Talk:Portugal/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PORTUGAL TALK
ARCHIVE 2
August 2005 - December 2005
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Portugal and colonialism

Was surprised to note that there's so little mentioned about Portugual's role as a colonial power. I live in Goa, and the this history has deeply impacted us as a people and a region. So why overlook the role Portugal has played -- both not-so-positive and not-so-bad? Or, is this because Portugal lacks a critical tradition of itself (unlike, for instance, British authorship)? FN --fredericknoronha 19:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Are the pages protected on their BIG day, feature day? Or can they be vandalized still...? This would be appropriate, to protect them. I just reverted the page back one edition as know it's up for peer review, so... any suggestions? Paulo Oliveira 18:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe articles are protected when they are on the main page. They should never be protected when getting their big day because that would not allow legitimate editors, taking an interest in the article because of seeing it on the main page, to edit it, which would take away half the point of the article being on the main page, and would certainly be a lousy ad for wikipedia as an open source emcyclopedia, --SqueakBox 18:31, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

nature of pre-1974 regime

This article seems to be being hijacked by someone who does not want diversity of views and factual mentions.

Good or bad -- The late years of the corporative regime were not a dictatorship. There was Parliament (even with a small opposition called the liberal side. It was not a democracy, there was censorship, oppressive state police, but not comparable for example with the soviet regime. Go to dictatorship and check for yourself.

Portugal was a founder of OECD, NATO and EFTA. Thgis s a pure fact There are evidence in public documents, namely in the Portuguese state archive with several recent media reports that there was attempts for reform going on. They did not succeed, at least in time.

  • I think it is pretty obvious that the regime was a dictatorship until 1974. Afonso Silva 11:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry to say but seeing the file about Dictatorship, and remembering my history class, and, hum, what is taught in Europe and the World, Portugal was in fact a Dictatorship. The fact that entered the NATO was, of course, by reasons of power between the two blocks, western and eastern block. For some reason, neither Portugal or Spain entered the EEC, nowadays EU, because they were dictatorships, and, because of being excluded, they entered the group of the ECC excluded countries, the EFTA, since they didn´t had a problem with that. The same goes for OECD, created i think just after the World war II compromissing all states of Europe. I might not have the personal experience, but i have been told about the PIDE, the concentration camp at Tarrafal. In ISEG i had to make exams just next to a marble board in memory of Ribeiro Santos, a student killed by PIDE in the room that carries it´s name and it´s a part of ISEG´s history. Sorry to say but i disagree with you. I can agree with some work done by Salazar, but not with dictatorships, sorry. Pedro Teixeira

Spain did not enter neither EFTA nor NATO. --BBird 22:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say something else. I think democracy is the best regime in the world. I hate dictatorships and hate lies. The only reason why I am trying to protect a more neutral and somtimes (may be considred as) pro-pre74 regime, is that some of the peple who gain power after 25-4 lied a lot i order to justify themselfs and the attrocities they committed. just that. I believe we could be in much better shape right now, with full liberties, if we could have evelved in a non revolutionary way to a fullfledged democracy. I may be wrong, but the more I research and lern the more I am convinced Iam right. --BBird 22:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

yes, I've been trying to remove the communist view (added by Afonso Silva = he is a communist and doesnt represent any major view in Portugal - although I respect him as a person, he seems a nice guy, he has a very Communist POV). They live locked in the 1974 revolution (nobody in Portugal cares about that, it is just an holiday - and thats nice :D) The Portuguese regime was anything like the Spanish, the Italian or the Soviet. I've never heard from a Portuguese and I'm Portuguese what I've heard from the Spanish people. Even the repressive regime was very mild, the problem of Portugal in that time was poverty and poverty and the war in Africa was the reason for the revolution anything more. But you know, the communists in Portugal always try to demonize the man (in History classes we study a more neutral version and obviously he had a positive site: he industrialized the country, he remove the debt and the inflation, he made Angola the most rich country in Africa, he remove the concept of colony (made them part of Portugal), etc.etc.), but the communists say he was very repressive, if he was the communist that died a week ago in a good shape (considering of repressiveness), would die about 40 yrs ago. It is not for nothing the communists are in a downfall, everybody is sick of hearing the same thing over and over again, and without a credible base. Plese neutralize that view, it makes me also sick! I'm guessing I'll be called salazarist by the communists who get to see my statement, they always react like that and you'll be also labeled like that. -Pedro 11:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello all. Pedro, I'm sorry to correct you but it won’t be just the communist who will consider you a “salazarist”. Anyone who loves freedom and equality and respects the truth will immediately suspect that you are one. Attempting to “white wash” the image of a regime which impoverished, imprisoned, intimidated, disrespected and murdered people (not just communists), in several regions of the world is appalling. You should keep in mind that the only reason you are free to criticize the present regime and praise the fascistic one is because NOW you have a democracy, (however minimalist it may be). If you attempted to criticize the 2nd republic’s regime you would end up either in prison, in Tarrafal or (if you were a communist with no money or “connections”), dead. -Helder 11:38, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)



Yeah, right, the 60.000 Portuguese like you and me in the PIDE archives are just a bunch of crap, they used it to telemarking, wasn't it? Yes... sure. Tarrafal never existed. Torture never existed, Humberto Delgado died of heart attack, wasn't it? Rosa Casaco created the assassination history... You are a student, perhaps you should know about the March 24 of 1962, of course you don't, but if you knew, you would have another opinion about the repressive nature of the regime, even against students like you.

Of course he industrialized the country, Stalin did the same in Soviet Union, of course he removed the debt and inflation, Stalin did the same, and so? If the country was so good why do we have so many Portuguese living abroad?

  • Free Elections? NO
  • Political Police? YES
  • Torture? YES
  • Freedom of speech? NO
  • Free press? NO

I think that calling it "dictatorial" is not communist POV. But I'm not an expert.

That guy that died last week in good shape had 250.000 people in his funeral, perhaps he wasn't so less important like that. And, for your notice, in the last 15 years the PCP lost 70.000 votes, is that so much? Afonso Silva 12:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was because of TV I saw in newspapers everyone astonished how the TVs treated the event - Portuguese TV is now the Funeral TV. An important Portuguese author died in the same day and it was overshadowed by a non-so important person. That shocked many sectors of the society. Portuguese people when somebody dies they all say "oh poor guy, he wasn’t that bad... let’s make him a hero" - it is always like that. How many people went to the funeral of Salazar? The people that went to the funeral were media influenced, and everybody knows many journalists are communist biased. 250,000 people: mostly communists, people of state and other curious people. No, he was not that important, the media that he hated made his funeral very popular. And yes, I know the 1962 event, but no student was tortured, as far as I know. If it was in China there would be a sort of Tiananmen, what there were tanks against the students? No one is saying that it wasn’t a dictatorship, but it wasn’t anything like many other dictatorial regimes in Europe and many parts of the world. Damn I really though you would call me a Salazarist, but you called me a Monarchist. Not bad... but I'm not, although I think we should do a referendum about that. -Pedro 12:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Afonso said:

  • Free Elections? NO
  • Political Police? YES
  • Torture? YES
  • Freedom of speech? NO
  • Free press? NO

I answer, Portugal today:

  • real democracy? NO. w€ just €l€ct us€l€ss p€opl€ who lik€ to st€al p€opl€'s mon€y, and democracy is way faar from the electing that useless and little salazars.
  • Political Police? Sort of. People are arrested just for making copies of movies, money to the companies. To where we are heading with this sort of actions? steal is talking something from someone (people dont say I?m a pirate, I dont do that sort of business, but I think it is a crime arresting people just for copying movies).
  • Freedom of speech? Sort of. you can talk but no one listens to you.
  • Torture? YES by the police.
  • Free press? NO communists and lobbies influenced.

--Pedro 13:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To end up this talk about wether or not the regime was a dictature (the only thing in dispute in my reverts), I think that reading this book [1], specially the 6th chapter, is enough. And I don't really think that David Birmingham is a communist...

But talking about the claimed communist influence on the newspapers, let's take a trip on the major newspaper's and news sources directors:

  • Público - José Manuel Fernandes (Iraq war most fervorous supporter)
  • DN - Miguel Coutinho (not really a communist)
  • Lusa - Luís Delgado (no comments)
  • JN - José Leite Pereira (don't know about it, but certainly not a communist)
  • SIC - (is owned by the militant nº 1 of the PSD)
  • Avante! - José Casanova (COMMUNIST!)

And so on... if the newspapers and televisions are owned by the major capital, why should they praise the communists?

PS - Pedro, have you ever read Eugénio de Andrade? Afonso Silva 18:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think I've read him in school. Honestely, I just like to read technical or history books. Poetry: i just like Luis de Camões and Fernando Pessoa - because these ones have a very beautiful poetry (at least I think so). Plus, I also like Ancient Greek authors and very few (very few sci-fi books). So... I only read the rest when i'm obliged to, even Eça de Queiros I dont like to read... and he was born in my city (so you get to see how we study this guy). I would never read Saramago for instance! I dont like that sort of books... In a bookselft if is there a book about moons of other planets and a very popular romance, I wouldnt even look to the romance, and I'd buy the book about the moons. I would also never read any book of Cunhal. Ohh I also like books about Zen, kamasutra and tantra. very nice... :D. So you're not asking to the wright person. ;)

BTW I dont know anyone who was repressed in the former regime. Try to talk with our neighbours the Spanish, and see what they have to tell you... I just have a distant family member who went to war in Guinea... and became well... crazy... I know ppl who went to war in other places, pretty normal people, he just was shocked because he was almost killed by a granade and because of seeing dead people... Anyway, Salazar was just a person, not a demon. --Pedro 23:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you don't know anyone that was imprisoned by the regime, that's one thing, but another thing is saying that no one was repressed. How many were imprisoned for so many years? How many were killed? What about Tarrafal? You want a source about it? Try this blog, by Pacheco Pereira (a fair source, perhaps) "Estudos Sobre o Comunismo" [2] - and a post in that same blog about a PCP member murdered by the PIDE in 1942, a few miles away from my first hometown [3]. Afonso Silva 00:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know any people in that circunstances in Portugal, I move in various circles because I work, study and live in different cities. Well... I said, in Spain many people has a family member who was murdured, beatten, etc. In here, it is very rare. I know Tarrafal in Cape Verde, but how many went there? We are comparing the Portuguese ditactorship with others... And, what's that compared with other things? The preson and heat of Cape Verde... big deal compare with other ditactorships and what about this heat in Portugal today and yesterday? :S. And get that in office!!! The last year I wanted to kill myself! LOL. I hope it wasnt you who wrote "Filhos da Puta" in the article!... It would be nice if some admin compare it with yours. -Pedro 00:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you use: Netcabo Internet Service the vandal also uses it... -Pedro 00:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's the point, I'm not comparing anything! Where do you find the comparisons you are talking about? I just wrote dictatorial instead of monoparty, and you reverted it, even considering the regime a dictature, you said it several times, that's a contradiction. The other paragraph is a POV (with personal comments in or without brackets and comparisons with Spain) view of 5 years of history in a 70Kb article, that makes 1/3 of the Republic section. You just want that in that place because it was me who reverted it, I really think that shouldn't be there. About all the rest, why don't you visit the museum "República e Resistência" in Lisbon and its huge library? That would be a way to get informed about things you just don't know about.

And you are always talking about Spain, so, try to find who was the biggest political ally of Spain during the reign of both dictatures.

Of course it wasn't me who vandalized the article, what's the need for that? And why couldn't it be you? If you want to ask for the comparison, go ahead, mister Sherlock because if you don't do that, I'll do it myself. And congratulations for being able to waste time discovering the IS provider of each IP, that's really a job of a telecommunications expert... rofl Afonso Silva 09:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't do more. :S I dint waste any time, it is instataneous. if not writing to Netcabo and get the rest of info. I dont use netcabo ;) I use SAPO (the frog). And I have no reason to write filhos da Puta, besides I dont use that kind of language to reffer to someone else. While you have.

Dictatorial regime: Oh ok... If you ask me I think we still live in a dictatorial regime. I dont see a lot of democracy in the world much less in Portuguese, you are free to talk, so what? I dont see a very big advantage in that. I read that sentence and its full of factual, useful and important info. I compare with Spain because it is uncomparable. For you to see that the Portuguese regime was something different. You said, PIDE killed a guy in a town at 40 km away... I've heard several times the police killing inocent people today. Why the communist that died days ago didnt died during the regime? If it was a dictature why didnt they simply kill him? --Pedro 12:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1º - Faz lá o que te bem apetecer, chama os gajos do CSI, chama o corpo de investigação do Instituto de Telecomunicações. Chama quem quiseres, esse não é o meu IP. Uso netcabo e cabovisao, o IP netcabo não se encontra essa gama de atribuição, mas sim na '81.84.XXX.XXX'. Além disso, não sei porque terei motivos para chamar Filho da Puta a alguém, ou melhor, para escrever Filhos da Puta no artigo, de qualquer modo, ao contrário de ti, não me senti ofendido nem ando num frenesim mental para tentar perceber quem foi. Sendo assim convido-te a expores os motivos dessa acusação, se conseguires. Se não conseguires ao menos tem a hombridade de te redimir.

2º - Pronto, ainda bem que estamos de acordo, o regime que existia antes de 1974 era uma ditadura. Só não fiquei a entender porque mudaste isso no artigo.

3º - Se isto é tudo tão mau, porque não te organizas? Mexe-te, participa, junta-te aos que pensam como tu (apesar de eu duvidar que exista gente com genialidade suficiente para fazer as inovações teóricas à ciência política com que tu estás referenciado). Não te conheço nenhuma intervenção política organizada. Só vais viver esta vida, aproveita. Faz um partido novo, faz uma associação, faz uma revolução, convida os amigos ou torna-te um eremita, assim poderás criticar.

4º - 40 Km?! Eu não disse 40 Km, é mesmo a umas centenas de metros e um quilómetro são 1000 metros. Além desse senhor, a PIDE assassinou centenas de outras pessoas, se quiseres apresento-te a listagem detalhada de todos os assassinados pela PIDE, do pintor Dias Coelho à camponesa Catarina Eufémia, do Bento Gonçalves (Secretário Geral do PCP antes de Cunhal) ao Humberto Delgado. Entre 1933 e 1974 as polícias políticas prenderam 18000 portugueses, por uma noite ou por 25 anos, 18000 pessoas. Nem todos morreram, mas nem todos escaparam, nem todos conseguiram escapar da prisão de Caxias no Bentley do Salazar ou descer os muros de Peniche. Mas de qualquer modo apreciei o argumento "ditadura menos má" "ai, eles lá em Espanha mataram mais, são mais ditadura" "Se não mataram o gajo que morreu a semana passada (definição agora recorrente de Álvaro Barreirinhas Cunhal (mas olha que o nome não queima)) era porque eram bonzinhos, torturá-lo e prendê-lo por mais de uma década não conta". Ou não é ditadura ou é ditadura, não há ladrões honestos.

5º - Eu também ouço falar de assassinatos a pessoas inocentes pela polícia, não ouço é falar de assassinatos por motivos políticos, é uma pequena diferença que tu ainda não percebeste além de que hoje em dia ninguém vai preso por gritar "O Salazar é um Fascista".

6º - Para terminar, não deixa de ser extraordinário que para ti haja uns parágrafos que ocupam mais que outros. Aquilo diz que Portugal foi fundador da OCDE, óbvio, de que outra maneira receberia os fundos do Plano Marshal? Aquilo diz que o regime se estava a democratizar, pois, a PIDE deixou de prender ,os mortos deixaram de votar nas eleições e a censura deixou de existir, não foi? Diz que se pretendia dar independência às colónias, pois, por isso é que se prolongou a guerra até ao último segundo do regime. Isto é uma análise mais do que superficial, consulta o teu amigo JHS que até ele te diz melhor. A primeira República e a Grande Guerra foram muito mais importantes do que os 5 anos do Marcellismo para a definição do século XX português e tu esquartejaste o artigo até que as referências a esse período ocupassem uma frase. Agora aceitas um parágrafo inteiro de reabilitação do tempo da velha senhora, qual é o objectivo? Reunir a Wikipedia toda no artigo sobre Portugal? Coerência... Afonso Silva

to avoid a new "revert war" --

1. While it is more or less consensus that Salazar was a de facto dictator (despite constitutional protections that were in place, and that allowed for limited opposition during his tenure, including the famous statement by Humberto Delgado that he would "of course dismiss Salazar"), the same cannot be said of the period 1969-1974 when Marcelo Caetano was prime minister.

So it it too strong and misleading to put all the period 1926-1974 under the same "bag". When I have time I will try to reflect that in WP. Please do not revert everything, if you don't agree, work based on that.

2. The modern Portugal as its roots in much more than the 25th April. The roots go much deeper than that, as the society is shaped by several factors. I lived in Poland. The change from the Communist to democratic regime -- while with some parallels to the Portuguese transition -- is much deeper. People could talk, initiative became a positive thing, etc. A lot less changed after 1974 - an not all in the right direction at least in economic terms and we are still paying that price. Its time that the dark side of the 25th of April, and the attempts to destroy freedom start being aknowlaged. The current wording is just simplistic and inaccurate. --BBird 14:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • I agree with you Bbird and the real facts also agree. Many problems in Portugal were created in 1974-1975, and we are still paying the price. The Africans are also paying the price of a terrible decolonzation (Angola was one of the richest countries in Africa, today is one of the poorest) Most Portuguese that were expelled from their homes in Africa and everything was taken from them, also paied a terrible price although most today have stable lifes. The 1974 revolution was one of the biggest disasters in economical terms in the History of Portugal along with the First Republic. Portugal almost started from the beginning in 1985. Correct it please. --Pedro 16:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I think both of you need to chill out a bit. Helder, though current Portuguese politics may be corrupt and asinane, its certainly too far to call it a dictatorship. Otherwise Louisiana would be adicttorship, and everyone know it isn't efficient enoguh for that.

Afonso, "Dictatorship" in polisci terms, has a specific meaning. All dictatorships are authoritarion, but not all authoritarian regimes are dictatorial. There may be an argument that Salazar was a dictator- I personally disagree (I would classify the Estado Novo as authoritarian corporatism; there was no comlete abrogation of the rule of law (viz. Hitler) or cult of personality (viz. Stalin). Caetano was definitely NOT a dictator. This doesn't mean the system is nice.

The problem of a fair view of the pre 1974 regime

One can endlessly discuss if the estado-novo was a "full-fledged evil, repressive dictatorship" or if it was a "largely benevolent dictatorship" but no-one can deny the following facts:

There was a political police ( PIDE-DGS ) who persecuted people who were against the regime. These people fled the country ( Soares, in france being a example )to avoid being imprisoned ( Alvaro Cunhal in Peniche being a major example)

In accordance of the politic of orgulhosamente sôs = proudly alone, no reforms were made to hand over the colonies. To hand over the colonies was UNAVOITABLE, one has only to see that major countries like the United Knigdom and France were unable to mantain theirs. Instead of following the example, Salazar and the regime believed that Portugal a second-rate country would mantain them against "rebels , freedom -fighters, terrorists" ( call them what you want ) who where supplied and trained not only by the old Soviet Union but also and in a rival fashion by the CIA. In many cases the "rebels" had better weapons than the portuguese army like the SAM´s Surface to Air Missile (supplied by the CIA). In several districts of Portugal the young men simply emigrated illegally, to avoid being conscripted to a very unpopular war.

As for claims that the regime would "reform itself" and hand the colonies over, I can only point out that until 1974! they didn´t do it.

Salazar did not resign and after his accident was decieved into believing that he ruled the country. One has to wonder about the courage of a regime who was afraid to tell him that he was medically unfit and unable to govern.

There were elections (who by the way were only for the head-of the family and many parties were forbidden) that is true, but as General Humberto Delgado candidated himself under the slogan "obviamente demito-o" = I will dismiss him (meaning Salazar ) the results were (according to most sources ) forged and he was murdered a few years later. The elections were never repeated again and the new electoral college was composed of regime-loyal and safer persons.

The GREAT argument for the nostalgic people in Portugal is that since the revolution 1974 there has been a steady rise in crime (which is true ), the economy has weakened ( true )and supossedly under the old regime "everthing" was better and safer. But at the same time they fail to deny that the old regime FAILED MISERABLY to educate the peopple (portugal had at 1974 one of the largest rates of analfabets ) So if one agrees in the following: A)good education is important to get good jobs B)with educated people in the right places, one can improve the industries C)educated people make normally better politicians D)bad education = bad, precarious jobs wich lead to a big unemployment rate C)unemployement which leads to crimes

one can reasonably say that the failure of the education is one of the sources (perhaps the greatest) in the current problems of Portugal and is fault of the pre-1974 regime. One cannot deny that reforms made in education since then, have been "more-or-less" for the better despite having a long way to go.


  • I'm happy to see that know we have clarified that the regime was indeed dictatorial, but I would like to see those who say that the economy was stronger and growing robustly before 1974 sustaining that with stats or other documents. Because I really don't know how is that compatible, for example, with the large thousands of Portuguese that emigrated in that period or with the comparison of the GNP per capita between 1974 and 2005. You can say that in the end of the 60's a considerable raise in the salaries ocurred, but that was forced by the lack of working people, due to the war and emigration. Anyway, show me the stats, please.
  • About the reference in the article to a federation with the colonies, I really think that Spinola's POV was not the official POV of the regime, and so, only because it was in a book should it be considered an historical fact? I don't think so. Afonso Silva 29 June 2005 23:12 (UTC)


You can check it out at Long Series -- Bank of Portugal. In real terms, the economy was growing in the late sixties and early 70s at above 6% per year. --BBird 30 June 2005 14:05 (UTC)

All right, so does the mozambiquan economy. It is also growing at a similar rate. And so? Does that mean a strong economy? A strong economy has a diversified base of means of production, that was not true at the time, just like it isn't today. The economy was growing by the influence of several foreign investments, mainly in the area of electronics, like Grundig, Timex or ITT. And that investment was carried out due to the miserable salaries paid at the time. That is shown by the increase of the minimum salary from 1100$00 per month to 3000$00 by the governments of Vasco Gonçalves. The country had indeed a relatively strong industrial base around Lisbon and Porto, but that was it. But in the rural areas, from Madeira to Alentejo, where 80% of the population lived, the country was illiterate and under-developed, a fact that created a diaspora of 2,000,000 Portuguese in Europe and Canada that reched the historical peak in 1966, with 120,000 Portuguese leaving the country (in a legal way, so, the number was even bigger) in that year. I have no notice of a strong economy based in an 80% of rural population, on high numbers of illiteracy and I also have no notice of a strong ecnomoy that forces the people to flee from it Afonso Silva 30 June 2005 16:17 (UTC)


I pointed that the economy was growing strongly. The economy was going strongly. period. Even if I don't agree with your arguments (I don't), this is the evidence you asked for. --BBird 30 June 2005 23:06 (UTC)

    • that is also clear in the article itself in the Economy section. Although I didnt added info about the period of 1974-1985... and that's really missing cause it is a very important period (the nationalisations...). BTW you can't compare today's Mozambique (a country completely destroyed by war) with the Estado Novo period... --Pedro 30 June 2005 23:43 (UTC)
  • Sure, it was growing, but that does not mean a strong economy, as it is said in some comments in this page, not in the article itself. Pedro, I'm not comparing economies, only growth rates. Don't mix everything as you allways do when you have nothing to say. If you want to participate try to answer to the Spinola's federation issue. Afonso Silva 1 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a personal home page!!!

pedropvz, if you think this is your personal homepage where you state your personal opinions, you should leave the wikipedia community. [anonymous]

  • Learn the basic of wikipedia before talking. POV means Point of View, that is what you added about abortion. Wikipedia is not a blog. -Pedro 00:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You should be smarter and more impartial, these are the basic of wikipedia. Who said that I am an anonymous (the history has always the sources of the talk)? Abortion? I have never edited about abortion? No more words needed. With guys like you, sooner or later, Wikipedia will be a mixture of propaganda, fiction and personal diary. Tugalese 12:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  • did you forgot to take your pills? -Pedro 17:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Help needed

In the name of all wikipedians, I'd like to ask you to stop arguing, please.

I'm trying to make John III of Portugal a featured article and I need some help. If someone is willing to give me a hand... By the way, I'm open to proposals for a Portuguese kings and Portuguese history projects. Thanks. --Gameiro 02:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is nominated for This week's improvement drive. Please help, and vote for it. Thanks.--Gameiro 18:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Improved introduction

First, notice to all contributors: English uses articles much more sparsely than portuguese, so refrain from constantly using "the". For example, "Modern portugal has its roots..." instead of "The modern Portugal has its roots...".

My changes were few, mainly to improve style and readability. I did replace

Portugal made significant social and economic progress in the last 30 and 20 years, respectively, of the 20th century.

for "the last third of the 20th century". I found that too specific and prone to controversy -- several economists and sociologists, for example, place Portugal's early economic rise in the 60's. My version seemed to me abstract enough for embracing different opinions, yet keeping descriptive value. Besides, it's simpler and flows better.

--koenige 23:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Biography Collaboration

Just to state that Fernão Mendes Pinto is nomimated for Wikipedia:Biography Collaboration of the Week. Your vote would be appreciated. Gito 00:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The article is a mess

Before adding pictures or adding not very useful info, please think twice:

  • the article shouldnt expand too much, it must remain interresting and informative in a global perspective. If you want more specific info, please add in the proper article.
  • There are too many pics in the article, some unnecessary. Although we need more and better pics. But related to the section. I would be interresting to add pictures from the middle ages. Or a picture of a Portuguese map, or something that would make the article more beautiful.


pics needed:

  • something from the middle ages
  • something from the discovery age (map or something in Portugal)
  • first republic.
  • we need a cool pic from the university of Coimbra or the university of Lisbon.
  • A pic for Portuguese cuisine.
  • A pic for Jogo do Pau or any other popular game.
  • A pic of Marchas populares in Lisbon or São do João of Porto, or braga or wathever looks nicer.
  • another ideas?

more info needed on the following sections:

  • fauna and flora
  • demographics
  • mor einfo on other traditional sports. There are so many, we choose the best and the most welldocumented.
  • cuisine -- this area is very poor. :(

--Pedro 16:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

=The republis subsection

this sections seems a chat, and extremelly POV, wikipedia is not to discuss nothing or reflects one's opinion. This article is about PORTUGAL for god's sake! -Pedro 19:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Something is wrong

The article about Portugal is bigger than the articles about Spain, England or even United States... Some of the text going on here should be considered on individual topics... this or the size of the article seems to represent somekind of reaction to any inferior complexity problems... that's what i thought, and maybe i was not the only one


  • nice comment you got there, your complexity problems are not issues in wikipedia. -Pedro 11:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

useless pics

Ppl, pics are ok if related to the section, this is not a tourist article nor the Lisbon's article! -Pedro 16:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Santana

I am looking for someone with some knowledge of Portugal, specifically places called Santana, to help sort out some wikilinks. At Special:Whatlinkshere/Santana (disambiguation) there are a few pages that link to Santana, which should ideally link to, for exmaple Santana, freguesias. You would be helping out the link reapir project. --Commander Keane 19:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  • There are several places, please relly to the Portuguese lang. wiki where that info is very developed (although not all santanas are included.

see this on PT lang. wiki: pt:Santana --Pedro 13:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Henry the Navigator

Just to state that Henry the Navigator is nominated for Wikipedia:Biography Collaboration of the Week. If you want just add your vote. Cheers!Gameiro 20:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Motto undecided?

Why is the motto suddenly changing from "For the good of the Nation" to "none" back and forth? Seems the people editing aren't coming to a conclusion. In doubt I searched Google and there are other sites that portray the such "For the good of the Nation/O bem da nacao" motto such as Fifa's world cup website.. who is correct after all? - Guest 23:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Great point, the motto's question is an old question in the article. Any state motto would be present in the Portuguese Constitution, but there isn't such thing in the text. So, there is no state motto. I've never seen "for the good of the nation" written in anything, it's not in coins, it's not in the official documents, it's not in the public buildings, and, again, it's not in the Constitution. So, there is no state motto. The imaginary motto: "for the good of the nation" seems like a slogan present in the Estado Novo's propaganda, and I think it really is. So, any introduction of a state motto should be considered sneaky vandalism. 217.129.204.176 11:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)