Talk:Portugal/Archive 5

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)

Dont't worry about us getting hurt over the liberation issue. It was, at least from your people's point of view. I tried to get some more info on the matter but there isn't much material published. The entire collonial war issue is still very hurtfull in Portuguese society. Over 10.000 dead and countless more traumatized for life by the war in africa (PTSD). The loss of Goa, Damão and Diu are usually seen as lesser problems here when compared to the loss of the African collonies. The last remains of a long lost empire. The story by wich it was better known is the one of the last commander of the territory. When he transmitted the Indian military operations in the field, Salazar ordered him to "resist to the last man" meaning... dying in defense of the territory. Instead he surrendered and was kept prisioner for some time, i cannot determine how long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.31.106 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yes, I noticed it too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karljoos (talk • contribs) 01:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.-- Hús  ö  nd  03:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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 . --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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonwlkr (talk • contribs) 19:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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.-- Hús  ö  nd  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)

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)

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 Portugal. —Nricardo 17:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The pronunciation is wrong: is it English? Not really. Standard British RP would be /'pó:tjugëł/ — /ó/ stands for the inverted c, /ë/ for inverted e (I do not know how to use the IPA transcription alphabet, you see… The Portuguese pronunciation is /purtu'γał/. Brazilians will pronounce /pórtu'gaw/. I am José Manuel Mota, from Coimbra, Portugal — imcamota@meo.pt

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

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)

Latin Europe
Hello ! 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)

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)

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)

new images
please, do you like the new pictures i've colocated in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VFHenriques (talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They're nice, but in order to place them you have removed many other pertinent pictures throughout the article. Such dramatic changes should be analyzed and discussed one by one. Hús  ö  nd  18:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes but look, i've replaced pictures such as the belém tower from the culture section to the history section, wich i think its more aduquated due this building being a symbol of the portuguese history. Other pictures such as the vasco da gama bridge, porto and the nations park, i've only substituted them by prettier ones. I've deleted a small number of pictures like the ones of the portuguese speaking countries because i think its not necessary in this article wich is called Portugal. They are already in the main article of the portuguese language. Regards.

i switched some pics and deleted a few because it was too many
do you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipe24 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Climate and geography
I have been doing some changes, but sometimes the weird info appear again. Someone like very much snow and then wants to put portugal as a country in the north europe. For these people I suggest an Atlas map for children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.220 (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Already changed again... mongoose, brown bear and civet are also part of the fauna... Why some people delete that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.220 (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the erratic information is again available... I think this an automatic bot, that doesn´t allow people to participate on the edition... Some of my informations were posted others were deleted... So this is an half work used for the edition.LOL. Funny but not funny... I guess the author doesn´t respect people work, only put there what he wants. It´s not nice to see my country described by some people that don´t want the truth and put there what they want... Some of my editions were readily posted other were deliberately deleted. I think the author accepted my reference about the number of bird fauna, about the bioluminescence, about the uppuwelling, but why he/she avoided the other informations? Afraid of the truth? If you are a kind and honest person, come here to debate. Hard to believe on facts? I was used to doubt about liars but never about facts. Period. Well, this is discussion room, I´m ready for debate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.220 (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

2800 flora species?? Maybe only for the Madeira island? 2.800 sounds like information with hundreds of years. Nowadays a much bigger number is described. Not only spontaneous flora but also non indigenous thrive in the wild and nowadays is so spread that´s also part of the national flora. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.220 (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know where did you took the information that in each 5 or 6 years it snows on the coast? Do you have any conclusive data about that?? These is only hoaxes and more hoaxes. One thing you´ll be sure, your participation text will be deleted.I´ll participate this to the moderators and deciding stuff. I live on the coast and I´m not even in the south, and I did never saw snow... Could you please tell, from where you took those weird informations? In lots of places in the coast of portugal the temperatures never reached zero and it didn´t snowed. Capes, islands, alentejo, algarve, for example, in many coastal areas NEVER did, registered snow... Not to say Azores and Madeira. This is a shame for my country. Now if you are man of truth come here to debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.220 (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Now it´s finally ok... Hard but done! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.220 (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC) I don´t know where you live but two years ago it actually snowed for about an hour in Pinhal Novo - Setúbal and around the district aswell. Anyway i agree that snowfall is so unusual outside Serra da Estrela that for it to take place in coastal areas must be considered as an exceptional episode, usually lasting a few minutes, that takes place once or twice in a lifetime. On the other hand, considering global climate changes, who knows? maybe we'll be the ski resort of Europe in a few years! eheheh (sorry. couldn't help it). What i think is really disputable is the mention of the Lynx in our fauna, since none has been sighted in over ten years. I'm sorry to say but regardless of recent efforts to save the "Lince" it's possible we'll have to report it extintc in Portugal. I know that there are some, but in the "Parque Donnana" wildlife reserve in Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.31.106 (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As it was said in most coastal places it didn´t never was registered snow so the information is kept like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.213 (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, to see a portuguese come here only to say that the iberian lynx isn´t part of our fauna is maybe one of the most aberrhant/weird/pathetic things that I ever saw. Why you don´t ask SOSLYNX ORG about it?? They have clear recent reports about the iberian lynx presence in Portugal. For instance in Monchique mountain are known about 25 animals. One excrement was found in Serra da Adiça and was analyzed ( even more than once!) in SPAIN and in DOÑANA by SPANISH SCIENTISTS and was proved to be of an iberian lynx (2003). Other thing, there are more reports of iberian lynx presence in portugal (LOL). For instance why you don´t just google it « iberian lynx portugal» ? It is that hard? Actually the biggest iberian lynx metapopulation is not from Doñana but from Sierra Morena. Spain, in fact has the biggest iberian lynx population and we depend on their efforts too. A breeding center will open next year, in Silves,Algarve,PORTUGAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.213 (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Demographics
The population figures along the article are a mess (eg. infobox states "2001 census 	10,148,259"; Demographics section text reads "In the 2001 census, the population was 10,356,117") - but we have got used to that.

The latest gem is the table ranking the cities by population, citing the INE 2001 census as the source. In fact, according to this source: some cities (ie, municipalities) have correct figures (eg. Lisbon and Porto); others don't (eg. Vila Nova de Gaia, correct figure is 288 749; Coimbra 148 443); some don't even make it into the list (eg. Sintra 363 749). --87.196.85.90 (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The cities' population are correct according to 2001 INE census. Vila Nova de Gaia, 288 749; Coimbra 148 443, and Sintra 363 749, are figures for the population of the municipalities (concelhos). The statistical city population is different. Licor (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

the Saqalibas were a group related to the Slavs that has also contributed to the ethnic formation of the current portuguese people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boglya (talk • contribs) 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

List_of_municipalities_of_Portugal
List of municipalities of Portugal is a Featured List, but has been at Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_municipalities_of_Portugal for some time now, with no improvements. Sadly, it's looking increasingly likely that it'll lose its star, which would be a shame.

I invite any editors with an interest in Portugal to come to the FLRC and see if the status can be saved. My hunch is that it doesn't look like it's an extremely tough job to rescue it... --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC) (FLRC Director)

Map of Quercus distribution
I asked Pro bug catcher to fix the colours of the map according with the legend. He was the one who changed the original colour scheme. Licor (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Outdated information
GDP data is outdated (October 2007.), the IMF published newer economic report in April 2008. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2004&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=182&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=31&pr.y=14 I've tried to edit this section, but user califate123 is constantly undoing to the obsolete source. Gggh (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, use the most recent source and update the article as you wish. I agree with your point of view, because all Wikipedia's articles on GDP per capita by country, are using the most up to date IMF data. Licor (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, but I can't prevent Califate123 from undoing. I'll keep templates on Portugal's discussion page for now. Gggh (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment
I am working on a new map for use at Portuguese Empire: File:The Portuguese Empire.png.

I feel that, as an aid to understanding the article, it is an improvement over File:Portugal Império total.png which just shows a lot of dots and does not allow the reader to locate the places mentioned in the article. I think Império total is more appropriate at Evolution of the Portuguese Empire which covers the full extent of the empire.

I would be interested to know any feedback, as not many people look at the talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

GINI index
isn't it necessary to indicate the portuguese gini coeficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Califate123! (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lisbon and Tagus image in Demographics
Some users have maintained that the image of Parque das Nações is better than the previous one because it shows more of the Tagus river. I think that that is false because this image shows both a larger part of Lisbon's downtown including a major bridge, and also a much larger surface of the Tagus river. IMO the older image should be the right choice. More opinions please... Tugaworld (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG! I'm pretty sure that there are too many images of Lisbon region in this article. Portugal isn't Lisbon alone. Tugaworld (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture war
There is currently an edit war brewing on this article between me and user Califate123!. The dispute goes around the choice of two pictures to be displayed on section Economy. There is currently an edit war brewing on this article between me and user Califate123!. The dispute goes around the choice of two pictures to be displayed on section Economy. Meant to be a picture depicting something relevant to the Portuguese economy. Califate123! is enforcing the picture on the left, which in my opinion is of very poor quality for an article like this. Most of the picture depicts the blue sky over the city of Maia, and the picture has poor resolution. The picture I replaced it with is on the right, showing the Amoreiras center, Lisbon's financial heart.
 * First dispute:

A picture showing the Vasco da Gama Tower in Lisbon. Califate123! prefers the picture on the left, which focus rather on a cable car in the foreground, not on the tower which is in the far background, making the whole picture a poor match for the caption. Not to mention it's grainy. The picture on the right though, used to be on the article for a long time and clearly focus on the tower. Feedback from other users on the quality and adequateness of these pictures would be much appreciated. Hús ö  nd  19:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Second dispute:
 * I am not sure here. I would prefer another image of a business/industry centre, maybe some of those business park images of Oeiras, a major seaport, an industrial complex like the petrochemical facility of Sines or Matosinhos, or so. Tugaworld (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have to disagree with Tugaworld, don't use another picture of some business center, every country has plenty of those.. The world exposition includes some unique features and I'd probably go with the left picture here. It's not perfect but I like the format better and it gives the tower some context while the cart gives it depth and the bridge in the background adds uniqueness. Both pictures are acceptable though in my opinion. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are far better pictures of the Nations' Park on Wikipedia/Commons. In fact, we already got one in the article. Hús  ö  nd  21:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure, but in the case of Portugal, there aren't too many. It's a small country with only two big metropolis. Oeiras has the largest business parks in the country since almost all major multinational corporations have their national headquarters there. Anyway, I gave other options too... Tugaworld (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I had actually searched for some pictures of the Tagus Park complex in Oeiras before opting for Amoreiras'. Unfortunately, there's none in Commons. I am open to suggestions. Meanwhile, Califate123! continues to push with the poor quality pics, now saying that a picture of the sky over Maia is an excellent pic. Looks like Califate never took part in the discussions at WP:FPC. Hús  ö  nd  21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OMG, are u saying the picture of Amoreiras is of better quality than the picture of Maia? Tell me, just because the photo is artistic, showing a skyline, i repeat SKYline, it means it is of poor quality? In those discussions nothing was said about pictures showing some sky. Califate123! (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What's artistic about the sky? And where's the skyline you claim? I only see a few low rise buildings cut at the bottom of a picture, with a medium rise one behind. and then plenty of sky. Totally inadequate for this article. Hús  ö  nd  21:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WHAT? have u ever been to maia? I bet u not. These building my friend is the tallest one in the NORTH region, with ~100m. A skyline is not only made of +200m buildings. A skyline can be a group of small buildings that contrast with a bigger one, normally twice the hight. In this case, the tower is almost 4 times higher than the surrounding buildings. I can assure u, i've been in the top of that building and i can see all of porto, gaia, matosinhos, vila do conde, etc.. And btw, it's the 5th tallest in Portugal and logically, higher than AMOREIRAS: just a common shopping center.Califate123! (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have been to Maia and I can't see the relevance of that or your sightseeing from the top of this building. Also I can't see what's the point of your newly created height race between this building and Amoreiras (also mid-sized buildings, which are not a shopping center but office towers btw). Totally pointless and irrelevant for a discussion that was supposed to be about picture quality and adequacy to the article. If you continue in this matter I will just ignore your comments, as per one of my user policies stated on my user page. Hús  ö  nd  22:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first picture, about Maia municipality, one of the main industrial centres of the country. As I said before, there are too many pictures of Lisbon in this article. If the Maia's picture is not good from a photographic prespective, then we can find or even create a better image of Maia. Tugaworld (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be a better representative, but the picture on the left I think is really crappy, most of it is sky and in my opinion it doesn't add anything. The one on the right is better, but not great, maybe if it could be cropped so the dark buildings dominate the scenery a little more. Also the colors in the image could be improved. Is there no third option? A better quality picture of something non-Lisbon? :) Njaelkies Lea (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page for 5 days due to edit warring. Please continue to discuss changes here to come to a consensus. I haven't even looked at the different versions other than to ensure they weren't vandalism, so please don't consider me as favoring one version over another. If consensus is reached before the expiry is up, feel free to request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the first picture, it is important to put some picture of the North in "economy" and I don't see any low quality in this photo. I actually think it is a good photo for the section. But for me, another picture of the Nations' Park is not necessary. Maybe we could put both the Maia and Amoreiras photos. That's my opinion..Filipe24 (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against a picture of northern Portugal. But I really can't see how can you find a picture where 80% of it is blue sky be a good quality pic. Check other articles and you'll realize that pictures must have a subject, and the subject must be centered and comprise most of the pic. Hús  ö  nd  18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The photo of Maia and the other I don't know. The photo of Amoreiras is really a crap.VFHenriques (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do I smell a sock? Hús  ö  nd  18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what's the matter with you?VFHenriques (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Look at the pictures of business parks in the municipality of Oeiras, Greater Lisbon subregion. We are talking about Portugal's headquarters of several multinational corporations, including Philips, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, L'Oréal, TOSHIBA, Samsung, Pepsico, Unisys, SolvayFarma and many, many others. In addition, within the municipality of Maia, Greater Porto subregion, there are dozens of Portuguese industries and its global headquarters, including Sonae Indústria (world leader in engineered wood), Cerealis (owner of leading brands like Milaneza and Nacional), Frulact (major fruit processing company - costumers include Danone, Nestlé, Emmi and Yoplait), CIN (Iberian leader in coatings and paint), and many other companies producing textiles and mechanical equipment. According to several sources, Maia in the North, and Oeiras in the south are among the best representatives of Portuguese economy - Oeiras due to the multinationals headquarters, Maia because its notable number of major industrial facilities. The Expo 98 is nothing than a past achievement in building construction and seasonal tourism which would be better placed in the History section or in the Economic history of Portugal. Tugaworld (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a good suggestion but we don't have pictures of the Oeiras business parks. Hús  ö  nd  18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes we have. Look at those pictures on the right. [[Image:Oeiras business park.jpeg|thumb|right|250px|Arquiparque - One of the several business parks located in Oeiras]][[Image:LGPK.jpg|thumb|right|250px|LagoasPark - Office Park in Porto Salvo, Oeiras]] Yes, We Can! Cheers. Tugaworld (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh, well done! No wonder I didn't find these, they're not in Commons. Way to go, Tugaworld, either pic looks nice and adequate, especially the first one. Hús  ö  nd  18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)~
 * Husond, I like both, but for strictly aesthetic reasons I prefer the second. I wouldn't object to the first picture if it was more focused on the main building. Tugaworld (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More Lisbon pictures? Oh please.VFHenriques (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * VFHenriques, the reason for inclusion is stated above. But don´t worry, Maia will be included too, even if we made a pledge to Maians or Portuenses to upload a couple of new images of the town, in order to select the best image possible. Lisbon's Vasco da Gama Tower, according to this suggestion, may also be removed or moved. We want to please all the differing views and sensibilities. What do you think? Cheers. Tugaworld (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)~
 * VFHenrique don't worry man! There will be a picture of the North in "Economy".Califate123! (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok i found another picture of Maia. Is it good this time? Remember that Maia is the most important municipality in the North when you're talking about industry. Regards.[[Image:Maiacentro2.jpg|300px|left|thumb|Maia]]Califate123! (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I vote for: Maia (2nd picture) and LagoasPark. Not changing my mind, only if some extraordinary picture comes down from the Heaven!Califate123! (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion, not a vote. This picture of Maia is much better for insertion in an article, but once again the focus/subject of the pic has nothing to do with economy - just a city park with some kid trying his bike. Hús  ö  nd  20:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, there is also this one Maiacentro.png. And I think it is the best we have. Tugaworld (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC) [[Image:Maiacentro.png|right|thumb|[[Maia, Portugal|Maia]]'s municipality, near Porto, is among the most industrialized in Portugal and hosts the headquarters of several major industrial companies.|200px]]
 * Yeah, that was the picture that had been on the article for a few months. It could've been a good picture, if not for its insufficient overall quality: looks like as if scanned from an old paper picture, and the definition fades on Maia and behind, as if the picture had been taken on a foggy day. Hús  ö  nd  21:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For Oeiras and Maia, I agree with "Arquiparque Business Park in Oeiras (Portugal).png" and "Maiacentro.png". I know Maia's is foggy, but it is the best we have, and we can use it until a new version or photo is available. Arquiparque Business Park in Oeiras (Portugal).png, in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, is home for the headquarters of many multinational companies operating in Portugal.]] 09:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugaworld (talk • contribs)
 * A picture of Maia is not essential for this article, so if we don't have any good quality one, then we should use none. This is a major article, and bad quality pics are unacceptable when there's so much choice. That picture of Maia is totally fine for the article on Maia itself, because that's what we got. But for this one, it is not. Hús  ö  nd  10:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem in putting this new picture of Maia, a economic center of the North. If you go to the section economy of other articles about countries, you can also find cities (economically important) rather than showing factories or whatever you want us to put in this article.87.196.67.68 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Would you accept a new quality photo of Maia town centre? If you agree with this then we will only need a good photo shoot of Maia. Tugaworld (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would. I never said I was against having a picture of Maia in the article; just against a bad quality, inadequate picture. Hús  ö  nd  17:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some more:

Califate123! (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Number 3 looks great.Filipe24 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like the pictures too. That building is the main landmark of the city. It seems adequate to me. Tugaworld (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the new pics are reasonable, especially the third. Hús  ö  nd  20:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So, do you agree with these new photos? (Image:Maiacentro5.jpg and File:Arquiparque Business Park in Oeiras (Portugal).png) Tugaworld (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * LagoasPark instead of Arquiparque.Califate123! (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree. I think WE HAVE A CONSENSUS! Discussion closed. Tugaworld (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Of course it was part of the Spanish Empire. If not why there was a long War for INDEPENDENCE FROM SPAIN? As the (english) article about Luis Camoes says "Spanish troops were arriving to Lisbon". Another demonstration of that political union is that Portugueses in Brazil were allowed by the Spanish Crown to go beyond the limits of the Tordesillas Treaty, so half of BRAZIL today lays beyond the limits of the Treaty. On the other side, Ceuta and Fernando Poo (Equatorial Guinea) were former Portuguese colonies which changed hands during the POLITICAL union. --88.18.150.26 (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article
I think we could apply for Featured Article status. The last time it happened was in 2005. Do you agree?Califate123! (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

English should be revised
the text is clearly not written by a proficient native speaker. English should be revised by a native speaker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.228.49 (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Major changes by Piccolo
Piccolo Modificatore said on my talk page: Can you find me another article about an European country including a random list of international rankings at the bottom of the page? For the science and technology section, perhaps that one can be left outside of the economy section, but in the future, if you have other similar issues: don't just revert everything expecting that people will understand you. Instead, you should state your reasons entirely and all at once, to avoid that every time someone changes something you will revert back for some other reason you didn't think of before.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All of us can find International Rankings in the articles France, Sweden, Canada, Greece, Finland, Republic of China, and so on.
 * There were more users reverting your major changes than me alone. As you can understand now, your deep modifications removed content regarded as very important for other users.
 * I am glad to see you changed your mind, but some issues remain, including the chaotic layout of the new article. You should still expect negative feedback in the following days. Tugaworld (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Australia, Belgium and Indonesia did not include these rankings when they were promoted to FA status, and most other, including some of the most edited articles in Wikipedia (e.g. United States, United Kingdom etc…) still don't, so their inclusion is far from granted. For what you call "chaotic layout" I obviously have to disagree, because having over 20 sections in a relatively small article such as this one is without a doubt an excess, and an obstacle to further expansion.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The chaotic layout was fixed by the anon user. Now the article displays properly in my computer monitor. Tugaworld (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I have no idea of what you're talking about. I see the article now as I always did, so how is it any different for you? Not that it matters much by now.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is very different now. It does not have huge blank spaces between paragraphs and images. Anon user's work was perfect and strictly concerned with this problem. Tugaworld (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding portugal-live.net to Portugal External References
Hello, Im new to Wikipedia and have been instructed to ask your advise in adding portugal-live.net has a External Reference for Portugal for the following reasons:

Includes more information for Portugal regions and places

Has great images of Portugal

And also provides extra information and tips about smaller but useful to know topics, like Driving

best regards,

Popdelart (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * disagree. it's irrelevant and simplistic. ---Pedro (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is Portugal?
The article was deleted. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.193.74 (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of paragraph
by removed a paragraph from the lede without explanation; I restored it. Editors should use edit summaries. - 194.158.79.70 (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I´m wondering why someone add a climatology graph saying that´s portugal climate, when it shows Lisbon Average data... Why someone would try to evidence portuguese climate with only one graph from only one location? Since when Lisbon evidences portuguese climate overall? There are many different climates in Portugal. I´m getting a bit tired about these fellow foreigners that dislike the true facts about Portugal. If they have some points to argue about, they should present them here. If they keep posting that graph the information will be deleted as it has been constantly. We have no problems on deleting false information, but we would be happy in talking and discussing it here, like rational and educated people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.203 (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

President's Party
I wanted to say that I don't think it's correct to indicate the President's party in the description. Although he is known to be affiliated with PSD, the Position of President is set apart of parties. People run as individuals (although some have parties' support) and the president himself is viewed as an independent person while in office, never speak as a member of a party or commenting on internal affairs. As President, his only Affiliation is with the Country and his involvement with any party is put on hold... votan (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Guinea Ecuatorial was a spanish colony, so the official language is spanish not portuguese
Guinea Ecuatorial was a spanish colony, so the official language is spanish not portuguese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.35.112.8 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Chainho image
This article doesn't have room for every single notable living-people from Portugal. That's the reason for the noninclusion of Mariza, José Saramago, Cristiano Ronaldo, Vanessa Fernandes images... and so on. Chainho is a notable living people and a master in his art, but the image should be replaced by a photo of the musical instrument.Jomig (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The issue is not whether a notable people is shown or not. The paragraph is about culture (music), not musical instruments. If a better picture is found with someone palying the guitar, it will be all right. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Bellém tower

 * I don't understand why this high resolution panorama of the Belém Tower, which was promoted to Featured Picture in four different wikis, is being replaced by this inferior image . I hope Califate123! and the anonymous user before him (the same person, I guess), who keep making the change, can give a good reason. Otherwise I will insist on the better picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Chameleon a mammal?
Since when? Should be removed. Chameleons are reptiles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.19.230 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Something went wrong while removing vandal edits
As article is long, due to browser problem I am unable to fix the problem. I am trying. Please check and fix. RAMA (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers. Jomig (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ugly table and map
The table and map depicting the districts and regions of Portugal are too big and too ugly. I don't know enough to fix it. Anybody interested? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Add www.pordata.pt
I think it would be appropriate to add http://www.pordata.pt to the External links / General Information section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmoreira (talk • contribs) 12:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

GDP per capita
According to the latest report from Eurostat

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-15122010-BP/EN/2-15122010-BP-EN.PDF

Portugal's GDP per capita stands at 80% of EU27, the 10th lowest in the Union, and not what was claimed before. I also put some data from Transparency International —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.74.100 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Westmost point
Portugal is not the westmost country in mainland Europe. It is the westmost point in Europe. Azores islands are portuguese territory and they are the westmost point in Europe. Portugal is not only a continental country, portugal has also 2 islands, Azores and Madeira. Tacv (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your statement almost completely, but it is more exact to say that "..., Portugal has also 2 archipelagos, Azores (9 islands) and Madeira (2 main islands). Teixant (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right :) 2 archipelagos not 2 islands. Thanks for the correction 85.138.60.201 (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The link to The Portugal News, (General Information, National newspaper in English) has now changed from www.the-news.net to www.theportugalnews.com To verify, please contact publisher@theportugalnews.com Thank you

What about the french guiana? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Guiana it's part of France and it more west than portugal... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.152.161 (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

French Guiana is not in France, is in French Guiana, South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.208 (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So, if you consider French Guiana, which is a part of the French Republic, not an european territory, why should you consider azores, which are in the middle of the atlantic a part of europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.213.229 (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * French Guiana has as an Oversea Status and besides it isn't in the European Continent. It is part of the American Continent. When one states westernmost point of Europe one refers to the European Continent and not to the European Union (which is a political status). As such when one person is in the French Guiana that person is on the American Continent and when one person is on the Azores islands one is in Europe, thus officially Portugal is considered the westernmost country of Europe. French Guiana is probably the westernmost country/region of the European Union but not of Europe. Tacv (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just added some sources on the article that state that Portugal/Azores is the westernmost point of Europe. Tacv (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you really understand the meaning of the word "mainland"? Cabo da Roca is the westernmost point of mainland Europe, it means without islands, otherwise you would have to include Iceland! And don't forget that there's a difference between mainland and the real continental platform. Azores for example stands in both European or EuroAsian and American platforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.34.223 (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim in "History" section
Hi everyone

The claim "In 1415, Portugal conquered the first of its overseas colonies by conquering Ceuta,which was also the first overseas colony in the world, enough to make Portugal´s Empire the first global empire in the world," doesn't make sense to me.

For one, this sort of thing should surely be accompanied by at least one citation, since it is making a very bold claim!

For two, surely the much earlier Roman empire had "overseas colonies", with its conquests in North Africa, and in Britain. I'm sure other people could come up with older empires too.

I think this claim is very strange, and should perhaps be removed.

I leave it to others to discuss so we reach some consensus, however, I have tagged the claim with the "dubious - discuss" tag.

Liquidcentre (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is true that there are older empires than the Portuguese one. The thing isn't in the age but in the global factor and those older empires weren't truly global. The global meaning only applies to the empires that began after the global discovery with the Age of Discovery, before that a global meaning doesn't make sense since there were lands and continents still to be discovered and conquered (Africa, Asia, Oceania and America) and so we cant speak in a global sense but only in an Old World sense. This means that for an empire to be global it has to have colonies all over the world and not only in nearby lands. It has to have a true global connection and trade with the New and Old Worlds. For example even though the Roman Empire extended beyond the European continent it didn't stretch itself in a global sense. In the other hand the Portuguese Empire includes lands in America, Europe, Africa and Asia, now thats what global means. Global Empires like the Portuguese, Spanish and the British were known as "The Empires were the sun never sets" since they were so global that at least there was one place with daylight at any given moment. I would recommend you to read more about the Age of Discovery to realize that only then a global empire makes sense. Regarding the age factor we can't say that Portugal had the first Empire in history, but we can say they had the first empire in the modern times, as we can read here . Hope i could help. Big hug Tacv (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me just add something that i think can help in understanding this "Global" expression thing: The Portuguese are also coined as the creators of Globalization, since Globalization was born with the Portuguese Discoveries, as we can read here Tacv (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Republic's President party
A Republic's President is elected with the support of parties but does not candidate with them. The President in Portugal is apartidary and by that it should be removed it's mention in parenthesis in the box on the right. On the Presidents actual article it can make sense to mention that he was or is linked to some party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.203.31 (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

words that redirect to this article
i see no reason why the word "emplastro" should redirect here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.49.249 (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up needed
I have just removed some superfluous pictures recently added by an anonymous user. But the article still contains too many irrelevant images and a deeper cleanup is needed. Please refrain from inserting any more pictures (or replacing the good quality ones with worse versions), which don't add to the quality of the text and are probably more appropriate in especialized articles about Portugal. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Califate123! insists on inserting poor quality and out of context pictures (even anomymously). This is the last time I revert his edits. It would be nice to have the attention from other interested editors. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made a complaint here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. The number of images and quality are a problem on this page. At one time there was a clean-up, but it has become blotted with excessive pictures since. My only question, is whether consensus is needed to accept or reject every image on the page. I mean, anyone can add, edit content, but over time new users (or forgetful editors) will forget consensual decisions. A new generation of editors will edit, its just the way things are. Shouldn't it be up to editors, reviews, administrators to occasionally purge excessive blotting? I agree: lets trim the fat, but will consensus require that the addition of new images be voted on by everyone, everytime. I am sorry I can not be more decisive on this subject. Califate123! has recently added too much imagery that has taken away from the content, which is the importance of the article. As the Rules say, "Wikipedia is encyclopedic", and those images have a place: on Wikimedia Commons. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to invoke the authority of admins or to start a discussion everytime we want to insert or replace a picture. All we need is good faith, common sense and be always available to talk with other editors when something doesn't seem consensual. In this particular case, the article is very important (especially for the Portuguese people), has high visibility and is visited by a large number of internauts (about eight thousand a day, in the last days). We then should be careful enough to keep high standards of quality in the text, the pictures and the visual format. When writing new text or inserting new pictures we should also keep in mind that this is a very general article and that specialized matters about Portugal already have articles of their own. By the way, we are still waiting for User:Califate123! to come here and explain his/her reasons for the proposed changes. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Some recent edits turned some sections into a mishmash of unnoticed mistakes like a "230px" red link and a piece of text about the Salazar/25 de Abril bridge. The people who did those things should fix them. Mouramoor (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The piece of text wasn't very difficult to remove ;-). As for the red link (which I couldn't find) and the other mistakes you mention, maybe be you could be kind enough to fix them for us? Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PS - As for the "wikify" template you have just inserted into the article, could you please help us understanding what we need to do? Maybe we have to blame the recent changes? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are well positioned to be blamed because its mistakes remained unnoticed for almost every people involved. I don't know if the latter were unique cases, but I can remove the tag anyway. Mouramoor (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? Oh why?
Why do people always change the fact that Portugal is indeed the westernmost country of Europe? Azores is Portuguese territory and also part of Europe and it's the westernmost land of Europe. Geees Tacv (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Urbanization
The table included in the section "Urbanization" is outdated and do not display the Census 2011 data for all the cities and regions. Some old data was replaced for unsourced data, so the reference Census 2001 is not accurate. Mouramoor (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Portugal a nuclear free zone?
Please consider the recent edits made by User:Mr. Joca in Portugal and other related articles, which I consider to be trolling actions. Being a new user with obvious knowledge about Wikipedia ways is not a good sign either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement is well sourced and the source explains clearly the history of nuclear power in Portugal - the conclusion is simple: Governments and people dislike the use of nuclear power or nuclear weapons in the country. In addition, your comments about trolling and your defamatory remarks are the kind of argument which are leading more and more people away from Wikipedia. If you are a reputed established contributor why don't you focus yourself on facts, sources and the reading of external references, instead of slandering the contributor? Mr. Joca (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement is not sourced at all! The references you produced are a master's thesis and an opinion in a newspaper. Too short to prove that the official Portuguese policy, or the Portuguese public opinion, are against the nuclear option. Once again, I ask you politely to revert your changes and start a proper discussion. The article on Portugal is too important for the community to tolerate this kind of unilateral actions. And your account a little too suspicious for the rest of us to believe you are really new to Wikipedia. À bon entendeur... By the way, where are the other users?... Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Newly created accounts are often the result of previous IP editors registering. Please make a bit more effort on WP:AGF in regards to Mr. Joca. VanIsaacWScontribs 00:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Info -- A complaint was made here on the behavior of Mr. Joca. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it looks like that complaint will be laughed out of court. Come on--trolling? That's a pretty serious allegation, and nothing in Joca's edits suggests they're a troll. Whether the sources are sufficient or not is another matter--but Alvesgaspar, I suggest you take a deep breath before you send someone off to ANI again. Which reminds me: Mr. Joca, welcome to Wikipedia. We're open for business, and Alvesgaspar, while also an editor whose work we welcome, is not our gatekeeper. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He's lucky I'm not an admin. I would've blocked for biting newbies and tendentious editing. VanIsaacWScontribs 00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Well-intentioned but unwise words, which seem to give more importance to form than to substance. Let’s start with the first. Yes, when I have added Portugal to my watchlist my intention was to act as a gatekeeper. To preserve the integrity of the article from vandalism and other forms of inadequate editing, to correct obvious mistakes and to call the attention of the community to non-consensual changes. And I have done that for the last six years or so, just like many other experienced users do. It was no different this time. An obvious mistake was added to Portugal and my first action was to revert the edit and leave a message in the user’s talk page. When he insisted with the change, producing a ridiculous source to support it, I reverted the edit once more and left a message in the discussion page of the article. I only made the complaint in ANI after Mr. Joca forced the change for the third time, presenting an additional source (an opinion article in a newspaper) to justify them. This is hardly the normal attitude of a newbie or even of an experienced user interested in adding to the article. My interpretation was (and still is) that Mr. Jota is trying to make his own POV on a very specific matter. Who's the vilain here? Now for the substance. Portugal is a high visibility article consulted every day by a couple of thousands of readers, including many students. Most people are unaware of the internal Wikipedia editing process and take what they read literally, as if it were absolute truth. Portugal is also a detailed description of my own country and, as a Portuguese, I am particularly sensitive to its mistakes and falsities. And, believe me, asserting that Portugal is a nuclear-free zone by choice is an obvious falsity, as no public discussion was ever held on the matter, still less a referendum was made or an official position was taken by any government. Now that I have explained my position I can calmly take Portugal out of my watchlist, hope that common sense will prevail over hollow political correctness, and cross my fingers that the editors who agree with me won’t be too frightened to make the urgent changes. Ah, one more thing: @Vanisaac, I’m glad you are not an admin because I would have been blocked for the first (and last) time. By the way, the block is a preventive measure, not a punishment. You should be aware of that if you intend to keep intact your (legitimate) ambitions. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What a stupidity, Portugal as a nuclear free-zone!!!!!
 * There's no such thing! And to confuse the fact of a decision not to build Nuclear power plants, was taken on the fact that Portugal never had technical capability to build them but, and therefore investing in a Nuclear Power plant was investing in a foreign economy (They would get the Profits and Portugal the liabilities). Regarding the use of Nuclear Wepons, Portugal never had them, because they were they were useless, regarding the philosophy of the military defense of Portugal. But nuclear submarines from nato and other nuclear weaponize ships always demanded Portuguese Ports without any restrictions


 * Boni-pt (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be the tendentious editing part. This user is making a good-faith effort at meeting all of the concerns raised. In fact, within a single day, he has found a scholarly paper, an opinion piece, and an international journal which supported his addition. The opinion piece does not meet reliability - nobody is perfect in understanding what constitutes RS and what doesn't. The problem with your actions is that you are working against resolving this issue. You have escalated this conflict instead of working to resolve it. I don't know why you brought someone to ANI less than two hours after they had responded in good faith to your concerns about their contribution, but it speaks to a need for you to step back to get some perspective. I'm happy to see that you have stopped reverting the content, and I am looking to this contributor to work on finding some independent support, but right now, this content is moving in the right direction. If you have explicit concerns about what those sources say, and how that information is presented in the article, then by all means, start a conversation about what those sources say explicitly, but just shooting down this contribution is non-productive. VanIsaacWScontribs 00:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it really moving in the right direction? What we see is that someone created a new account just for forcing a specific political opinion (a POV, in wiki language) into a couple of articles, one of them about an European country; and that some well-intentioned, but naive, users defended his/her actions and prevented the change to be reverted. That account is iddle now as its purpose has been acomplished. I have already shown why the change is a clear mistake and do not intend to re-start the discussion. Satisfied with the result, Vanisaac? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Alvesgaspar. It is true that Portugal dismissed many projects for nuclear power plants, but that occurred due to lack of interest and consensus rather than an agreement in banning it. There is no law in Portugal that forbids nuclear power plants, thus it's incorrect and untrue to say Portugal is a nuclear free zone (which implies there is a ban to it. To be considered as such it must be banned not just a lack of). Nuclear energy is a theme that will never get a consensus in Portugal, and even though we do not have any, few km from our border in Spain we have lots. Which clearly show that our territory is under the same risk as if we did have one. There aren't any projects today to build nuclear power plants in the future, again for lack of interest and not a banning. There wasn't made any national study or referendum to obtain the opinion of Portuguese people for this issue, and there isn't any consensus between the scientific community in Portugal. The editor that wrote that Portugal is a nuclear free zone did not, and i repeat did not give any reliable sources to show that Portugal is such a zone. He did give sources for the dismiss of some projects, but not for Portugal is a nuclear free zone. Current article lacks sources indeed. Just because Portugal do not have any Nuclear Plant, doesn't mean its government disagree with it. Currently Portugal is more focused in renewable energies, nuclear is not in Portugal plans, does it make Portugal a nuclear free zone, NO. Tacv (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expressing better what I've being trying to say. I will revert Mr. Joca's edits now. It would be nicer if someone had a more constructive way of addressing the theme in the article. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No prob ... I do think, though, that the nuclear issue should be mentioned. I suggest to change what was written by Mr. Joca specially the labeling of "nuclear free zone", but not eliminating it completely. If consensus is obtained about this i would also suggest to change his contribution to something like ''There are currently no nuclear plants in Portugal. Projects for the construction of nuclear power plants were always dismissed by the governments and a majority of the local populations, making Portugal a symbolic nuclear free zone country.''Tacv (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with the first period:There are currently no nuclear plants in Portugal. But not with the others, as I think they are slightly biased or not properly documented. For example, how many projects were formally proposed and rejected by the governments? The phrase vaguely suggests that there were several, which is clearly not true. Next, what is the meaning of "a majority of the local populations"? Where there any serious discussions on the subject? Or just some demonstrations (organized or not) of the populations? Anyway, I don't see the relevance of stating that the populations dismissed such projects, as nobody wants a power plant in his backyard! As for Portugal being a "symbolic nuclear free zone", I think the phrase is hollow. The truth is we are a de facto nuclear free zone, which is a good thing imo! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading your opinion i mus say i agree with you about the symbolic nuclear free zone expression, it can indeed be misleading. I suggested it since the expression exists and applies to the Portuguese example, although it's true that it might be very misleading for someone not familiar with the term. Besides this i maintain my opinion about the article making reference to this issue. For now i assume a consensus can be made about There are currently no nuclear plants in Portugal, so i suggest the inclusion of this in the main article. I also encourage people to add more info about this issue if they think it can help the energy section. Tacv (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Tourism
It states that Lisbon is the 2nd most visited city in Europe with 7 million visitors per year, after Barcelona. That can't be right. Paris and London attract on the order of 14 million visitors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism I understand that the Lisbon figure is for people occupying hotels in the city, but the where are the 50% of the visitors in Paris staying then if not in hotels in Paris? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.234.1.190 (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Prize
I believe it terribly misleading to readers to discuss "António Egas Moniz was a Portuguese neurologist awarded with the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1949." and label his contribution "leucotomy". The man invented the lobotomy, and it is a Nobel Prize the committee now deeply regrets (though I may not be able to substantiate to everyone's satisfaction that regret). Would it be appropriate to at least add "(lobotomy)" to the description? HoustonEditor (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Houston Editor --- As far as nuclear goes, there's an experimental reactor near Lisbon, which is used by students of physics. There are also uranium mines in the northeast which were exploited in the past. Nuclear submarines from NATO do come to Portuguese ports. However I seem to remmember that Portugal signed a non-nuclear proliferation treaty. That treaty is often used as argument to block ideas of building nuclear power plants. There is some dicussion about it, and some do think that economically Portugal would solve the problems of low productivity by going nuclear so as to generate cheap electricity for industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.51.244 (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Grammar: Such as vs. Like
Although much of this article is excellent, it suffers when "like" is used instead of "such as". "Such as" means that what follows is an example of what is being discussed. "Like" is drawing a metaphorical comparison. Would anyone object if I cleaned this up? HoustonEditor (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Houston Editor
 * Please do so. Thank you.--Uxbona (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

QRpedia
QRpedia is a WikimediaUK project which uses QR codes to deliver Wikipedia articles to users, in their preferred language. We need a version of the article about it, in Portuguese - the language of the most populated Wikipedia for which there is as yet no such article. Can anyone oblige, please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

World leader in the production of cork stopper
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Bottle of good wine is unthinkable without a cork stopper. Cork is made from the bark of cork trees, and began to be used in the 18 century when emerged a glass bottle. Portugal is a leader in the production of cork stopper, with about 50 percent participation in the global market.78.2.93.78 (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Map request
This article needs a basic map showing the main features of the country (cities, rivers, perhaps highways, etc.). -- Beland (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Mirandese title
Shouldnt the name of Portugal be listed in the infobox in Mirandese as well under Portuguese? it is an officially recognized language and has its own word for Portugal (Pertual)

I'm portuguese and I'm going to break it down for you.Portuguese is the major language,while mirandese is talked by a little group of people in Miranda do Douro (Portugal),so maybe that's why it's not in there the mirandese word for Portugal.Hope I helped.Know-howpt (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Also,you should sign the comment.Know-howpt (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese Kings
Should't the names of the Portuguese Kings be written in the original Form? The article refers to John of Aviz and John I. It's supposed to be João of Aviz and João Ivotan (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Believe me when I say: this is a whole can of worms. I direct you to any talk page or article on Portuguese Kings/Queens in Portugal in order to understand the problem. There is a continuing battle by Wikipedians on this subject, with comments for and against dating back to the beginning of Wikipedia. No permanent consensus has ever been achieved, and likely will not, as new editors will challenge the subject and enter protracted debates on either side of the fence. The general trend is that modern Kings will likely use the Portuguese translation, since it is accepted as their formal name; early monarchs will use ancient variations; while conflicts will exist during the middle years. Attempts at standardizing to one format (all English) have, unfortunately, been met with conflict. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Considering we use the translated names of foreign kings whenever possible, ourselves (Isabel II de Inglaterra, Balduíno da Bélgica, Nicolau II da Rússia, Catarina, a Grande, Carlos Magno, Alexandre, o Grande, Júlio César, etc.), can't see why the complaint. 89.153.150.71 (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

National languages
Portuguese Sign Language is also an officially recognized and protected language, alongside Mirandese. 89.153.150.71 (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Portuguese Constitution recognizes the PSL as an expression of culture and an instrument for access to education and equal opportunities [art. 74, 2(h)]. But it is not an official state language as in other countries. See Legal recognition of sign languages. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Fake second Paragraph
Great article and congratulations to the Editors, but there is one exception: it`s the false second paragraph added recently - all of it in that sence, except, obvious, the true part of Portus Cale and the Name, already begore in the article.

1º. There was never any "conscious or unconscious rivalry" between Lisbon and Porto before the 19th century. Everything in life is relative, but you can clarify the meaning of the subjectivism put in a second paragraph of an article so important in this encyclopedia?

There were also other major centers that led to this "Portuguese idiosyncrasy" during the 700 years prior to the 1800s in the history of Portugal. Another request for clarification: The reason for this omission and what meaning they give to "idiossicracia" in that paragraph?

For there were no "metropolitan areas" prior to the Contemporary Age in the sense that they have today. Anyway, it says well: "The country has two great metropolitan urban areas"; does not say "always existed" (here the time is correct). But stumbles on a lie: "having always existed a rivalry."

2nd. It is a disregard for history in other regions and cities like Braga, religious and political center and former Suebi capital (with Guimarães etc.), Coimbra (the ancient capital and political center and university center) or Évora. Or even Beja, on a broader interpretation, as the seat of the Royal branch of Avis-Beja at a time. So you could add even Leiria and Santarém in the Middle Ages, although something near Coimbra and Lisbon respectively.

If there were major poles, demographic and political, we had first the area of ​​Entre Douro e Minho with Braga at the head - with Guimaraes and Porto/Gaia (most influential in the commercially and in the seat of the bishopric, not so yet demographic or "political", and which would give the name to the County and to the nation) vs. Coimbra; Coimbra later as the political and royal center; then Lisbon and Braga vs Coimbra; then Coimbra vs Lisbon, then the macrocephole Lisbon and just the radiating center of cultural and worldview of Portugal in the country and in the world at many levels; then Lisbon vs Évora and Coimbra; and so on; then Lisbon, then today Porto vs Lisbon (since the last 200 years more or less) and the rise of the two metropolitan areas in the 20th century.

Porto was rising commercially and demographically, not politically yet, since the 16th century, - but it's still Coimbra (which had been the seat of the Dukes of Coimbra, a branch of the Avis generation), university center (alternating with Lisbon) and former capital - and still having a cultural influence, radiating culture in Portugal, the "contrapart" to the larger centers with more long presence of the Royal power and nobility: Lisbon, the largest center, and Évora (also a newly University Center at the time and place with the Royal family and elite long presence (and with Estremoz, Vila Viçosa etc.) and a large demographic center too, unlike nowdays.

But of course there was no rivalry between cities until the 19th century, but between royal familes, elites and social bodies, local or geographically located throughout the Kingdom.

3rd. About Porto itself: From the beginning of nationality, Porto, because of its bourgeois tradition, anti-nobility and the need of support of the King against the Bishop, and for their foros against the noble landowners of the North, Porto was a historical "soul mate" and the main ally of Lisbon, and leaning in Lisbon (and next to other municipalities, especially in Alentejo).

- It is the revolution and civil war that draws D. Sancho II of the Throne and puts in it D. Afonso III in 1246-48, which would cause the center of power changing mostly to Lisbon in the place of Coimbra. It is the Alentejo municipalities, other cities and Porto in the same side of Lisbon in the conflit.

- It is the revolution of 1383-1385 where again Porto and its people, almost an isolated enclave in the north, at the side of the cities of Lisbon and Alentejo, supporting D. João I Master of Aviz (not the only one, but almost the only - with some and isolated lords in the North as the Archbishop of Braga and others) against the overwhelming number of Feudal Lords of the North, supporters of D. Beatriz and D. Juan I, not only of the North of course, but especially in the North (in fact against the conscience of their subject Peoples of the North and other parts of the country, in the words of Fernão Lopes) and this again: Porto supporting Lisbon in heroic acts as the critical support to broke the siege of Lisbon.

- Although a different revolution, the revolt again (which had support from all the regions of the country) in the 17th century, begins with parallels with acts of dissatisfaction and revolt among the bourgeoisie of Porto (1628), open revolts in Alentejo, especially Évora, who had its peak in 1637, and the conspiracies of the elites in Lisbon area and Vila Viçosa (some already surveyed earlier, but delayed), Azores (1580-82 and 1641 actions and rule of the People in the events) and finally the revolution of 1640 with the rise of D. John IV.

Etc.

In conclusion, apart from the lie of the phrase "having always existed rivalry, conscious or unconscious, between the Populations of the two cities", although true from the 19th century onwards with the rise of liberalism and the industrial and political rise of Porto (and even demographic - even more) in the early 19th century (very embryonic in the late 18th century with the trade of Port wine and the demarcated region). This "bipolar" rivalry emerges only gradually after the 1830s, 1852s (with the Liberalism and then with the time of Regeneration) and more over Porto towards Lisbon than the contrary, as is natural in these cases and in other countries too. Indeed Lisbon, only through a few elites jealous of commercial success and prosperity of the bourgeoisie of Porto, maybe incipient at the time, gradually increased over time, from the middle or more from the late 19th century. Remember Eça de Queirós on a text about this already stablished "rivalry", then existing in some classes of two cities.

And then there were various polos and urban centers also politically and culturally important throughout history, that were second cities in face of Lisbon through history before.

It seems unreasonable that a contemporary phenomenon with 200 years (the socially constructed rivalry in the Contemporary Age and the contempory urban polarization) to be generous, appear and had been imposed in an article of this importance and just in the introduction, without any historical reality with the about 700 years (or more) involving the prior Middle and Modern Ages.

Respect History and all the country.

Portugal does not have 150 years or 200 years. Portugal has about 900 year history.

Pedro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.153.123.21 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits
I have reverted the unconstructive edits made recently by Califate123!, which consisted mainly in replacing picture with lower quality ones and creating galleries. I urge this user not to insist on this kind of changes, in the line of the ones he has made in the past. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would just like to intervene here by noting, that at no time did User:Alvesgaspar incorrectly state "inconstructive", both here or on correspondence with User:Califate123!. Further, I have had experience with User:Alvesgaspar in the past, and he has been able to select non-controversial, good quality imagery for their use in the Portuguese article-space in the past. At the same time, I have read User:Califate123!'s recent intervention on the "dominance" and rivalry between Lisbon and Porto, and the detailed historical record of the true urban hierarchy (for which I encourage that user to provide sources to validate the statements). Gentlemen, I believe that both can find common ground on these subjects without falling into a edit-war.ruben jc ZEORYMER  (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)