Talk:Madeira
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Madeira is in Europe
Officially, Madeira is part of Europe, the locals think so, the government thinks so. Everyone thinks so. In reality, any island belongs to any continent. This article is a real stub with very few information about the islands. Pedro 20:05, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- I Agree! Nobody in Madeira would ever say that the islands are in Africa! I also agree with the article being insuficiently devellopped. The Ogre 15:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that everyone says, Madeira is in Europe. BUT: I don't agree that Madeira should be - from the grographical point of view - a part of Europe, too. Geographically, it is part of Africa - if you like it or not! Just take a look at the world map! Let's assume, Turkey would become a member of the European Union; then - geographically - it would still be a part of Asia (beside the 3% of its area being in Europe)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.253.137.31 (talk • contribs)
This discussion leads nowhere! And by the way, I've lived in Madeira and go there often (last year I went there about 5 times), and I totally disagree with 145.253.137.31 that the "natives" would say that Madeira belongs geographically, or otherwise, to Africa! The Ogre 15:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Madeira is closer to the African coast than to the European coast. In that sense, it can be said that it belongs geographically to Africa (at least, to the extent that any island can be said to belong to a continent; but then I think people generally agree that Corsica belongs to Europe). Geologically, the Madeira archipelago also lies on the African tectonic plate. Culturally and politically, of course, things are very different. FilipeS 15:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I changed the text in that tone, saying that "thus, it belongs politically and culturaly to Europe, even if it can be considered to be a geographical part of the African Plate." The Ogre 15:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is no doubt we (Madeirenses) are Europeans. I think the problem lies in the word "belong". You could say Madeira is located closer to the African coast, like the article of Canary Islands. Ordep 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I took away this sentence “(…)even if it can be considered to be a geographical part of the African Plate.” because it IS part of the African plate and there are no doubts about it.
- Everyone considers that “Madeirenses” are Europeans. The issue here is not about people but about the geographic and geological position of the archipelago. Geological sciences couldn't care less about political or cultural borders. The fact is that Madeira and the archipelago with the same name lies on the African plate, therefore it belongs the African continent - this designation is valid as far as Geological Sciences are concerned. Actually that will not change in the near future (“near” it means in the next million of years :D). This doesn't mean that madeirenses aren't Europeans – to be or not part of a plate ONLY means that the ground on which they stand/live is part of what geologists call Africa. This is a point that can’t be argued. Cheers. Septrya (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is no doubt we (Madeirenses) are Europeans. I think the problem lies in the word "belong". You could say Madeira is located closer to the African coast, like the article of Canary Islands. Ordep 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I changed the text in that tone, saying that "thus, it belongs politically and culturaly to Europe, even if it can be considered to be a geographical part of the African Plate." The Ogre 15:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Official Coat of Arms of Madeira
Source http://www.ceha-madeira.net/autonomia/simbolos/bandeira/body_bandeira.htm http://www.ceha-madeira.net/autonomia/simbolos/armas/body_armas.htm Image http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1857/madeira0vj.gif
[edit] Grammatical Corrections to 'Funchal' paragragph
Today I changed the wording of two sentences to remove errors in the English grammar. One had 'almost more than five-century-old' and the other was 'almost unique'. I hope I am not being too pedantic but just pedantic enough.
[edit] Item pulled because of style
I pulled an edit out of the History section because of its very unencyclopedic tone. The ideas expressed may well belong in the article, but they need to be writtern in an encyclopedic style. The edit was: oops - and we forgot to mention the slave trade, catholic pursecuction of protestants, witches and jews. Oh, and it needs to be sourced. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Portuguese Regional Legislative elections
I note we have this article: Portuguese Regional Legislative election, 2000, and one for 1996; but not for 2004.
Why are none of them linked to from here? -- Mais oui! 04:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Population going down?
I have twenty+ year old encylopedia that list the population at 257,000.
- Yes, it seems so. Ordep 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] VERY Poor content
I propose to classify this article as a stub. Though it is rich in touristic content (almost a promotional piece), it is extremely poor in historic content. For instance: the article on the Ottoman Empire directs to this article, when mentioning that the Ottomans temporarily conquered the Madeira Islands. This -- definetely a very interesting historical fact about the island -- is not even addresses in this article. 201.81.193.69 21:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please, feel free to improve it. However, and I've already corrected it, the Ottoman Empire never conquered the Madeira Islands, temporarily or otherwise, they raided it. Cheers! The Ogre 22:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Purple Islands
The article correctly refers that the islands were known by the Romans as the Purple Islands, but it doesn't refer the origin of that designation. If someone find the reason, please place it there. It would be a good addition to the article.
--Bluedenim 16:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No population prior to Algarve settlement?
Was the island completely uninhabited when the Algarve farmers moved there? It would seem strange, especially with the mention of Genovese sailors that nobody settled before? - Gennarous (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- No. The islands were completely uninhabited. And the presence of Genovese sailors is dubious. By the way, when you say Algarve farmers, notice that the huge bulk of settlers im Madeira were from the north of the country (which had excess population), not the south. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gennarous. I've reverted your revert - what was written is complete OR and your "sources" are not credible - they are a personal website and a travel website. You see, blondness is found quite frequently (with varying degrees of blondness) in native continental Portuguese (namely in the northe of the country, where there was a significantive Germanic Suevi population). The Algarve colonisers reference is an old mistake, since 16th century author Gaspar Frutuoso, in his book Saudades da Terra, mentions some initial people from the Algarve - however proper, modern academic historiography (as can be found in the madeiran history journal Islenha) has done extensive statistical research in the origin of first settlers, and the biggest chunk was from Minho. I'll soon expand the section on demographics, with proper academic sources, and I'm also contemplating starting an article called History of Madeira. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)