Talk:Sidónio Pais

message: There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that "atheist" would imply a proactive rejection of religion, whereas Religion:none could mean that someone simply doesn't care one way or the other. WQUlrich (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable. In the case of Pais, the epithet "atheist" is probably unwarranted, as he (as far as I know) never demonstrated the slightest interest in religion, but also showed himself not as rabidly anti-clerical as most of his fellow republicans. --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: Half the article is about this guy's relatives! Would it be reasonable to suggest deleting all that and replacing it with a bit more information about what he actually did? If the consensus on that is "yes", I'll be happy to do the work. (I may add the other info anyway, but it would be nice to get rid of the clutter.) WQUlrich (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. I'm going to revise the article using the Portuguese entry and Infopedia, both of which offer a more balanced assessment. A lot of genealogy will have to go. --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this Wikipedia or Geni? 

message: I performed an extensive revision of the article, using the Portuguese Wikipedia as my main source, but also Filipe Ribeiro de Meneses' article "Sidónio Pais, the Portuguese 'New Republic' and the Challenge to Liberalism in Southern Europe". In addition I created a more extensive bibliography. I've taken the liberty of removing the "multiple issues" banner, but it wouldn't hurt for someone else to give the text a once-over. --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article revision performed 

message: I removed the  tag, because I think the article is sufficiently supported by sources at this point. More sources never hurt of course, --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Refimprove 

message: the statement “In an attempt to normalize relations with the Roman Catholic Church, which had been in open war with the Republican regime since 1911...” does not reflect properly the nature of relations between the Republic and the Church. In fact, this statement misleads the reader.
It is not the Church which “had been in open war with the Republican regime”, but quite the other way round. There are scholars who claim that the Portuguese revolution of 1910 was directed against the Church rather than against the monarchy. In the day of the coup there were 3 religious killed already; until the end of the year 15 other followed, with hundreds maltreated, some of them tortured and beaten. On October 8 all religious orderes were dissolved and all their members who would not comply were condemned to exile. On October 18 all religious symbols were banned or removed from public buildings. On October 19 the Portuguese representative at the Holy See had been recalled. On October 22 religious instruction was banned in all schools. On October 23 theological faculty of the University of Coimbra was closed. On October 26 all religious holidays were abolished an Sundays were renamed to “day of rest”. On October 28 all chaplains were removed from the army and all military were barred from attending religious service (also in private). On April 20, 1911 new legislation enforced new measures, including the need of having official approval to issue episcopal letters, and nationalized religious property. Official administrative-police supervision over all religious practice has been introduced. Most seminaries have been dissolved. Public financing of religious service has been banned. The religious were banned from wearing cassocks in public. Romerias and other public religious events were declared illegal. Legislation adopted on December 25 (mind the date) declared children born out of wedlock equal in law (also when it comes to inheritance) to children born in marriages. New civil code adopted on February 18, 1911 declared null and void all religious acts (including marriages) concluded prior to the date. All cemeteries were taken over by civil authorities. And so on and so an. Apart from legislation, government-supported media campaign against the Church has been launched. Anti-religious violence was either instigated or condoned by authorities. During the procession of June 10, 1913 bombs thrown at participants caused several deaths, including children. This was an all-out war, sectarian, obsessive and vile, intended to bring religious life in the country to the halt.
It was not the Church “in open war with the Republican regime”. I am removing the phrase, though to make things accurate, it should rathe be said that “In an attempt to normalize relations with the Roman Catholic Church, which had been assaulted by the Republican regime since 1911...” --89.64.66.174 (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Church in war with the Republican regime