Help needed with the Liberation of Goa[edit]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

John?[edit]

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)

This is the English language Wikipedia, remember? The Ogre 16:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 84 on this one. If someone was named Juan, would you make it John. Furthermore, if one were to move to another country, would their name change? A name is the same in any language, not just its native tongue. snowball71 14:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This issue seems to need someone who has steeped themselves in European history, as I'll explain. I'm ambivalent about it myself. Personally, I would like to abolish the translation of given names: nobody would translate last names (Mr. Wells and Mr. Peters are not renamed Sr. Pozos and Sr. Perez in a Spanish language report, so why should given names be translated?). On the other hand, in European historical traditions such translations have been entrenched for centuries (especially for royalty). What's more, there seems to be a great inconsistency at least in English as to whether it gets done or not. Kings Alfonso are never called "Alphonse", but kings Heinrich, Enrique, or Henri are usually called "Henry". This is why I see a need for advice from professionals or very advanced amateurs. Hurmata 03:54, 6 April 2007 my fiend

Something Missing[edit]

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?

I'm currently working on that. I've already written History of Portugal (1578-1777) and I'm finishing History of Portugal (1777-1834). Then I'll start History of Portugal (1834-1910). After that I'll summarize the info and put it in the History of Portugal article. Feel free to join me. If you're kind please make a revision of what I've written so far in the first too so that we can eliminate POV's. Thanks. Gameiro 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

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.

POV[edit]

The first lines are an obvious POV!

I Agree. I have always agreed. It's time to change it. I'm on it. I think. The Ogre 14:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it already. Now it just states Portugal's ancient origin in the Early Middle Ages and mentions its importance and Empire in the Ages of Discovery. The Ogre 14:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WWI[edit]

I didn't know that Portugal participated WWI. What was the outcome for Portugal? ---

Mormuz[edit]

Is Mormuz Ormuz?

Integrating a new series[edit]

The reforms of Pombal[edit]

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)[reply]

Lacunae are easily fixed. Just condense the article on Sebastião de Melo, Marquis of Pombal, maybe even improving the original, to a suitable paragraph in the context of the whole history of Portugal, give it a subsection heading like the one above, and follow the heading with
Main article: Sebastião de Melo, Marquis of Pombal. Presto!--Wetman 01:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can do it! I've never actually messed with content in an article before, feel free to change it if I screw up. ----Rhesusman 06:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd open up the Pombal entry, keep eliminating extraneous detail, keeping the broad history of Portugal in mind and finally enter the edited distillation into History of Portugal. (BtW, mind you don't inadvertently Save the reduced version at Pombal!) --Wetman 04:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I made the addition, but I'm not sure if I kept too much of the original article's information. The section is rather longish, but I think that Pombal was pretty important. Do I need to do anything else to show that I'm not plagiarizing? I included a reference to the main article. Feel free to fix anything you think needs it. --Rhesusman 07:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Democratic Portugal[edit]

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)[reply]

Template[edit]

What do you think of the template?--Gameiro 02:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement drive[edit]

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)[reply]

Map of Portuguese Empire[edit]

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)[reply]

Estado Novo[edit]

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)[reply]

I didnt delete it because there's useful info that can be used when cleaned. --Pedro 01:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I made a start, condensing it and removing sarcasm and extravagance. --Wetman 01:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, this part of the article still looks like communist propaganda --lies, cliches, partial stories. --BBird 19:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Peer review[edit]

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)[reply]

Just to state that it is now a featured article candidate. You can support or oppose here. Thanks. Gameiro 01:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1920's history[edit]

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)[reply]

Subdivions of the History of Portugal[edit]

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:

  1. Prehistory of Portugal
  2. Pre-Roman Portugal
  3. Roman Portugal (History of Portugal (139 BC-410 AD); 139, death of Viriathus; 410 barbarian invasion in Iberia)
  4. History of Portugal (410-711) (Barbarian Portugal; 711 Muslim invasion)
  5. History of Portugal (711-1112 (Muslim Portugal and early Reconquista period; 1112 formation of the Second County of Portugal)
  6. History of Portugal (1112-1279) (Establishment of the Monarchy; 1279 end of Portuguese reconquista and beginning of Dinis reign)
  7. History of Portugal (1279-1415) (Consolidation of the Monarchy; 1415 conquest of Ceuta, beggining of Portuguese expansion)
  8. History of Portugal (1415-1498) (part of Portugal in the Age of Discovery; 1498 discovery of the maritime route to India)
  9. History of Portugal (1498-1580) (part of Portuguese Empire and Struggle for the throne of Portugal; 1580 Philip II of Spain becomes Philip I of Portugal)
  10. History of Portugal (1580-1640) (Iberian Union; 1640 restoration of independence)
  11. History of Portugal (1640-1777) (Age of enlightenment; 1777 end of Marquis of Pombal's rule)
  12. History of Portugal (1777-1834) (Absolutism vs. liberalism; 1834 end of the civil war)
  13. History of Portugal (1834-1910) (Constitutional monarchy; 1910 establishment of the Republic)
  14. History of Portugal (1910-1926) (Portuguese First Republic; 1926 28 May 1926 coup d'état)
  15. History of Portugal (1926-1974) (Ditadura Nacional and Estado Novo; 1974 Carnation Revolution)

It was called the Ditadura Militar and not the Ditadura Nacional

  1. History of Portugal (1974-1986) (Early democratic period; 1986 Portugal's accession to the EC)
  2. History of Portugal (1986-2000) (Cavaco-Guterres golden period; 2000 world recession and problems for the Guterres government)
  3. History of Portugal (2000-2010) (start of a decade-like articles)

Can someone give an opinion on that. Thanks. Joaopais 01:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The first topic sounds better as "Prehistoric Portugal", but I don't know if that is the most correct form.
  2. The Roman period should be considered as Lusitania or something like that, Portugal didn't existed yet.
  3. The 3rd should be something like barbarian invasion and settlement in the west of Iberian peninsula.
  4. Since the Reconquista is not a Portuguese-only topic, it should be merged with the formation of Portugal, I agree, but the article should go until the independence.
  5. The expansion of the country under the rule of the first 5 kings is a nice subdivision, as I said, it should begin with the independence, the Treaty of Zamora, perhaps, would be a good starting point.
  6. The following subdivision should be splited, from D. Dinis until the 1383-85 crisis and a second article from the crisis until the beggining of the exploration era, with a good explanation of the reasons that made Portugal the pioneer.
  7. 1415-1498 seems good.
  8. 1498-1580 seems good.
  9. 1580-1640 is an obvious choice.
  10. 1640-1777 seems good, this last two periods are a good subdivision of the current article.
  11. The reasons that led to the war and the war itself is a good choice.
  12. 1834-1910 is fine, since nothing happened until the late 1890s.
  13. The first republic is good.
  14. The years of the dictature are a good choice, if a future article on the topic becomes too large, we can split it.
  15. 1974-1986 is a good choice, further info on the PREC can be included in a proper article.

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.

  1. 1986-2000 is ok, from 2000 until now nothing of important happened, as usual, but we can wait.

What do you say? Sorry for taking so much to reply. Afonso Silva 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Do not apologize, I'm the one who always answers days later. Ok, here's what I have to say (the numbering corresponds to mine):
  1. If we have a History of Portugal we should have a Pre-History of Portugal. But I'm fine with Prehistoric Portugal. This topic should be about things in Portugal before writing was invented.
  2. This one should be about everything that happened in Iberian, Celtic and Celtiberian (and eventually Lusitanian) Portugal, with the contacts with the Greeks, Phoenicians (and Carthaginians), and Northern Celtic peoples. This period is documented by mediterranean peoples and therefore, is not considered Prehistory.
  3. Ok, I agree that for now Lusitania and Gallaecia are good. But what I meant was having an article for every period in the history of Portugal only focusing in the important events and transformations in today's Portuguese territory. As today's territory corresponds to the majority of Roman Lusitania, a minor part of Roman Gallaecia and the, at that time uninhabited but perhaps visited, Azores and Madeira, we should have a major article covering the importance of the Roman presence in our country.
  4. When you say that this 3rd period should be "Barbarian invansion and settlement in the west of Iberian Peninsula" you mean its article name or the subject of the article? I believe it's better to have articles in the format History of Portugal (year-year) since it avoids problems in naming such as the Timeline of Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula or the article covering the 1578-1580 succession crisis in Portugal that is named Struggle for the throne of Portugal and can be about the Afonso Henriques vs. his mother crisis, the Sancho II vs. Afonso II crisis, the 1383-1385 crisis, the 1640 Restoration, the Afonso VI vs. Peter II crisis, the civil war, etc.
  5. In the Muslim period, I opted for a mixed-article where we can have both sides of the conflict amid the Reconquista. The time period goes from the 711 muslim invasion until the 1112 formation of the County of Portugal under Count Henry of Burgundy. It covers the initial Muslim conquer; the almost immediate christian reaction; the formation of the Asturian, then Leonese, and then Castilian-Leonese kingdoms that initiated the Reconquista in today's Portuguese territory conquering Porto early on with the help of Vímara Peres; the First County of Portugal; the Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal; the County of Coimbra; both counties under Raymond of Burgundy (count of Galicia); and the other side, with the Emirate, then Caliphate, and ultimately the taifa kingdoms in the south, in addition to the muslim agricultural, navigational, trading, mathematical and cultural improvements.
  6. You said you prefered the History of Portugal (1112-1279) to start from the Treaty of Zamora in 1143. I think this article should be about the formation of Portugal as an independent entity. Since this project started earlier with Count Henry I think we should stick to the period from 1112 (formation of the County) until the end of the Portuguese reconquista. It would be odd to separate the Battle of Ourique, the treaty of Zamora, the papal bull, the conquest of Lisbon, etc, from the Battle of São Mamede, Count Henry's incursions in León, Teresa vs. Urraca wars, etc. These are all part of the formation.
  7. You propose that this article should be splited between "Dinis to the 1383-1385 crisis" and "from there to 1415 with an explanation of Portugals pioneering explorations". I could agree with the Dinis to 1383-1385 crisis, but the second period would be too short for an article (1383/1385-1415 = 32/34 years). I personally think that the 1415 marks a great starting point in Portuguese exploration but I wouldn't be mad with it starting with in 1385.
  8. What do you think this period should be called: History of Portugal (1415-1498) or Portuguese discoveries (I prefer the first since the discoveries continued and perhaps preceded)
  9. Same thing as above: History of Portugal (1498-1580) or Portuguese Empire (I'm for the first again since the Portuguese Empire ended in 1976 (African colonies), 1999 (Macau) or 2002 (East Timor)
  10. Same thing: History of Portugal (1580-1640) or Iberian Union (the last one can be about both countries, and it was a concept both before - 1383-85 crisis, Manuel I's attempts to seize the Spanish throne, the death of Portuguese princes that were heirs of Spain; and after, the Iberism of the 19th century, etc.
  11. no objections
  12. no objections
  13. no objections (just to state that many important things did happen during the early years of liberalism: severel small civil wars, Patuleia, Maria da Fonte, Revolta dos Marechais, Saldanhada, Cabralismo, Setembrismo, Cartismo. It is the period of the Dukes, Marquis, Counts, Viscounts and Barons as leaders known for its political instability)
  14. no objections
  15. I didn't know what to do with the military dictatorship as it is only a period of 7 (!) years. It should have an article on it, and for it to be long it has to be extremely detailed since there are few things to say. For now, perhaps, in the template we should have and entry on Dictatorship covering both periods Ditadura Nacional and Estado Novo. Military Dictatorship should have a highlighted "see also" (like the PREC in 1974-1986) in the first part of History of Portugal (1926-1974), that must obviously be named Estado Novo. What do you think?

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.

  1. no objections
  2. no objections
  3. no objections

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 Joaopais 02:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can see my proposed templates here. Be bold changing them. Joaopais 03:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Portugal - origin of name[edit]

The Arabic word for a sweet orange is portukal. Not connected to origin name of the country ? Amoruso 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No! As I once said to someone in this (?) discussion page: Arabic origin of the name Portugal - User 82.155.192.235 wrote: "Another theory is that it comes from "Portucale", which is arabic for Orange, a fruit of which Portugal is famous for." I've removed it and told him: Please do not write stuff you are not sure and just heard somewhere. In Arabic orange is called Portugal (or something similar) because it was the Portuguese who introduced that fruit to the Arabic speaking world, namely due to the large production of the Algarve. The Ogre 18:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some reliabe source which deals with this question explains that the Arab word evolved from the Portugese and not the other way around? Not that I object to what you say, but I'm interested. Amoruso 20:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my friend, the name is attestadly non Arabic, it cames from Portus (a Latin word) and Cale (of dubious origin) and ir pre-dates the Morrish invasion of Visigothic Hispania (check the part about the name in the article). As for the name of oranges in Arabic, the first hit on Google (search Orange Etymology Arabic) was this site: Spice Pages: Orange (Citrus sinensis/aurantium) - which is also referenced in the article Orange (word) (were it is said, by the way, that " Modern Greek, and many languages of the Middle East -- from Ethiopia to Azerbaijan to Romania -- use words derived from the country name "Portugal", at one time the major source of imported oranges in the Middle East. "; in the article Orange (fruit) it is said "Some languages have different words for the bitter and the sweet orange, such as Modern Greek nerantzi and portokali ("Portuguese"), respectively."). In it (the site) it is stated:
Origin
As with most other citrus fruits, the descendance of oranges is not known exactly. Despite the earlier belief that assumed a Chinese origin, it is now generally believed that oranges originate from Northern or North Eastern India. The first oranges were brought to Europe by the Moors, probably already in the 9.th century. They were first grown in the Arabic realms in Sicily and Spain. These oranges, however, were not the sweet oranges chiefly known today, but the bitter oranges, also called sour oranges or Seville oranges, after the city of Sevilla which was the center of Arabic culture on the Iberic peninsular. Sweet oranges have been introduced half a millennium later, probably by Portuguese traders.
"Etymology
Most names of orange in European tongues ultimately derive from Sanskrit nagaruka [नागरुक] or naranga [नारंग] which was transmitted via Arabic (obsolete naranjah [نرنجة]) and Persian (Modern Farsi narenj [نارنج]). The word is, however, not native to Sanskrit, but has been borrowed from some other, unrelated tongue; it has been speculated that the ancient source language belonged to the Austro-Asiatic language family, but another explanation tries to establish a link to a Dravidian root “fragrant”. Compare Tamil narandam [நரந்தம்] “bitter orange”, nagarukam [நாகருகம்] “sweet orange” and nari [நாரி] “fragrance”. Most names for “orange” in modern languages of North India still are very similar to the Sanskrit term, e.g., Hindi and Urdu narangi [नारंगी, نارنگی]. European languages have modified the Sanskrit name in various degrees: While Spanish naranja “orange” and Greek neratzi [νεράτζι] “bitter orange” preserve the original sounds quite faithfully, the word was much modified by subsequent loans to other European tongues. It first lost its initial n (Italian arancia) and then changed the new initial vowel under the influence of French or “gold”, ending up with, for example, with English orange. Other members of that series are Portuguese laranja, Maltese larinġ, Yiddish marants [מאַראַנץ] and, from the Far East, Japanese and Korean orenji [オレンジ, 오렌지]. Cf. also Turkmen narynç and Armenian narinch [նարինջ], possibly directly borrowed from Persian. The association with “gold” is also found in Greek chrisomilia [χρυσομηλιά], which literally means “golden apple”, corresponding to Old Greek chrysos [χρυσός] “gold” and melon [μῆλον] “apple”. Virtually the same expression in Latin, pomum aurantium “golden apple”, lies behind many European names of bitter orange, e.g, German Pomeranze, Finnish pomeranssi and Russian pomeranets [померанец]. In some Slavonic languages, that name actually means the common orange, especially when used together with an adjective “sweet”, e.g. Slovenian sladka pomaranča. Also the old botanical species name aurantium relates to aurum, “gold”, whereas the modern species name sinensis is a latinization of China (older form: Sina). Quite a large number of names in tongues of Northern Europe mean “Chinese apple”, e.g., Latvian apelsīns, Icelandic appelsína or Belarusian apelsin [апельсін], The German name Apfelsine is used in Northern Germany only. Note also the Dutch variant sinaasappel “China-apple”. Some South East European tongues name orange after Portugal, which was formerly the main source of imports of sweet oranges. Examples are Bulgarian portokal [портокал], Greek portokali [πορτοκάλι], Romanian portocală and Georgian phortokhali [ფორთოხალი]. Also in South Italian dialects (Neapolitan), orange is named portogallo or purtualle, literally “the Portuguese ones”. Related names can also be found in non-European languages: Arabic burtuqal [برتقال], Farsi porteghal [پرتقال] and Amharic birtukan."
The Wiktionary presents the following languages that use some form of Portugal-word to describe Oranges (I don't know if the bitter or sweet variety):
Arabic: برتقالة (burtuqá:la)
Kurdish: pirteqal
Greek: πορτοκάλι (portokáli)
Romanian: portocală
Turkish: portakal
I hope I helped you! Cheers! The Ogre 01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot :) Interestingly btw, Hebrew didn't use this word (made sense because of the history), but invented its own and calls it : "golden apple" ! Amoruso 01:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The treaty with the U.K.[edit]

"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.

Incorrect citations[edit]

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)[reply]

Proposal to merge Prehistoric Spain with Prehistoric Portugal & move to Prehistoric Iberia[edit]

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. Jimp 09:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image:Adesport.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

Reverted edits 7 April 2007[edit]

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)[reply]

Infante Dom Henrique's image[edit]

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)[reply]

Was Portugal and its empire a part of the "Spanish Empire" between 1580-1640?[edit]

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)[reply]

Portugal during World War II[edit]

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)[reply]

Portugese witch trials[edit]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Request for Comment[edit]

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[reply]

Incorrect History[edit]

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)[reply]

Once again, you are wrong. There are plenty of documented and sourced incursions of Carthaginian forces into what is today Portuguese territory, and the populations of that territory were involved in Carthaginian expansion and military operations. The Ogre (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myths[edit]

A couple of points:

Trading Empire[edit]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Navigation?[edit]

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)[reply]

File:Spanish reconquista.gif Nominated for Deletion[edit]

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
What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intro & the article[edit]

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.

Discussion on the greek etimology of "Portugal"[edit]

Portugal and Orange (Laranja/Naranja)[edit]

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)[reply]

Answer to alleged Sanskrit origins of the name[edit]

Hallo there LuzoGraal (talk),

My name is 'incomplete third word is the name' (written) in Sanskrit
thanks for getting involved in the debat about the greek etimology of the word "Portugal".
It's interesting to know that the name could date back to Sanskrit origins... and not just from the greek name for "orange (fruit)" Πορτοκαλιά (portokalia).
On the sanskrit wikipedia dictionary (sa:wikipedia or sa:संस्कृतम्) I have found नारङ्गफलम् (Latin alphabet transliteration: naara.ngaphalam.h).
Maybe you (or some expert on the subject) could elaborate further on the matter.

Catch you later.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese exploration of north america[edit]

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)[reply]

History of Portugal[edit]

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)[reply]

Portuguese[edit]

Hgfv 92.12.48.33 (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories