![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 13:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think there are very few online resources. And most in Portuguese only.
the official Portuguese archive site is
http://www.iantt.pt/
may be they can help. good luck. --
BBird
21:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't belive João IV should be translated to John IV, because that's just pointless and missleadding. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.88.137 ( talk • contribs)
A large chunk of Portuguese history seems to be missing between "Crises of the Nineteenth Century" (ending in 1834) and "The First Republic" (beginning in 1910). Has this never been written up for wiki, or was it deleted?
Quick question, what sources was most of this information obtained from? I read both english and portuguese. Secondly, I'm having trouble locating books written in english about D. Alfonso Henruques to the Revolution of '74. I have been able to locate some sources on modern Portuguese history Revolution of 74 and on but that is about it.
The first lines are an obvious POV!
I didn't know that Portugal participated WWI. What was the outcome for Portugal? ---
In an article on the history of Portugal there is practically no mention of the Marquis of Pombal, one of the most influential figures in all Portuguese history! There's only a small mention of his reforms in the timeline, and no context is given. Does anyone else have a problem with this? -- Rhesusman 01:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Several topics on Portuguese history from 1974 until the present are featured in the Legislative elections in Portugal series. If anyone can fit that into the article it would be good. Afonso Silva 23:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
What do you think of the template?-- Gameiro 02:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The article on John III of Portugal is currently nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Support the article with your vote or comment on the nomination.-- Fenice 09:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I think a World Map of Portuguese colonial posessions throughout history is needed in Portuguese Empire! Dont' you agree? The Ogre 14:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Does someone with interrest in the Estado Novo period clean that section. I copy pasted it in here from Portugal article, it seems a copy paste from a Blog, and is extremelly POV and borring! -- Pedro 19:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
As of today, this part of the article still looks like communist propaganda --lies, cliches, partial stories. -- BBird 19:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Removed from the article -- it must be reworded, wheighted and substatiated if these
(legitim but hardly facts) povs are reinserted.
quote Furthermore the richness produced in the great growth of the economy in the 1960's in the country (and empire), was being accumulated by a small minority, while the workers (both nationals and from the Empire) remained ignorant, illiterate and living in poverty.
Portugal's acceptance in the OECD, NATO and EFTA, was not an unconditional sign of the international acceptance of the regime: in the context of the cold war and international pragmatism, Portugal was a small country with a relatively important geostrategical position, thus Western interests turned a blind eye on the regime's policies.
unquote
Elections were stolen, there was no freedom of speech, if you disagreed you would go to jail. However there were no death penalty since the 19th century as far as I could investigate. There's not lot of information because everything was censured is normal. And then the with the 25 de Abril the communists exagerated on everything..like the fascists... forevertheuni
History of Portugal (1777-1834) is now being peer reviewed. Please, if you want, go there and state your opinion. Thank you. Gameiro 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I am reasonably familiar with German history in the 1920's and happen to know that Mauser was supplying arms to Portugal right after WW1. The question I have no answer to is; which Portugese government(s) or institutions were buying, and whether there was major military/police activity either at home or in the colonies? MauserWerk 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The subdivision articles for the History of Portugal are quite a mess. The template is representative of that mess, by having large periods together with small points in Portugal's history (e.g. 1383-85 crisis and Struggle for the Portuguese throne). We should have a simple elucidative template with onky the relevant periods, and eliminating things like Kingdom of Portugal and Galicia. I propose the following scheme:
It was called the Ditadura Militar and not the Ditadura Nacional
Can someone give an opinion on that. Thanks. Joaopais 01:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
PREC stands for Periodo Revolucionario em Curso. The revolution effectively ended with the publication of the Document of the Nine in November 1975 and the election of the First Constitutional Government in April 1976. The period from 1976 to 1986 was the period of democratic consolidation, and cannot properly be included in PREC.
What do you say? Sorry for taking so much to reply. Afonso Silva 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that this is wrong. A great deal happened in the seven years of the Military Dictatorship that was to determine the course of Portuguese politics throughout the Estado Novo. Firstly, Salazar's rise to power was solely due to the political infighting within the military dictatorship, and it was during this time that his relationship with President Carmona was established. There were also several attempts to restore democracy, and there was the rise of an important fascist organisation and several coups. To say that there are 'few things to say' is just nonsense.
Finaly, I'd like to say that this is only my opinion and I encourage you and everyone to reach a better format. I'll not be mad if this turns out different from what I'm proposing. We really need some WikiProject to clean this mess. Thanks Joao pais 02:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll reply only to your doubts, the remaining issues seem to be ok.
4. Barbarian invansion and settlement in the west of Iberian Peninsula should be the subject, not the name, the name should be sorter, like "Barbarian invasion of Lusitania", somthing like that. 6. All right, perhaps your choice is better, 1112-1279 is good as it describe the whole formation process. 7. Although the 2nd period is shorter, 34 years, the 83-85 crisis has lots to be included, we have good articles on that period, like Aljubarrota Battle or the article on the crisis itself, we could then describe the process that made us the pioneers in exploration. The following article would start on 1415. 8. It should be named 1415-1498, it keeps consistency, the same for the following articles. 15. The two dictatorial regimes should be merged as the second evolved from the first, separating them would not be a good choice.
About the template, the 3rd one seems better. What do you say? Cheers! Mário 23:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The Arabic word for a sweet orange is portukal. Not connected to origin name of the country ? Amoruso 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
"A 1373 treaty of alliance between England and Portugal remains in effect to this day with the United Kingdom". What does that mean? Which treaty?
That mean if Portugal need help to (ex: defeat the US), England help Portugal without question!
See this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Alliance and you see that Portugal is the "father" of England.
The article does not contain correct citations. The text of the article often contains citations of the (Author, year) format. But the end of the article does not contain a References section noting the full reference information for the citations. How is a reader supposed to know exactly where a piece of information was sourced? Patiwat 20:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
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 the proposal. J i m p 09:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone might wanna add a fair use tag to that picture so it isn't deleted. Yonatan ( contribs/ talk) 14:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
An unregistered user, 213.22.20.21, made a mass of edits, in five sessions within one half hour, just two hours ago. These edits are characterized by broken English, reckless typing (e.g. 'atrated' for 'started', copious failure to capitalize initial letters of words, and other errors. I have taken the action of reverting this contributor's work because they simply do not know English well enough to be contributing to English language Wikipedia. Overall, the *content* of the edits is unobjectionable to the extent it is sincere and not inflammatory. Most of the edits are relevant. Some of them are even factual and enhance the level of detail. Then again, there *was* the following passage, which is either careless or stupid:
"The region of present-day Portugal was inhabited by Neanderthals and then by Homo sapiens.
Early in the first millennium BC, several waves of Celts invaded Portugal from central Europe. From the contact between these two fierce and strong minded cultures . . . ."
First, it is too subjective for a factual article to use the descriptions "fierce and strong minded" of cultures or ethnic groups. Second, and of course of top importance, is the amusing implication that "Celts" and "Homo sapiens" represent "cultures in contact". This example and the incompetent English show this user -- an unregistered user -- to be a very irresponsible contributor, however well meaning. Hurmata 03:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The jumbo size image of Prince Henry the Navigator at the top of the article is delirious POV pushing and absolutely tasteless. The history of Portugal has hundreds of notable figures beyond Henrique. I beg you, please remove that ugly picture or at least move it to another section with a smaller size. Miguelzinho 13:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
There needs to be an article about this. Other neutral nations, such as Ireland [1], Spain [2], Switzerland [3], and Sweden [4], have articles about their roles during WWII. In the Estado Novo article World War II is mentioned only once. Basically every single European nation has an article dedicated to its role during WWII. Meanwhile Portugal doesn't even have a paragraph about it's role. -- Tocino 00:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm interested in witch trials, and think it would be interesting to have cases from all countries in the subject. I know Portugal was a country with very few witch trials, but I have heard about some; in 1599, five people where burned as witches in Lissabon, another one a little later, and one by the Inqusition at Evora in 1626. If anyone know anything and would like to share the information by starting a stub, or at least give a tip on names to google, I would be grateful. I think it would be very interesting to read about! Best wishes-- Aciram ( talk) 11:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This may be something that is more for personal research rather than something to be put on Wikipedia. It is a very interesting topic and I really haven't heard much about it. I do know, however, that if it is put on Wikipedia's main page on the History of Portugal, it may skew readers to believe that it had a huge impact on the people of Portugal, which I don't think it did? Correct me if I am wrong, but i didn't play a large role, did it? Spartemis ( talk) 04:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis
I agree with Spartemis that this may not belong on the History of Portugal's main page. I do, however think that it is a really interesting topic, and might be more appropriately placed on the "Witch trials in the Early Modern period" page, or somewhere similar. I also looked quickly at the "Portuguese Inquisition" page, and I only saw one brief mention of witchcraft. If you do decide to research this, I think that would be a great place to expand on the topic. Snackerdoodle ( talk) 22:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just realized you weren't actually suggesting to add it to this page. I do still think this is something that would better suited to adding onto one of the preexisting witchcraft-related articles; maybe there could be subheadings by country on one of those articles. Snackerdoodle ( talk) 23:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The first Global Empire was Portugal.
In 1500-1501 - the first one in 4 Continents and with the first Establishments in the Moluccas, Ceram and Banda Islands in 1512-1513 the first in 5 Continents - in fact already in the Australian continental plate - and proclaiming nominal domain on west Papua (New Guinea) in 1526. Let us respect the truth and history.
The art Of course Spain and Portugal joined in 1580 to 1640 had formed wider a double global empire.
The article is good and interesting but it can be (as many others) more courageous in the clarity in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.173.196 ( talk) 21:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
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 [[User talk:The Red Hat
I think that a new map of the Portuguese Empire would help the readers better understand the variation in empires. Portugal is unique in the fact that it was a trading empire. It's goals were to create revenue rather than "save souls," which was the case for the Spanish empire. A map that shows concentrations of Portuguese populations in its empire, as well as the trading networks in the ocean, would be helpful rather than solely a specific map with barriers that would cut off the sphere of influence that Portugal had over other territories. This may bring in the deeper question of what one can qualify as an empire. Spartemis ( talk) 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis
A lot of the history, such as the Carthaginian invasion, doesn't apply to Portugal but only to the eastern section of the Iberian peninsula, modern day Spain. In ancient times, the Iberia spoken of was only a small portion on the eastern side and not the entire peninsula as it's referenced today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datarune ( talk • contribs) 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
A couple of points:
This article does a good job integrating the aspects of trade for Portugal, but would it be smart to add somewhere in the section that there are different types of empires in the world and Portugal wanted to establish itself as a trading empire? It's goals were to trade and to be successful by creating allies through various networks. It's true that they integrated themselves in different cultures but very often their goal was to return to Portugal richer than they started. Trade was a main reason for exploratory missions. Spartemis ( talk) 04:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis
This is a pretty interesting point, and I agree with your suggestion. I think the parts of this relevant to Portugal could be added in with a few sentences. I don't think there needs to be too much about the varied types of empire on this page, as that would be a discussion more suited to the "Empire" article. Snackerdoodle ( talk) 23:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The article certainly covers the discoveries and explorations of Portuguese navigators along with the individuals themselves. However, it was also a time of remarkable advancement in the instruments of navigation and the sciences behind those developments. tools like the ancient kamal, compass, quadrant were already in use, but the astrolabe, nocturnal, and the ephemerides were just beginning to emerge. Not to mention the developments in ship technology itself. There is very little mention of what kinds of tools allowed Columbus to complete a trans-oceanic voyage.-- Casini1 ( talk) 18:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Spanish reconquista.gif, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC) |
This intro is very unfavorable, it needs to be revised. It is so detrimental that it is unreliable. Remember Portugal retained large portions of the empire in a period where other countries lost it. And for instance, much of the 20th century Portugal was in better shape than Spain and in the 19th century Portugal was in better shape than several countries in Europe. Furthermore, the history of the country is not just the empire, battles or kings. More focus on culture of those civilizations and shaping Portugal.
Dear Maurice Carbonaro, I do not even know yet the history of Greek terminology for Orange, but I assume that they used the term of Persian origin Arantia / Orange / Oranje (this one of Sanskrit origin) like most or much of the Ancient World who knew the fruit (and most(?) of Indo-European languages who knew the fruit)
In fact Portugal came from the local place and region of Portucale, Portus Galle, Cale (also called Gale). Connection with the Gallaeci etc. (the name itself (not the state) with already more than 2000 years)
And Portugal do have a relation with the Orange:
Even before the official scientific discovery of the scurvy, the Portuguese in their global expansion (especially in the Indian Ocean in this case) in the 16th century, showed a great need for vitamin and refreshments as oranges for the hungry and for this disease, that led to the Arab world (who used "Orange" before) and even much of the Iranians (who were a source of the original word) the adoption of the name of Portugal ( Arabic "Portukali /Portugali/Burtugall" and the Persian "Porteghal") for this fruit.
On the other side was Portugal that eventually spread further into the western world and not only the name of Persian and Sanskrit (before) origin and the West: Laranja/Naranja (Oranje).
Has been a popular replacement of this terminology in the Greek world after the sixteenth century by Ottoman influence, Arabic influence etc.? Maybe?
Thanks for your contribution. Any way it's good the debate and to have new ideas and sources for the etymologies. -- LuzoGraal ( talk) 20:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Hallo there
LuzoGraal (
talk),
Catch you later.
Maurice Carbonaro (
talk)
08:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I changed this statement to Between 1498 and 1501, Pêro de Barcelos and João Fernandes Lavrador explored North America. from Between 1491 and 1494. I don't know where the earlier dates came from, but they certainly did sail earlier than Colombus. Pacomartin ( talk) 03:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Please, don't change my additions, if you didn't know about Countess Theresa you can look that information in her Wikipedia page. Arthur45454 ( talk) 13:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 13:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think there are very few online resources. And most in Portuguese only.
the official Portuguese archive site is
http://www.iantt.pt/
may be they can help. good luck. --
BBird
21:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't belive João IV should be translated to John IV, because that's just pointless and missleadding. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.88.137 ( talk • contribs)
A large chunk of Portuguese history seems to be missing between "Crises of the Nineteenth Century" (ending in 1834) and "The First Republic" (beginning in 1910). Has this never been written up for wiki, or was it deleted?
Quick question, what sources was most of this information obtained from? I read both english and portuguese. Secondly, I'm having trouble locating books written in english about D. Alfonso Henruques to the Revolution of '74. I have been able to locate some sources on modern Portuguese history Revolution of 74 and on but that is about it.
The first lines are an obvious POV!
I didn't know that Portugal participated WWI. What was the outcome for Portugal? ---
In an article on the history of Portugal there is practically no mention of the Marquis of Pombal, one of the most influential figures in all Portuguese history! There's only a small mention of his reforms in the timeline, and no context is given. Does anyone else have a problem with this? -- Rhesusman 01:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Several topics on Portuguese history from 1974 until the present are featured in the Legislative elections in Portugal series. If anyone can fit that into the article it would be good. Afonso Silva 23:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
What do you think of the template?-- Gameiro 02:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The article on John III of Portugal is currently nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Support the article with your vote or comment on the nomination.-- Fenice 09:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I think a World Map of Portuguese colonial posessions throughout history is needed in Portuguese Empire! Dont' you agree? The Ogre 14:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Does someone with interrest in the Estado Novo period clean that section. I copy pasted it in here from Portugal article, it seems a copy paste from a Blog, and is extremelly POV and borring! -- Pedro 19:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
As of today, this part of the article still looks like communist propaganda --lies, cliches, partial stories. -- BBird 19:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Removed from the article -- it must be reworded, wheighted and substatiated if these
(legitim but hardly facts) povs are reinserted.
quote Furthermore the richness produced in the great growth of the economy in the 1960's in the country (and empire), was being accumulated by a small minority, while the workers (both nationals and from the Empire) remained ignorant, illiterate and living in poverty.
Portugal's acceptance in the OECD, NATO and EFTA, was not an unconditional sign of the international acceptance of the regime: in the context of the cold war and international pragmatism, Portugal was a small country with a relatively important geostrategical position, thus Western interests turned a blind eye on the regime's policies.
unquote
Elections were stolen, there was no freedom of speech, if you disagreed you would go to jail. However there were no death penalty since the 19th century as far as I could investigate. There's not lot of information because everything was censured is normal. And then the with the 25 de Abril the communists exagerated on everything..like the fascists... forevertheuni
History of Portugal (1777-1834) is now being peer reviewed. Please, if you want, go there and state your opinion. Thank you. Gameiro 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I am reasonably familiar with German history in the 1920's and happen to know that Mauser was supplying arms to Portugal right after WW1. The question I have no answer to is; which Portugese government(s) or institutions were buying, and whether there was major military/police activity either at home or in the colonies? MauserWerk 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The subdivision articles for the History of Portugal are quite a mess. The template is representative of that mess, by having large periods together with small points in Portugal's history (e.g. 1383-85 crisis and Struggle for the Portuguese throne). We should have a simple elucidative template with onky the relevant periods, and eliminating things like Kingdom of Portugal and Galicia. I propose the following scheme:
It was called the Ditadura Militar and not the Ditadura Nacional
Can someone give an opinion on that. Thanks. Joaopais 01:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
PREC stands for Periodo Revolucionario em Curso. The revolution effectively ended with the publication of the Document of the Nine in November 1975 and the election of the First Constitutional Government in April 1976. The period from 1976 to 1986 was the period of democratic consolidation, and cannot properly be included in PREC.
What do you say? Sorry for taking so much to reply. Afonso Silva 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that this is wrong. A great deal happened in the seven years of the Military Dictatorship that was to determine the course of Portuguese politics throughout the Estado Novo. Firstly, Salazar's rise to power was solely due to the political infighting within the military dictatorship, and it was during this time that his relationship with President Carmona was established. There were also several attempts to restore democracy, and there was the rise of an important fascist organisation and several coups. To say that there are 'few things to say' is just nonsense.
Finaly, I'd like to say that this is only my opinion and I encourage you and everyone to reach a better format. I'll not be mad if this turns out different from what I'm proposing. We really need some WikiProject to clean this mess. Thanks Joao pais 02:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll reply only to your doubts, the remaining issues seem to be ok.
4. Barbarian invansion and settlement in the west of Iberian Peninsula should be the subject, not the name, the name should be sorter, like "Barbarian invasion of Lusitania", somthing like that. 6. All right, perhaps your choice is better, 1112-1279 is good as it describe the whole formation process. 7. Although the 2nd period is shorter, 34 years, the 83-85 crisis has lots to be included, we have good articles on that period, like Aljubarrota Battle or the article on the crisis itself, we could then describe the process that made us the pioneers in exploration. The following article would start on 1415. 8. It should be named 1415-1498, it keeps consistency, the same for the following articles. 15. The two dictatorial regimes should be merged as the second evolved from the first, separating them would not be a good choice.
About the template, the 3rd one seems better. What do you say? Cheers! Mário 23:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The Arabic word for a sweet orange is portukal. Not connected to origin name of the country ? Amoruso 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
"A 1373 treaty of alliance between England and Portugal remains in effect to this day with the United Kingdom". What does that mean? Which treaty?
That mean if Portugal need help to (ex: defeat the US), England help Portugal without question!
See this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Alliance and you see that Portugal is the "father" of England.
The article does not contain correct citations. The text of the article often contains citations of the (Author, year) format. But the end of the article does not contain a References section noting the full reference information for the citations. How is a reader supposed to know exactly where a piece of information was sourced? Patiwat 20:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
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 the proposal. J i m p 09:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone might wanna add a fair use tag to that picture so it isn't deleted. Yonatan ( contribs/ talk) 14:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
An unregistered user, 213.22.20.21, made a mass of edits, in five sessions within one half hour, just two hours ago. These edits are characterized by broken English, reckless typing (e.g. 'atrated' for 'started', copious failure to capitalize initial letters of words, and other errors. I have taken the action of reverting this contributor's work because they simply do not know English well enough to be contributing to English language Wikipedia. Overall, the *content* of the edits is unobjectionable to the extent it is sincere and not inflammatory. Most of the edits are relevant. Some of them are even factual and enhance the level of detail. Then again, there *was* the following passage, which is either careless or stupid:
"The region of present-day Portugal was inhabited by Neanderthals and then by Homo sapiens.
Early in the first millennium BC, several waves of Celts invaded Portugal from central Europe. From the contact between these two fierce and strong minded cultures . . . ."
First, it is too subjective for a factual article to use the descriptions "fierce and strong minded" of cultures or ethnic groups. Second, and of course of top importance, is the amusing implication that "Celts" and "Homo sapiens" represent "cultures in contact". This example and the incompetent English show this user -- an unregistered user -- to be a very irresponsible contributor, however well meaning. Hurmata 03:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The jumbo size image of Prince Henry the Navigator at the top of the article is delirious POV pushing and absolutely tasteless. The history of Portugal has hundreds of notable figures beyond Henrique. I beg you, please remove that ugly picture or at least move it to another section with a smaller size. Miguelzinho 13:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
There needs to be an article about this. Other neutral nations, such as Ireland [1], Spain [2], Switzerland [3], and Sweden [4], have articles about their roles during WWII. In the Estado Novo article World War II is mentioned only once. Basically every single European nation has an article dedicated to its role during WWII. Meanwhile Portugal doesn't even have a paragraph about it's role. -- Tocino 00:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm interested in witch trials, and think it would be interesting to have cases from all countries in the subject. I know Portugal was a country with very few witch trials, but I have heard about some; in 1599, five people where burned as witches in Lissabon, another one a little later, and one by the Inqusition at Evora in 1626. If anyone know anything and would like to share the information by starting a stub, or at least give a tip on names to google, I would be grateful. I think it would be very interesting to read about! Best wishes-- Aciram ( talk) 11:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This may be something that is more for personal research rather than something to be put on Wikipedia. It is a very interesting topic and I really haven't heard much about it. I do know, however, that if it is put on Wikipedia's main page on the History of Portugal, it may skew readers to believe that it had a huge impact on the people of Portugal, which I don't think it did? Correct me if I am wrong, but i didn't play a large role, did it? Spartemis ( talk) 04:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis
I agree with Spartemis that this may not belong on the History of Portugal's main page. I do, however think that it is a really interesting topic, and might be more appropriately placed on the "Witch trials in the Early Modern period" page, or somewhere similar. I also looked quickly at the "Portuguese Inquisition" page, and I only saw one brief mention of witchcraft. If you do decide to research this, I think that would be a great place to expand on the topic. Snackerdoodle ( talk) 22:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just realized you weren't actually suggesting to add it to this page. I do still think this is something that would better suited to adding onto one of the preexisting witchcraft-related articles; maybe there could be subheadings by country on one of those articles. Snackerdoodle ( talk) 23:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The first Global Empire was Portugal.
In 1500-1501 - the first one in 4 Continents and with the first Establishments in the Moluccas, Ceram and Banda Islands in 1512-1513 the first in 5 Continents - in fact already in the Australian continental plate - and proclaiming nominal domain on west Papua (New Guinea) in 1526. Let us respect the truth and history.
The art Of course Spain and Portugal joined in 1580 to 1640 had formed wider a double global empire.
The article is good and interesting but it can be (as many others) more courageous in the clarity in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.173.196 ( talk) 21:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
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 [[User talk:The Red Hat
I think that a new map of the Portuguese Empire would help the readers better understand the variation in empires. Portugal is unique in the fact that it was a trading empire. It's goals were to create revenue rather than "save souls," which was the case for the Spanish empire. A map that shows concentrations of Portuguese populations in its empire, as well as the trading networks in the ocean, would be helpful rather than solely a specific map with barriers that would cut off the sphere of influence that Portugal had over other territories. This may bring in the deeper question of what one can qualify as an empire. Spartemis ( talk) 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis
A lot of the history, such as the Carthaginian invasion, doesn't apply to Portugal but only to the eastern section of the Iberian peninsula, modern day Spain. In ancient times, the Iberia spoken of was only a small portion on the eastern side and not the entire peninsula as it's referenced today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datarune ( talk • contribs) 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
A couple of points:
This article does a good job integrating the aspects of trade for Portugal, but would it be smart to add somewhere in the section that there are different types of empires in the world and Portugal wanted to establish itself as a trading empire? It's goals were to trade and to be successful by creating allies through various networks. It's true that they integrated themselves in different cultures but very often their goal was to return to Portugal richer than they started. Trade was a main reason for exploratory missions. Spartemis ( talk) 04:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis
This is a pretty interesting point, and I agree with your suggestion. I think the parts of this relevant to Portugal could be added in with a few sentences. I don't think there needs to be too much about the varied types of empire on this page, as that would be a discussion more suited to the "Empire" article. Snackerdoodle ( talk) 23:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The article certainly covers the discoveries and explorations of Portuguese navigators along with the individuals themselves. However, it was also a time of remarkable advancement in the instruments of navigation and the sciences behind those developments. tools like the ancient kamal, compass, quadrant were already in use, but the astrolabe, nocturnal, and the ephemerides were just beginning to emerge. Not to mention the developments in ship technology itself. There is very little mention of what kinds of tools allowed Columbus to complete a trans-oceanic voyage.-- Casini1 ( talk) 18:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Spanish reconquista.gif, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC) |
This intro is very unfavorable, it needs to be revised. It is so detrimental that it is unreliable. Remember Portugal retained large portions of the empire in a period where other countries lost it. And for instance, much of the 20th century Portugal was in better shape than Spain and in the 19th century Portugal was in better shape than several countries in Europe. Furthermore, the history of the country is not just the empire, battles or kings. More focus on culture of those civilizations and shaping Portugal.
Dear Maurice Carbonaro, I do not even know yet the history of Greek terminology for Orange, but I assume that they used the term of Persian origin Arantia / Orange / Oranje (this one of Sanskrit origin) like most or much of the Ancient World who knew the fruit (and most(?) of Indo-European languages who knew the fruit)
In fact Portugal came from the local place and region of Portucale, Portus Galle, Cale (also called Gale). Connection with the Gallaeci etc. (the name itself (not the state) with already more than 2000 years)
And Portugal do have a relation with the Orange:
Even before the official scientific discovery of the scurvy, the Portuguese in their global expansion (especially in the Indian Ocean in this case) in the 16th century, showed a great need for vitamin and refreshments as oranges for the hungry and for this disease, that led to the Arab world (who used "Orange" before) and even much of the Iranians (who were a source of the original word) the adoption of the name of Portugal ( Arabic "Portukali /Portugali/Burtugall" and the Persian "Porteghal") for this fruit.
On the other side was Portugal that eventually spread further into the western world and not only the name of Persian and Sanskrit (before) origin and the West: Laranja/Naranja (Oranje).
Has been a popular replacement of this terminology in the Greek world after the sixteenth century by Ottoman influence, Arabic influence etc.? Maybe?
Thanks for your contribution. Any way it's good the debate and to have new ideas and sources for the etymologies. -- LuzoGraal ( talk) 20:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Hallo there
LuzoGraal (
talk),
Catch you later.
Maurice Carbonaro (
talk)
08:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I changed this statement to Between 1498 and 1501, Pêro de Barcelos and João Fernandes Lavrador explored North America. from Between 1491 and 1494. I don't know where the earlier dates came from, but they certainly did sail earlier than Colombus. Pacomartin ( talk) 03:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Please, don't change my additions, if you didn't know about Countess Theresa you can look that information in her Wikipedia page. Arthur45454 ( talk) 13:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)