Talk:Constitution of Portugal

Expand / Cleanup
I think the 1976 section could be shorter and clearer. Also, most obviously, this lacks sections on all the older Constitutions, and expansion on the 1933 one. I might tackle it someday... but I'm far from being an expert. - Nabla 15:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

need more on pre-1976 constitutions
We mention there were pre-1976 constitutions but we say nothing about them. Need to add if we can find referenced material. RJFJR (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
The section Constitution of 1976 is tagged for neutrality, but nothing is written here about what neutrality is challenged. Please state what is disputed. RJFJR (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That section was tagged in June 2011 by 112.135.68.14 (talk), who made no other edits. I would be surprised if we get an answer to your question anytime soon. Green Giant (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if anyone else saw a problem. I've removed the tag.  RJFJR (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Source
I don't have the time to cite this properly, but I noticed that nearly all text on this page matches http://countrystudies.us/portugal/76.htm to the letter. That website claims the information is from the U.S. Library of Congress. Explodingdog (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Constitution of 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022105528/http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/constitucionalism/const_monarchy/index.html to http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/constitucionalism/const_monarchy/index.html#2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022105528/http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/constitucionalism/const_monarchy/index.html to http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/constitucionalism/const_monarchy/index.html#2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022105528/http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/constitucionalism/const_monarchy/index.html to http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/constitucionalism/const_monarchy/index.html#2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022105528/http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/constitucionalism/const_monarchy/index.html to http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/constitucionalism/const_monarchy/index.html#2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022105528/http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/constitucionalism/const_monarchy/index.html to http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/constitucionalism/const_monarchy/index.html#2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141022091934/http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/cons_leg/Constitution_VII_revisao_definitive.pdf to http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/cons_leg/Constitution_VII_revisao_definitive.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

1975 or 1976
This article is in various categories for 1975, e.g. Category:1975 in law, but the article always calls it a 1976 constitution suggesting it should be in Category:1976 in law? Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed the categories to match the year. It's probably just a result of the writer confusing the Carnation Revolution date with the constitution's date. CriMen1 (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Constitution of 1933 + Constitution of 1976

 * 1) I think it would be better if the Constitution of 1933 received its own Wikipedia page (it is the only now that doesn't have one) and the text that is currently in this page about 1933 should be reduced, as it includes a lot of historic political information that is beyond the point of the page (e.g., the three last sentences of the paragraph). This would also reduce some neutrality problems (e.g., describing people as puppets of Salazar sounds unnecessarily colorful). Also, is the constitution of 1933 bicameral or unicameral + advisory body? CriMen1 (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) The 1976 constitution's first paragraph is in general very confusing because of the way it uses the term "left". In the first time the term appears in the paragraph it is linked to the page Far-left politics, but then in the sentence "The membership was intensely partisan, with some 60 percent of the seats occupied by the left", clearly it cannot be referring only to far-left parties because, to reach >50%, it needs to include the Socialist Party (which, as far as I know, ruled as a minority government instead of forming a coalition with the far-left parties). One solution may by to bulldoze the whole section and replace it with new text based on quality sources, but if this does come from a credible source that considers the SP at the time to be far-left, then it would be good to clarify that in the text, as anyone familiar with modern-day Portuguese politics would be very confused by such classification. CriMen1 (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)