talk page. This shows how important and truthful was his edit.

[edit] Too much information?

hmm....does an article about a flag really need this much information? in my opinion, i think it needs to be a tad shorter. Kinzukiwi-lphs 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)kinzukiwi-lphs

Why would you want to REMOVE factual information from an encyclopedia? Just because a flag isn't that important doesn't mean you should REMOVE information - it's not this article that needs trimming, it's the others that need filling. --Joffeloff 23:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It was promoted to FA because it was comprehensive enough. Removing factual and encyclopedic information from it is going against the goals of Wikipedia. Anyway, I still believe more data can be added to the article. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 01:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
that's your opinion and does not fit the wikipedian standard. A flag it's important, it's a symbol of so many things, it tells us culture and history. just because you don't think like that there is no reason to remove relevant and factual information. I'm sure many people agree and that's why the article is not as short as you wanted. we don't have guilt that maybe your country flag doesn't have such a rich history like the Portuguese flag. I also belive that more data can be added. There are more relevant information that should be on the article.

[edit] Unequal bands

I think there's an important point missing here (and everywhere, actually). Why does the Portuguese flag features more red than green? That's a basic thing about the flag that ought be known and should be on the article. I've searched in several sites but none explains that. Maybe i didn't search where i should. If someone could find information about that, it would nice.

--Bluedenim 10:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)