Talk:Portugal/Archive 4

message: The info-box does not have to inform wrongly that the Portuguese republic established on October 5th, 1910 (do not... ) became independent from a disappeared Kingdom more than 700 years ago...
Pois é não me compreendeu... o que eu pretendia é que a data fosse recuada para as suas origens... seja o que explicitei... o que resta de Portu-Cal foi criado pelo Reino Suevo em (400+ -) (e isto não se atreve a contestar...) e se já consegui que fosse eliminada  a falsa ideia que nos emancipamos um dia dos espanhóis, já fico meio contente, mas não vou parar... até que a verdade seja ensinada. Deste reino Suevo os amigos dos espanhóis e dos franceses nem querem ouvir falar... e historiadores tendenciosos há muitos.
É intelectualmente desonesto de persistir em afirmar que a república portuguesa se tornou independente dum certo reino... pois é da república portuguesa que trata a info-box...
Mas o pior (ou ainda bem ?) é que as outras Wikipédias vos copiam come fossem Deuses...  e eu sou Budista... 
José Manuel CH--GE 19:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Portuguese republic info-box=intox... 

message: (The Portuguese Language - an Ocean of Cultures )
(Côa Valley Archaeological Park )
(World Heritage Sites in Portugal )
José Manuel CH--GE 22:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgive me my 'good Masters' what is the problem with those links? 

message: The name: The Portuguese Language - an Ocean of Cultures  is not my creation... is from the second page of the same website; http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/oceanoculturas/eng/index.html  (second page) 
http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/english.html (first page)
Sorry I do not believe in your “EL” (Hell?) 
Best regards, José Manuel CH--GE 13:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem with those links is that we should restrict EL (...) + don't create your own captions, use the website's title

message: Please read here  this article about the: Os suevos já não têm concorrentes. Durante mais de uma centúria sustenta-se o seu reino na parte noroeste da Península. Alarga-se até o Tejo com a capital em Braga (já sede de um bispado desde Diocleciano) e chama-se Reino de Portu-Cale - do nome de dois castros fronteiros nas margens do Douro.
Best regards--José Manuel CH--GE 12:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reino de Portu-Cale  

message: The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.
Please support me in maitaining Portugal's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. Portugal deserves no less! JamesAVD 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we're just waiting for d. sebastião finally comes from the mist <3 and anyway i think that it should include açores and madeira..
PLEASE DISCUSS THIS AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues as it involves more than just this country.  
Thanks, —MJCdetroit 20:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted 

message: A recent edit changed:
Portuguese society is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. Approximately 90,8% of the population consider themselves Roman Catholic, the highest percentage in Western Europe, but only about one-third attend mass and take the sacraments regularly.
into:
Portuguese society is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. According to a common saying, "To be Portuguese is to be Catholic." Approximately 97% of the population consider themselves Roman Catholic , the highest percentage in Western Europe, but only about one-third attend mass and take the sacraments regularly.
Not only does the edit seem to introduce a bias which was previously absent, but I have never heard this supposedly "popular" saying in my life. Source, please! FilipeS 17:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, FilipeS. This needs changing. Be bold! Do it! The Ogre 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "To be Portuguese is to be Catholic"

message: Portugal has witnessed a constant flow of civilizations during the past 3,100 years, including Greek, Roman, Germanic, Moorish and others, who made an imprint on the country's culture, history, language, and ethnic composition. During the 15th and 16th centuries, with its vast transcontinental empire, Portugal was one of the world's major economic, political, and cultural powers. Now, Portugal is a developed country, a member of the European Union since 1986, and a founding member of NATO and Eurozone.
This sounds overly boastful. Can we be a little more self-restrained? FilipeS 21:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: This article describes "A nine-member constitutional court oversees the constitutionality of legislation." in the last sentence of #2 "goverment and policts". But another article about Portuguese Constitutional Court#Organization describes thirteen judges in the court. which number is right?? 2SteamClocks 14:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many judges are in Portuguese Constitutional Court? 

message: "Portugal is one of the least corrupt countries, according to Transparency International" reads the caption to the graphic under International rankings.  Does a ranking of 6-6.9 merit being called "one of the least corrupt"?  It would seem to be closer to the median than it is to the maximum. Cleduc 00:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel so when I read it... maybe need to correct a little.2SteamClocks 13:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, if we take into account that the survey encompasses 163 countries, it means that Portugal ranks in the top 16%. Cigsandalcohol 07:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corruption 

message: I deleted a line from the Religion section, "One curious fact is that Satanism is growing." At the very least this requires a citation. The Wiki entry on "Satanism" describes definable organizations (citing individuals who call themselves Satanists) but gives no demographic statistics. My sense is that besides a citation, the line would need a meaningful definition of "Satanism" in the first place.
I'm starting to notice items that seem too innocuous to be called vandalism, but which are dificult for me to explain otherwise. Should we grep in all national entries for references to "satanism" to detect a difuse propoganda scheme? Peter H. St.John, M.S. 03:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Satanism 

message: Currently, the text of Prehistoric Spain seems really to be about prehistoric Iberia.  Similarly, the text of Prehistoric Portugal seems really to be about the same thing.  This would be perfectly understandable seeing as there was no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. I have argued therefore that it would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states.  I have proposed the articles be merged and moved to Prehistoric Iberia.  Please come and discuss my proposal. Jimp 09:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Jim. If the merge goes through, what shall we do with Pre-Roman Portugal? You see, Prehistoric Spain encompasses a period that the "Portuguese" articles differentiated into Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal. Should we merge them all? The Ogre 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge Prehistoric Spain with Prehistoric Portugal & move to Prehistoric Iberia 

message: The map locating Portugal in Europe in the country box (any of the ones I've seen so far) is incorrect, since it does not include the Azores or Madeira. They had a similar discussion in the Spain article regarding the inclusion of the Canary islands. This must be changed accordingly. The Ogre 14:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's incorrect, it's just not 100% accurate by showing only the continental part of Portugal. But let's face it, maybe it's better the way it is than to clutter it with all the overseas regions of some European states, such as the French Guyana, etc.--Húsönd 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: What's this about "Royal Family bloodline found: King Martinez the V, last Portugese King" on the "Facts and Figures" section? Is it vandalism or am I oblivious about some obscure dinasty? :) Bmdsantos 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense removed now. It was funny though. --Húsönd 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts and Figures 

message: This ahistorical and unsourced map keeps cropping up all over the place. Would someone take care of it, please? --Janneman 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another Map

message: Page Up reverted my addition of the word "accidental" with the following comment: In the age of discovery all new territory explorations were "accidental", first explorers didn't know what was there..  This is wrong.  Portuguese explorers had heard of the places they were trying to get to: namely, India, China and Japan, etc - the Orient.  They went there on a mission.  They may have been pleased to get there, but it was their intention to find these places.  On the other hand, sailing west, Columbus accidentally discovered America, because it was not his intention to do so - he too was looking for Japan.  Had America not existed and he made it all the way to Japan, he would not have accidentally discovered Japan because it was his intention to find it all along.  Sailing south-west, on a course to Africa, Cabral accidentally discovered Brazil, because according to the standard view of historians at the moment, Cabral sighted land when he was not expecting to do so.  Therefore, it was an accidental discovery.  As your own reference says, it was either accidental or intentional.  There is a theory that he accidentally discovered Brazil, that is the prevalent view, and should be the one WP states.  There is a theory that he set out intentionally for Brazil, that is not a widely held theory.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. No, it was not a misunderstanding. I am not saying it was intentional, but you can not say it was NOT intentional because you don't know. And please, do not remove academic review citations from JSTOR. The fact is that in 1500 he was there and claimed Brazil to Portugal. That is what we know. The word "accidentally" is not accurate information, and the word "intentionally" would not be accurate too.Page Up 13:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on a second: it's not about what I do or do not know, it's about what the sources say.  The standard view of historians is that Brazil was accidentally discovered.  The standard view is what should be most prominent.  As a compromise, I'll accept that the word "accidental" does not stay in the main text, but I have explained the standard view in the footnotes, and linked to Alternative theory of the European discovery of Brazil, which is where I had moved your reference to.  I did not delete it from Wikipedia.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 14:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, sounds good to me now.Page Up 13:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Accidental" Discovery - Misunderstanding of the word "Accidental"