Talk:Portugal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Portugal article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Portugal is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Portugal is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4


Contents

[edit] Help needed with the Liberation of Goa

hi... We're trying to get up a functional wikipedia page regarding the capture of the Portuguese colony of Goa by the Indians in 1961. So far we have had abundant information from indian military and history sources, but are faced with a paucity of information when it comes to portraying the Portuguese side of the conflict. we would appreciate any inputs you can offer in this regard for The Liberation of Goa

Do forgive me for calling it the 'Liberation of Goa'. I imagine that it would be called differently by the portuguese, and we would want to reflect that too in the page.

Thank you.

Tigerassault 13:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economic data, GDP

ist there a minor mistake about the GDP? The GDP is given twice on the page, with diffent numbers. What is right? Cgaffga 19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australia? pink

Portuguese explored Australia, it's a fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by - - - (talk • contribs) 05:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Some weeks ago, I added a note saying "The disputed discovery of Australia is not shown", but user:Flamarande deleted it. I think it should not be colored in the map because it is a DISPUTED fact, but it may have a little note.Page Up 14:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed! The Ogre 14:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. Page Up 13:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New European vector maps

You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of Portuguese people

An user, Opinoso, added a group of Portuguese people photos but this wasn´t discussed in the talk page, and I don't know if everybody here agree with the photos inclusion. As far as I know, there isn't any WP policy concerned with this kind of thing and I only find a group of photos like these in Brazil's article. Page Up 17:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the photos would be better in the Portuguese people article. I feel that they are a good contribution, though! The Ogre 12:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Now the photos are larger thanks to a recent contribution. It starts to seem strange and exaggerated, I guess. Page Up 18:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I was bold and removed the entire gallery. It was doing nothing but disrupting the article with a POV choice of photos. Besides, we already have an article about Portuguese people, so there's no need for that in Portugal.--Húsönd 03:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic origins of Portuguese people

I added the Original Research tag because the source http://www.geocities.com/racial_reality/portuguese.html , which was used to claim some facts on ethnic composition of the Portuguese people shouldn't be taken into account. It appears to be an unreliable non-scholarly work from a personal homepage. Other claims also need better sources. Page Up 18:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • That link you said was pretty good, and is very well referenced. Portugal article is now nothing more than a stub. This article even has a plane from TAP, like an article about a banana republic would have with its national air plane and air company. the tag this article needs is {{banana republic}}. --Pedro 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This Racist version of Portuguese history is not only not scientific proven as it is a shame on the credibility of this article. It stands on a Internet page with no credibility what so ever. It's so bad that it absolutely damages the credibility of Wikipedia.

  • And that F16, OMG!!! -Pedro 17:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
If the website has good references, those should be used instead because as the author himself states: 'The webmaster holds no special credentials in any of the fields mentioned.' 82.154.217.215 10:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much pictures

This article has way, waaaay too many pictures. Move some to commons please. — Shinhan < talk > 15:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree in this one. aenariel 03:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The maps are ok and informative, the rest should be moved to the commons. The Ogre 18:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gapminder UN data shows fast improvement for Portugal 1960-2003 with short break at 1989

http://tools.google.com/gapminder The Gapminder World 2006, beta shows Portugal with very great improvement over time but a dramatic break in 1988 I do not know the reason but would like for others to fill that in Image:Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Portugal-health.jpg

[edit] Sports section growing out of proportion

Sports section keeps growing with lots of POV and redundant additions. I guess it's time to trim it down to a size comparable to the sports sections of other countries' articles.--Húsönd 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I made some changes in accordance with your request. Feel free to alter, change or edit the section again. Page Up 13:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

The history section seems awfully thin on the first half of the 20th century. Shouldn't something be said about Portugal's stance as a neutral during the world wars, particularly WWII? There's some info on this is the entry on Salazar, but even that seems sketchy. As I understand it from various books on WWII, Nazi Germany conducted clandestine intelligence and naval operations in Portugal during the war -- refueling U-boots, for example. I don't know if the Salazar regime was complicit in this. Sca 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The regime at that time was perfectly aware of both the alies and the axis operations in portugal and also helped the alies in unofficial assistance that would have been a clear violation of their neutrality stance, there's no need for ill based(and biased to a certain extent) judgements. It's policy was indeed of neutrality, some say even esessively cautious. During the war both allied and axis operations were allowed in the country or none at all from both parts at the same time (neutrality stance), what you mentioned about clandestine operations is at best poorly sourced from the book authors, diplomatically ilogical and at the same time ignoring a lot more detail to heavily counterbalance such statements and any "moral judgements", which from my knowledge and experience rarely happens. There were secret agencies from both sides and both sides frequently made some knowledge exchanges without the goverment's knowledge that would have been intolerable. If what you say is true then I might as well ignore the true Portuguese political especialists of this time period that mention both sides were allowed to refuel at once without agressions or none at the same time, the same is said about the Tungstem and Volfrain deliveries to both the axis and the alies, they were both supplied at once or none at the same time.

And for your information, the portuguese goverment at that time made things much more difficult to the axis than they could have been without Portugal's presence to the point of that they were crucial to the results of the war and a curious fact was that for sometime the so called "alies" had plans to occupy by force the Portuguese atlantic territories. All this was avoided and "forced" to be avoided by the excessive cautious from the portuguese goverment, again, excessively cautious, at least from the eyes of both the axis and the alies.


Thorius Maximus 01:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was Portugal and its empire a part of the "Spanish Empire" between 1580-1640?

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Spanish_Empire about whether an anachronistic map of the Spanish Empire should include the Portuguese colonies as of 1580-1640 (indeed, Portugal itself), during the time of the Iberian Union, as "Spanish". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I'm not sure why somebody wants to change the first sentence to put Portuguese Republic before Portugal. Portugal is the name everyone, including the Portuguese, use to refer to the country. República Portuguesa is used only by the state and government. Also see pt:Portugal. —Nricardo 17:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU assessment

I rate this article at B class (note that GA is an official procedure and is not an option through this kind of assessment), because I think it fails A class in several ways. Note that an A class article is very close to a FA and shoud be really very very good. Reasons why I think it fails A class

  • Copyedit and proofreading by a native speaker of English is needed. For example in the first line of the second paragraph of the intro "The land within the borders of today's Portuguese Republic has been constantly settled since prehistoric times." constantly should be continously. The second line of that same paragraph "Some of the earliest civilizations include Lusitanians and Celtic societies, followed by incorporation into the Roman Republic dominions in the 2nd century BC, and subsequently into Germanic Kingdoms, such as the Suebi and the Visigoths, from the 5th to the 8th century." the phrase ", followed by" does not fit the structure of the sentence. I am sure throughout the article there are many more instances. I know it is hard (if not impossible) for a non-native speaker to write professional level English (I can't do it either), but for A level, the language level just has to be a bit better than this.
  • There are many one line paragraphs, which is not an indication of the needed level of writing needed for A. For example the line "In 1373, Portugal made an alliance with England, which is the longest-standing alliance in the world." is just too little for its own paragraph.
  • Referencing is not up to A level.
    • Large sections of text, including bold statements do not include sufficient references. For example in the history section the first reference is provided in the 9th paragraph. That is just not sufficient for A level. Although some paragraphs can easily be merged (see comment above), there are many statements that simply require a reference. For example the first line of history "The early history of Portugal, whose name derives from the Roman name Portus Cale," needs a source
    • Several sections do not have any sources; which need to be added. (Government, Foreign, Millitary, Administrative....)
  • Several sections are very, very short (most visibly Foreign, Military, Law). While it is a good idea to split of the in depth discussion of these issues into seperate articles; however, these sections in this article should give a comprehensive summary of the main issues. That is not the case at the moment, and these sections need expansion.
  • Images: Use of images is good (link to text and have captions, there are many of them; donot include more as that would make it too much). No comments there.

Altogether I cannot give the very very high rate of A to this article in its current shape; as GA and FA are another procedure, that leaves me with an assessment of B class. Arnoutf (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the evaluation. I think it will be helpful for everyone. Yodaki (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GDP (PPP) in the infobox

Are you sure that figure is correct?? 89.241.219.79 (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC) I'm changing it to this: $232,000,000,000 Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latin Europe

Hello Portugal! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese Republic

Hello is it ok to add information about the establishment of Portugal as a republic in 1910 in the formation part of the infobox? as i believe this is also an important part in the formation of the Portuguese state. Is this acceptable with all other editors?. Thank you Gr8opinionater (talk) 20:50, April 6 2008 (GMT)

Hello Gr8opinionater! I'm glad you've decided to talk things through instead of just reverting me without explaining your rationale. I oppose your intention of introducing that date and event in the infobox. The section in the infobox is about the Formation of the Portuguese state/country, not about the establishement of a specific form of political regime in an already existing state. Furthermore, the present regime, although republican as a result of the Portuguese First Republic, was established not in 1910, but after the Carnation Revolution of April 25, 1974, that ended the authoritarian semi-fascist regime of the Estado Novo. If there's a place for this info in the box it is in the section about Government were is is said it is a Parliamentary republic. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, just added the info in a footnote on the infobox. The Ogre (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese Flag

Is it just me or is the red in the flag too bright? Most portuguese flags have a darker red. SergioBlaze (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the uploader of the image (click on the image and see the details) it is in accordance with official Portuguese regulations for the colours (provided in the official site of the Presidency of the Portuguese Republic). The Ogre (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)