Talk:Portugal

Mirandese?

Should Mirandese remain on the infobox?

^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 20:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I like it! I don't think any Portuguese would oppose. Petnog (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Mirandese should remain in the infobox, or at least be included via a footnote as suggested by Tuesp1985. While it is true that Portuguese is the sole national official language under Article 11 of the Constitution, Law no. 7/99 grants Mirandese an official status of "recognition" and "protection" that is distinct from a mere minority dialect.

The "Spain model" is a strong compromise here. In the Spain article infobox, regional languages like Basque, Catalan, and Galician are included because they hold co-official status in their respective territories, even if they aren't the primary language of the entire State. Since Mirandese is legally recognized by the Assembly of the Republic for the Miranda do Douro region, its inclusion provides a more accurate representation of the Republic’s linguistic heritage and legal framework. Furthermore, as MdMV noted, maintaining the status quo respects previous consensus on this page. ~2026-96555-3 (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

If it's a regional language, it shouldn't be there. Turkish is regionally official in Kosovo, Macedonia and Iraq. It isn't used on the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox country explicitly says that native_name should have the "Country's name (usually full name) in its official/defacto language(s), hence in italics (double quotemarks)" therefore I'll place a comment in the infobox saying that the country's native name at native_name is in Portuguese. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Mirandese is not official language of Portugal. It is dead language co-officially used in small town municipality. The official language of the Portuguese Republic is Portuguese (paragraph 3 of article 11 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic). Also officially recognized and protected are: Mirandese, in the municipality of Miranda do Douro (Law no. 7/99, of January 29, 1999), Portuguese Sign Language (Article 74, paragraph 2, subparagraph h), of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic – 1997 revision) and Barranquenho, in the municipality of Barrancos (Law no. 97/2021, of December 30, 2021). Mirandese is not used outside of two municipalities. Same as recognized langauges in UK. Not used in infobox. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe adding a note to Portuguese official name, like in the Spain page?Tuesp1985 (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

But, why should only official languages be on the table? That’s not what many countries’ pages do. Mirandese is the historical language of the Tierra de Miranda, and currently spoken in 2 municipalities of Portugal, it is not dead. If a language needs to be strictly official in the country to be shown in its infobox, we’ve got a lot of clean up to do. MdMV or Emdy idk (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

After a bit of digging, it seems that it’s not as common as I remembered, rather each page has its own standards for which languages to include and which to not, and it makes sense, given language laws aren’t the same everywhere

I think keeping mirandese is harmless, and this discussion was already had before and we settled on mirandese MdMV or Emdy idk (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I also think it should stay. But I reiterate that I'm open for a Spain page solution. Tuesp1985 (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually the sole official language should be on the infobox, or other ones. Spanish regional languages are official in their respective territories. Claiming those are "co-official languages" is also misleading. They're co-official in specific regions. Beshogur (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

No, it is not harmless. Some countries have about 20 recognized languages. So only official is used in infobox. ThecentreCZ (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that Mirandese is a "dead language." It has native speakers and is legally recognized in Portugal. I support the suggestion to keep it or use a footnote like the Spain article. ~2026-96555-3 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Same as Mexico on the tnfobox on top. Absolutiva 22:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Skeleton

I have removed what is below - this WP:Summary article is not the place to discuss one prehistoric skeleton and most other stuff was unsourced. Wikipedia:Verifiability.

in addition a well-known prehistoric skeleton was discovered in 1998 in the Lapedo Valley near Leiria, known as The Lapedo Child. Dating to around 24,000 years ago, during the Upper Paleolithic, these remains were found buried with a mix of anatomical traits that suggest a combination of early modern human and possibly Neanderthal features. This unusual blend has made the discovery important in discussions about human evolution in Europe, particularly regarding possible interbreeding between Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals.

During the 12th century, as Christian forces advanced southward in the process known as the Reconquista, and the gradual expulsion of Muslim rule, the emerging Portuguese territory consolidated its independence.

To the Knights Templar, were granted property such as land and castles by the Portuguese crown in exchange for military service and supporting campaigns. One of their most important strongholds was established at Tomar, which became a central base of operations. Because of their territorial holdings, military role, and relative autonomy, their presence in Portugal has sometimes been described as forming a powerful and highly influential military order within the early Portuguese kingdom, that helped solidify the identity of the country.

Moxy🍁 06:55, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

The paragraph concerning the Lapedo Child does not require duplication of sources within this article, as it directly links to the dedicated entry on Lagar Velho 1. That page already contains the necessary citations and scholarly discussion. Per Wikipedia’s summary style, it is appropriate to briefly mention notable findings and rely on the main article for detailed sourcing. The inclusion here is not to introduce new claims, but to concisely illustrate that Neanderthals and early modern humans coexisted—and possibly interacted—in what is now Portugal. This is a relevant contextual point rather than undue detail.

Regarding the Knights Templar, their inclusion is historically justified. Their role in the formation of Portugal was substantial: through land grants, military support during the Reconquista, and the establishment of key strongholds such as Tomar, they contributed directly to territorial consolidation and defense. Excluding them risks omitting a significant element of early Portuguese state formation. In contrast, other groups already mentioned (e.g., Carthaginians or Vikings) are included despite having a comparatively insignificant or limited long-term institutional or cultural legacy within Portugal. For balance and completeness, the Templars merit at least a concise mention. The whole country history and iconography to this day is granted through the Order of Christ.

On the issue of text quality, the previous version contains clear orthographic and grammatical errors (e.g., “leaded by Viriathus” (leaded is not a word). Beyond being a simple typo, such errors affect the credibility and readability of the article. Reverting to a version that retains avoidable mistakes, while removing corrected and improved content, does not align with Wikipedia’s standards for clarity and accuracy.

You failed to read or find any errors, when I asked to, before making any revert. This alone should disqualify you from reverting any further... as this shows lack of reasoning or understanding as to why you are reverting back in the first place. (Please, read before reverting)

Overall, the revised version aims to improve the article by

1. Maintaining concise but meaningful historical context.

2. Ensuring better balance in the selection of relevant historical actors.

3. Correcting evident language issues.

Reverting these changes without addressing these points risks preserving a less accurate and less coherent version of the article.

It is frustrating to waste time elaborating and to make iterations, only to be reverted to an inferior edit that is historically "chopped" and contains orthographic and grammatical errors.

I have reverted back to the latest edit, as it was carefully edited to include meaning to pre-history and the formations of its borders.

wiki is a place for information... not for censorship.

KensaiTemplar (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Best start with Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1 have requested the page get locked up before you get blocked for WP:4RR and WP:BURDEN. (someone else will revert the unsorced detailed additions). (was to late already blocked) If you'r copy pasting from some other article pls see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. To be blunt a main country article is not the best place to jump into as a new editor. Good read at Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia. Will let others explain more why we would not go into details about a prehistoric skeleton here or how unsourced paragraphs fails our purpose here. Moxy🍁 07:49, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

That rather one-sided passage in the article makes it seem as though Wikipedia had some sort of fetish with the Knights Templar. For a historiographical overview of military orders in Portuguese middle ages: . Needless to say orders of Santiago and Avis seem to be as important if not more vis-à-vis the consolidation of Portugal than the templars (), hence there is some bonafide misrepresentation playing in there. The version of @KensaiTemplar: does not ensure better balance in the selection of relevant historical actors, but cherrypicks the historical actor in their username at the expense of other military orders, using weasel wording ("because of their territorial holdings, military role, and relative autonomy, their presence in Portugal has sometimes been described as forming a powerful and highly influential military order within the early Portuguese kingdom, that helped solidify the identity of the country.") not unlike the slop a LLM might spew out--Asqueladd (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

The Orders of Santiago and Aviz have nothing to do with the pre-formation period or the initial establishment of Portugal, as these orders were institutionalized after the Kingdom of Portugal had already been founded. For this reason, I referenced the Knights Templar, who were active during an earlier and critical stage of the Reconquista.

Their accomplishments, particularly during the Conquest of Santarém (1147) and the Siege of Lisbon, not only helped solidify the borders of what is now modern-day Portugal, but also contributed to the emerging identity of the kingdom. Portugal was the only country in Europe that did not persecute Templars, after king Philip IV of France issued and order to Pope Clement V... in fact, king Denis I of Portugal, protected them, gave them land and reformed the the Templar Order into the Order of Christ. This influence can later be seen symbolically in aspects of Portuguese maritime history, including the sails of carracks and galleons during the Age of Discoveries. yet, in this article, there is not a single reference to the Templars...

I encourage "História Essencial de Portugal" and "A Alma e a Gente" by the historian Professor José Hermano Saraiva, which provides accessible material and should act as an authoritative source/reference for this article.

As a history teacher in an international school, I find it important that students engaging with the foundations of Portugal encounter accurate references to the military orders that played a significant role in its early development. It is therefore concerning when key historical actors are omitted from such narratives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jqitxDGIxM

https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/no-vale-dos-templarios/

https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/ordem-dos-templarios-em-portugal/

https://arquivos.rtp.pt/conteudos/a-sopa-dos-templarios/

https://sicnoticias.pt/programas/reportagemespecial/2024-12-14-video-o-segredo-dos-templarios--4231070c

Lastly, my username has nothing to with any fetishism, it was picked randomly and the purpose of my edit come solely to narrate facts, when not a single paragraph references the key people who established the identity of the kingdom of Portugal. You are using my username to justify "fetischism" and cancel my edit.

Question. Is there a reason the templars are being censored/removed from this article?

KensaiTemplar (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

You're really spinning quite a sloppy tale here. You start by arguing about the consolidation of a country's identity and its development (and about military orders within the early Portuguese kingdom {{sic), and then, to dismiss corrections, you argue that the other organisations participated just after the creation of the kingdom created in 1143 (have nothing to do with the pre-formation period or the initial establishment of Portugal), as if they weren't important to the kingdom's development, because what, the Templars are more important because they were there since 1128????. A pity for the stonewalling but very little cogent arguments worth discussing here.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

To sum up. It might be possible to discuss the role of military orders in Portugal’s medieval history in the main article, but not merely as a lazy namedropping (of your favourite one!); rather, by examining the impact of the military orders (ideally all of them, with their respective weight pursuant to the corpus of reliable sources) in matters of repopulation, economic, political and social issues. It is no easy task, let alone in the extremely condensed version required for the history section of a main country article.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Portugal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: GumballNine1Nine (talk · contribs) 18:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 19:25, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Initial comments

From a first canter-through looking for typos etc I see that we have a mish-mash of English and American spellings:

• English

• centres
• characterised
• civilisations
• defence (twice)
• favour (twice)
• legalise
• metres (four times)
• organisation/s (twice)
• organised (twice)
• practised
• recognised (twice)
• self-defence
• specialised

• American

• armored (twice)
• autocratization
• center (twice)
• centralized
• colorful
• gray
• harbor (three times)
• labeled
• recognized
• troubadorism

• and a handful of spellings that are neither English nor American but probably typos or just plain wrong:

• anual – annual?
• been conjecture that – conjectured?
• breweed – brewed?
• consitution – constitution?
• hydopower – hydropower?
• overthow – overthrow?
• produtivity – productivity?
• proeminent – preeminent?
• telecomunication – telecommunication?

You should, I think, settle on either English or American spelling and stick throughout to the one you choose. (I see the article talk page says that British English is to be used.) Meanwhile I'll give the article a thorough reading and report back. – Tim riley talk 19:25, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, Tim Riley. I'll correct those mistakes soon. looking forward to more of your thougths. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I meant to add, but forgot, that I have good feelings about this article at first glance. I don't think we are going to have much trouble getting it to GA, though we shall see. Tim riley talk 20:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Done: corrected typos and switched to British spelling GumballNine1Nine (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Detailed comments

I shall certainly be promoting this excellent article to GA, but before I do, you may like to consider some or all of these points, all of which are merely advisory and in no sense mandatory:

• "in Southwestern" – but "The western Iberian Peninsula" just below. Consistent capitalisation of compass points would be nice.
• "resulting from the Reconquista against the Muslims" – the Muslims appear out of a blue sky here: something on the lines of "against the Muslims, who had occupied XYZ for ABC years …" would put the sentence in context.
• "a humanoid tooth" – I am perfectly prepared to be told I'm wrong, but I think you want "hominid" rather than "humanoid" here.
• "the Battle of Covadonga which lead to the establishment" – you keep falling into the trap of mixing up "lead" and "led". The latter is the past tense of the former. (There is also the element Pb, which is pronounced "led" just to confuse us all, but that is not to the present point.)
• "With minor readjustments, Portugal's borders have since remained the same, making it one of the oldest established international borders in Europe" – I'm struggling to square this with the later statement about "60 years of the Iberian Union under the House of Habsburg". Wouldn't the Union mean there were no international borders between Portugal and Spain for that period?
• "claimed the throne in 1580, under the pretext that his mother" – "pretext" is a bit loaded: it strongly implies that you think the claim spurious. Something more neutral such as "on the grounds that…" might be safer.
• "Portuguese ibex, became extinct, however some mammalian species have been re-expanding" – if you must use "however" rather than the shorter and usually better "but" you need a stronger stop than a comma here.
• "by direct, universal suffrage" – you clarify the point a few lines down, but it might be as well to add "adult" before "suffrage" here.
• "Olivenza which is claimed by Portugal since the 19th century" – "is" looks a bit odd here: perhaps "has been"?
• "treatment inside of prisons" – do we need the "of"?
• "Portugal is an high-income country" – "high" is aspirated and so needs "a" rather than "an" before it.
• "replaced the escudo with the euro, in 2002" – is the comma wanted here?
• "lower contribution of manufacturing to Portugal's economy has lead to lower real GDP growth rates" – another "lead" that should be "led".
• "the biggest share of the country's exportations … the total value of its exportations" – the Oxford English Dictionary describes this use instead of "exports" as obsolete.
• "As of 2023, oil made up 44% of Portugal's total energy supply while the country produced 82% of its energy from renewable sources" – I am not good with figures and may well be missing a point here but I make 44% + 82% = 126%, which seems odd.
• "that has lead to the country having a median age of 47.3" – another "lead" that ought to be "led".
• "Despite not having any official religion, the Catholic Church has a long history in the country" – This doesn't quite say what you mean it to say. As it stands it says the Catholic Church has no official religion, but you mean that although Portugal has no official religion the church has a long history there.
• "Despite its economic development, the average Portuguese height is among the shortest in Europe since around 1890" – are people generally taller in economically developed countries? I didn't know that, but if so, fine.
• "notable examples as Port and Madeira" – capitalising or not capitalising the names of wines is tricky, and practice varies, but I see that our Wikipedia articles on these two wines capitalise the latter but not the former, and I think that's probably right.
• Language templates: You ought to consider adding language templates before non-English words or phrases, for the benefit of blind and visually impaired users who rely on screen readers. I think there's room for common sense here, and when the English pronunciation is not that different from the original I don't always trouble to add the template, but I think your Etymology section would benefit; I'm not sure "Manifestis Probatum" really needs one. In any case, the use of language templates is not among the Good Article criteria – so it's up to you.
• alt-text: your alt-text annotations are first rate and put the scrappier efforts of the rest of us to shame.

Over to you. Tim riley talk 08:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words Tim Riley. All the points you have raised are now done. I only have one point to add to what you said about the borders of Portugal and Spain: Although Portugal was ruled by a Spanish king during the Iberian Union, it remained a separate kingdom rather than becoming part of Spain; hence, an international border continued to exist between the two countries during that time. (Reference 97 explains this point in greater detail; the situation is similar to today's Scotland and England, which are considered separate countries within the UK) Cheers. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Fine. I'm not persuaded that the border between Scotland and England is what would normally be understood as "international", but I don't press the point. Tim riley talk 19:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, the 44% figure regarding Portugal's energy supply is the percentage of energy consumed in the country that comes from oil while the 82% is the percentage of the energy produced in the country that comes from renewable sources. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I see. I missed the distinction between consumption and production. Now clear, thank you. Tim riley talk 19:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Concluding review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I think it is brave of you to try to cover a huge subject like this in a single article. The more detailed subsidiary articles are certainly a good thing but you seem to me to have got the essence of the topic into less than 8,000 words, which strikes me as very good going indeed. Bravo (or whatever the equivalent is in Portuguese). Very glad to promote the article to GA. Tim riley talk 19:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer review

Portugal

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because...I'm almost finish working on it and I am kindly requesting all interested editors to provide valuable feedbacks to improve the article as per all guidelines and MOS. I am requesting this PR for it's upcoming candidacy of Featured article, so it's important that it meets all quality standards and your feedback will be invaluable for me.

Thanks, GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I have some thoughts: First, the history content has been too much trimmed and has less info than other contents, (compared with other country pages), mainly the content related to more recent history; Second, some images should be on the right, or remain on the left but more content should be added, as they distort the titles (the Vimara Peres image; the 1975 tanks image; and the Ronaldo image); On the Government and politics content, don't see the point of having info on the last election, saying the "Prime Minister is... since..." is enough, in my view; On the economy content, the night image of the Vasco da Gama bridge and tower was more fitting; On the Demographics content, the info on Portuguese nationals population should be removed as it's not accurate, proposing "Portugal has a population of 10,749,635, of whom around 15% (1,543,697) are foreign residents as of 2024"; Also, there are too many red no page links and they should be removed, in my opinion. Tuesp1985 (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I was to address those points in your talk section, but I forgot. On what you said about the trimming of the History section, it already is the largest section of the article which has near 8,000 words, the limit set by WP:SIZERULE, and as it was discussed in the talk page, the purpose of a country's article (or any other article for that matter) is to give a big picture about the country not to give every single detail about it (Philosophy is a great example of this). The Vimara Peres image is on the left due to MOS:PORTRAIT, other images such as the one of the 1975 tanks were placed on the left because of the copy edit, I'll wait to see what the other reviewers have to say about this before making any changes on that. On your point about the content at Government and politics section, I defer to the previous PR where this specific point was raised (also, take a look at Japan). On the image at the Economy section, unlike the image that you are talking about, the current one is a Commons quality image (MOS:IMAGEQUALITY). What you said about the demographics info being false, I forgot to place the source in the article its now there, the figure was left unchanged. About the fact that "there are too many red no page links", there's no consensus when those should be used, if this bothers you, please do not hesitate to add those articles to Wikipedia. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Noted. However, I still think the contents especially of "First Republic and Estado Novo" and "Return to democracy" should have a bit more of info, and regarding the population data, INE is currently reviewing the AIMA (new border control agency) numbers, and the current figures do not include the current AIMA immigrant population numbers. Here: INE vai tentar antecipar revisão de números de imigrantes no país. On the red no pages links, I would suggest leaving the Portuguese wikipedia link, but edit to remove the square brackets for an English wikipedia page. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The only major fact about Portugal's history that's not yet included in the article is the major role that slavery had during the country's colonial era and I'll certainly add one sentence acknowledging this, that's the only addition to the History section that I'm willing to do. (and I'll do that only if it doesn't lead to a violation of WP:SIZERULE). On the immigration figures, that's a future update, until then the article's immigration numbers should remain the same. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Right, I added just a few more info in the Return to democracy content. Also, in the Government and politics content, I think this part is misleading: "holds significant governmental authority, and is able to shape media and public opinion in ways that constrain the political and policy agendas of the government and parliament." The second part is true, while the first of "government authority" is rather confusing. I suggest changing to something like this: "The president exercises representative functions, carries supervisory and reserve powers, being capable of using its position to shape political opinions and agendas, and promote consensus and dialogue; in addition, the office includes ex officio the supreme command of the armed forces, and is advised by the Council of State." What do you think? Hope for your feedback. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

feel free to make any improvements on the article's prose that you consider warranted. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Another issue I meant to discuss, on the opening summary of the page, it ends with "Portugal maintains an active role in international political, cultural, economic, and military affairs, guided by a commitment to pacificism.". This last part "guided by a commitment to pacificism" seems a bit meaningless, don't you think? Didn't find similar situations in other country pages. Tell me what you think. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you on that; I will take a closer look once I have finished the remaining tasks, which should be very soon. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that a small reference to the districts of Portugal could be useful, as they are an important part of the country administrative organization. Also, the map with no thumb looks cleaner, and links to the regions pages could be added to the map. Look forward for your feedback. Cheers. Tuesp1985 (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, the History section already has substantial detail for an article like this and is by far the largest section. I've linked to the article on the earthquake for readers who wish to explore the topic in greater depth. As for the map, I'll leave it unchanged for now and see what the reviewers at FAC say. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't add much, just, for example "(...)after the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, an event that destroyed the city of Lisbon and killed thousands, disrupting the kingdom and also Europe." Tuesp1985 (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

GumballNine1Nine reached out on my talk page, so I'll take a look. It may take me several days to read through and copy-edit the article. Feel free to revert changes if they are not helpful.

• Regarding WP:SIZERULE: at 7,859 words (when I started, its lower since I started editing the article,) I think there's space to add some information. I know SIZERULE recommends 8,000 words max, but I don't get concerned until 9,000, and an article of this size is probably going to be a little bigger. As I review the article, I'll see if there are places that can be trimmed to help give more space.
• I added a "duplicate references" yellow banner to highlight refs that might be able to be merged.
• "Portugal maintains an active role in international political, cultural, economic, and military affairs." This is what I like to call a "say nothing" statement that is popular with AI: It sounds impressive and is technically true, but it is so general that it doesn't give additional information to the reader. What role does Portugal specifically play in international affairs? Is it the peacekeeper, the warmonger, the isolationist, the middle power, the diplomatic negotiator, the colonial power that can't bud out of its former colony's affairs, or something else? Maybe also a statement in its role in the EU would be helpful.
• "leaving lasting traces in the language and culture." I would give an example here.
• Prehistory mentions the Celts occupying Portugal, and the "Antiquity and early Middle Ages" section starts with the Romans conquering and expelling the Carthaginians. I think the Carthaginians' arrival to the area needs to be mentioned in this article somewhere.
• "Finding many towns in the region deserted, Peres decided to rebuild and repopulate them." I don't think this is necessary in the article and I think it can be removed.

Pausing at "Independence". Feel free to comment/address concerns above while the review is ongoing. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Z1720 and thank you for all the contributions you have made to the article so far. I'll address the mistakes you raised once I have finished working on the Education section. My only comment is that I do not agree with what you said about WP:SIZERULE because it might cause a problem with some reviewers when Portugal becomes a FAC since they tend to be quite rigorous in there (and that's a good thing), you also have articles that cover huge topics such as Philosophy that managed to stay at under 7,000 words, also, adding more info above that threshold is a slippery slope (look at what happened with Madagascar: the size of the article (although in that case it was an article with 13,000 words not 9,000) was in the list of reasons for its downgrade from FA). GumballNine1Nine (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Done GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Rolluik

I focus on the religion section and have also skimmed the history section paying attention to adjacent topics.

Text says 14.7% nonreligious, the piechart says 14.1%. You could leave of Church from Eastern Orthodox Church. Consider if you would want to write more about Jewish history. It is not strictly necessary (the link could suffice) but on the other hand there is a long history there and Christianity (especially the Catholic Church) and Islam are already well covered. Rolluik (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Consider adding Our lady of Fatima. Rolluik (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd prefer to wait until the FAC process to see what reviewers have to say on this before adding it to the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Done - Given that Jews constitute less than 1% of Portugal's population, I don't think that Jewish history is necessary under WP:PROPORTION. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Whonting

Well done taking on such a challenge as getting this to FA.

• "Homo sapiens sapiens arrived in what is now Portugal around 35,000 years ago and spread rapidly, with the onset of the Neolithic dating to approximately 5400 BC." Why do you use "with" here? What does the onset of the Neolithic have to do with the speed at which Homo sapiens sapiens spread?
• "Celts inhabited most of the remaining territory of mainland Portugal, leaving lasting traces in the language and culture such as contributing to the formation of Portuguese values and identity." This is not elaborated on elsewhere, and is quite vague. Can you give at least one example?
• Introduce that the Carthaginians were in the peninsula before you start talking about them being expelled?
• It would probably be helpful to a reader to introduce where on the Iberian peninsula modern day Portugal is if you want to say, for instance, "Neanderthals roamed the northern Iberian peninsula"
• Most of the history section is very occupied with questions of who in particular was ruling. It gives little or no time to cultural / economic / social structure / language / trade etc (some time is later given in the music section etc, but it is broken down and removed from a broader context, which I have a preference against). For instance, the first we here about there being Christian polities is when they are doing battle. Or, writing more generally, "In 868, Porto was conquered from the Moors by Vímara Peres" This is the first we hear about Porto, and the first we hear about the (unlinked) Moors, let alone that the Moors were apparently occupying Porto.
• Skipping down to the Geography section, I feel overwhelmed with statistics impacting the reading experience. I was interested to see how Britannica would treat this and felt refreshed ; it's almost all prose, statistics are used rarely and when they are, they are approximate. Compare the opening of Britannica's section here:

Portugal occupies one-sixth of the Iberian Peninsula at Europe’s southwestern perimeter. To its north and east is Spain, which makes up the rest of the peninsula; to the south and the west is the Atlantic Ocean; and to the west and southwest lie the Azores (Açores) and the Madeira Islands, which are part of metropolitan Portugal. Portugal is not a large country, but it offers a great diversity of physical geography, ranging from low-lying coasts and plains to the Estrela Mountains, which rise to nearly 6,500 feet (2,000 metres).

with this:

Portugal comprises a mainland territory located on the Iberian Peninsula in Southwestern Europe, commonly referred to as Continental Portugal, as well as the two archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores on the Atlantic Ocean. The country is situated between latitudes 30° and 42° N, and longitudes 32° and 6° W.[132] Portugal encompasses a total area of 156,597 km2 (60,462 sq mi), of which 64,372 km2 (24,854 sq mi) consists of territorial sea and internal waters, while the country's land area amounts to 92,225 km2 (35,608 sq mi).

I see the same stats recounting elsewhere, e.g. in infrastructure: "Portugal has a 14,342 km (8,912 mi) road network, of which 3,113 km (1,934 mi) are part of a system of 48 motorways, making it the eighth largest motorway system among 42 European countries as of 2024.[284][285] The country has 37 civil airports,[286] of which five are international airports."

Jumping down further:

• "Portugal faces issues such as police brutality" describing it as "brutality" is already a POV statement, but the question of whether something is an issue is necessarily a subjective one, and inappropriate for the amoral wikivoice. This section is in general fairly sketchy; we identify one of the largest issues as "widespread racism and discrimination against minorities" from a press release from the statistical agency. That sentence itself appears to be drawing from "More than 1.2 million people (16.1%) have experienced discrimination in Portugal," which doesn't directly support "widespread racism and discrimination" (SYNTH/OR analysis of those statistics), and really doesn't really support minority as commonly understood when "those highly educated" are among those being discriminated against.

Hopefully you find this feedback fair, I will help out anyway I can here. Whonting (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Done - regarding what you said about the history section: Portugal has a long and extensively documented history, as is also reflected in the lengthy chronology in the infobox. The history section necessarily focuses on the main political developments and ruling powers in order to remain proportionate to the rest of the article and avoid further imbalance in its overall coverage, in accordance with WP:BETTER. The lack of cultural, economic and social history within that section is deliberate. Rather than compressing these subjects into an already large section, by addressing them in the article sections to which they are directly relevant it allows those subjects to be treated with greater detail and clearer context than would be possible if they were added into a single, large history section. I hope that the edits to the human rights section have addressed the concerns you raised. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for getting on these. Not having a proper look at the moment so two brief comments. On history: I'm not seeing economic or social history (e.g. family structures, values outside of discrete artistic ) in their own sections, can you point them out?

Glancing at Holidays there again seems to be failing to produce a readable narrative by a focus on details. This section should not be a big list of holidays, and the list of days aren't particularly helpful. Is it remarkable that Portugal celebrates the Assumption of Mary on August 15? What is conveyed by mentioning that International Workers Day is observed on May 1? This section is being built from primary sources and so doesn't manage to convey any WP:WEIGHT or anything about how these holidays are celebrated. Google tells me bacalhau is consumed with family in a quiet meal on Christmas Eve. That's interesting and gives me insight into Portugal in a way a simple list cannot. Whonting (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I would also add a reference to the June Santos Populares holidays, which are the main festivities of the major cities, Lisbon, Porto, Gaia, Braga, and so on. Maybe add an image of those holidays rather than the Entrudo image. Cheers. Tuesp1985 (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. @Tuesp1985, is this Marchas Populares? Whonting (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. It's the St. Anthony "Marchas Populares" on the night of 12 to 13 June. Famalicão, in the north region, also celebrates St. Anthony. Porto, Gaia, Braga and Figueira da Foz celebrate St. John on 23 to 24 June; while St. Peter is also celebrated in the fishing communities of Gaia and Porto, Sintra, Póvoa de Varzim, and also in some parts of the Alentejo region on 28 and 29 June. Tuesp1985 (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I've added an overview of economic and social history to the "Iberian Union and Restoration" and Education sections. I'll address the Holidays section soon GumballNine1Nine (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I think there should also be a bit more content on the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, which was one of the, if not "the", defining moments in early modern Portuguese history. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Done GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• Footnote 86: could the relevant scholarship be cited directly?

• Suggest relying more on secondary sourcing for Government, rather than primary government documents. Generally it would be helpful to use independent secondary sources where high-quality ones are available

• FN360: is there a non-tourist source that could be cited for this?

• How are you deciding which items are in Sources and which not?

• How does the use of theses meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

• You've included several sources that are quite old - is there a reason to choose these over more recent scholarship?

• What makes Humbaraci a high-quality reliable source? Redweik? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Done — I've replaced outdated sources with more up-to-date ones, except in cases where the older sources delved deeper into the subject, such as fn48. There is now one doctoral thesis and it has been cited in the literature. I've also removed Humbaraci. Regarding Redweik, although it focuses on sensors, it also gives an overview of the architecture of the Tower of Belém, which is the subject of the article. As for which items will be listed in the Sources section, I'll include anything that isn't a landing page, mainly pdfs. Before nominating the article, I'll add a comment at the top of that section clarifying this. I hope this addresses your points. (I'll see if there's more primary government documents that can be substituted with secondary sources) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Reilly is listed in Sources but is not cited

Comments from DuncanHill

The following references are undefined. Readers cannot verify them, and the article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. "Mueller & Leite (2020)", "Da Costa Dominguez (2024)", "Mitchell (2024)". This is a common problem with short-form references. DuncanHill (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm currently working on that. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Done GumballNine1Nine (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Olivenza

We should add Olivenza to the map with a darker shade of green compared to EU color: claimed but not controlled. Beshogur (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't even the 2025 official political map of Portugal doesn't include Olivenza. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It leaves the border open. : Portugal’s new defense minister, has revived an almost forgotten debate. "Olivenza is Portuguese, naturally, and this is not a provocation". Beshogur (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

He can say whatever he wants (he's only a minister) what matters are official documents like that map. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I also think that Olivença should be highlighted. And the official political map should be included in the article somewhere too. Wareno (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It would be confusing for readers to include two different depictions of Portuguese territory in the article; also, the official map in question does not even include Olivenza, so on what basis should Olivenza be highlighted specifically? GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that it would be. The Portuguese government has never relinquished its claim on Olivença but the borders of the Wiki map can be matched with the official map. Wareno (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Since this article is on its way to become a FAC, a high-quality source should be provided to make that change. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Images and content suggestion

Hi there @GumballNine1Nine, I read that you're concluding your review of the Portuguese page, so I will propose my suggestion for the page in content I have already discused with you. My text suggestions in bold and images:

First Republic and Estado Novo

Main articles: First Portuguese Republic and Estado Novo (Portugal)

Salazar and Carmona during the 28th May coup celebrations

In 1908, King Carlos I and Luís Filipe, Prince Royal, were assassinated by republican partisans. Two years later, the monarchy was overthrown by the 5 October 1910 revolution and replaced with a republic. During World War I, Portugal fought for the Allies. However, the war increased political instability and deepened the economic crisis creating further chaos and unrest during the First Republic. These conditions led to the 28 May 1926 coup d'état, which overthrew the Republic and established the Ditadura Militar, later the Ditadura Nacional, which evolved into the authoritarian nationalist corporative dictatorship of the Estado Novo, under António de Oliveira Salazar.

During the , Portugal remained neutral in World War II, after which the postwar end of colonial legitimacy and the growth of African independence movements increasingly challenged Portuguese rule overseas. The regime introduced reforms intended to strengthen ties between the metropole and the colonies, yet the empire was no unified customs and economic area. Indigenous peoples already second-class citizens, saw limited improvements in living conditions further fuelled nationalist movements, ultimately leading to the Portuguese Colonial War from 1961 to 1974.

Return to democracy

Main articles: Carnation Revolution and Third Portuguese Republic

Armoured vehicles in Lisbon's Rossio Square, in 1975

In 1974, a military coup overthrew the Estado Novo regime, and started the Carnation Revolution. This initiated the transition to democracy and the dissolution of Portugal's colonial empire, from the independence of the African colonies to the Handover of Macau in 1999. This period was marked by social, military, and political turmoil that culminated in street politics and violence and led Portugal to near civil war. The Coup of 25 November 1975 cleared the way for the approval of a new constitution and the holding of elections, beginning to subside tensions. (Maybe add a reference to the returnees?)

After the revolution, in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, under the influence by new economic insights, Portugal began to dismantle the socialist policies of that period and move towards neoliberalism, through constitutional revisions and the adoption of reforms for entry into the European Economic Community (EEC), which occurred in 1986, leading to considerable economic growth. The 2010–2014 Portuguese financial crisis resulted in an international bailout and intense austerity policies. causing lasting social impacts.

(...)

Religion

Batalha Monastery, a UNESCO World Heritage Site

Portugal has been a secular state , and it guarantees religious freedom. Although Portugal has no official religion, the Catholic Church has a history there that predates the country's formation and can be traced back to the 3rd century. According to the 2021 Census, 80.2% of the Portuguese population aged 15 and older were Catholic, while 14.1% are nonreligious. Whereas Portugal is overwhelmingly Catholic, the majority are non-practicing, a discrepancy it might have existed throughout its religious history.

I'll await feedback. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

My opinion is that this could be proposed once I renominate the article at FAC. At the moment I am only fixing source-to-text integrity and implementing the prose suggestions from the last nomination, so that I can renominate the article as soon as possible. Doing this now would further delay the process. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

On a side note, unlike File:“Batalha” — Mosteiro de Santa Maria da Vitoria (54201341215).jpg, File:Arouca - História de um Mosteiro.jpg is both a quality and a featured image, which makes it a better fit for display in the article per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. And even if it wasn't, I find that replacing the current image with that one would be an aesthetic downgrade. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

My point still applies to the new image per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. Even though I find its quality better, it is neither a quality image nor a featured picture, unlike the current one GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I have the opposing view, because the image of the two nuns adds nothing to the content, and the image should be of a religious landmark of the country or event, which, in my opinion, would upgrade the article. I therefore propose a quality image of Batalha, and if that is not possible, perhaps an image of the Sanctuary of Fátima, which is the most important religious center in the country, or maybe the Cristo Rei in Almada. I'll await your FAC renomination. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Again, and as we’ve already discussed on my talk page, I think this discussion would be best held at FAC, not when I have only about 25% of the work left before I renominate the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, if you really want an image of that specific building, File:Batalha September 2021-2.jpg should be the one chosen instead as it's a featured image. I won’t oppose replacing the current image with this one before the renomination, if there’s consensus from other editors for the change. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine by me. Cheers Tuesp1985 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Authority over this page

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am requesting moderator/admin assistance regarding the editing behaviour of GumballNine1Nine.

The issue is that **GumballNine1Nine** has repeatedly reverted edits made by myself and other contributors, without first discussing the proposed changes or giving the other editor an opportunity to explain them. In practice, the pattern has been to revert an edit first and only afterwards ask for discussion. (See the history log of this page)

This is making it difficult for other contributors to make constructive improvements to the article. The edits I have been making are intended to improve the article's structure, terminology, formatting, citations, and overall consistency. They are not intended to undermine another editor's contributions.

I am not asking for my preferred version of the article to be imposed. I am asking for a fair process in which disputed changes are discussed before they are repeatedly reverted. Wikipedia's editing guidance encourages editors to discuss potentially controversial changes and resolve disagreements through consensus rather than repeatedly overriding one another's edits.

My concern is also that the repeated behaviour by **GumballNine1Nine** gives the impression that they are acting as though they have authority over the article and can determine which edits are allowed to remain. No individual editor owns a Wikipedia article, and other contributors are entitled to make good-faith improvements.

I would therefore appreciate moderator/admin assistance in addressing this situation and establishing a constructive way forward. In particular, I would ask that **GumballNine1Nine not simply revert disputed edits and then invite discussion afterwards**. Where an edit is genuinely disputed, the preferable approach should be to explain the specific concern and discuss it on the Talk page before continuing to revert the same changes.

I am happy to discuss the substance of the edits and reach a compromise where appropriate. My objective is not to win an argument or take ownership of the article, but to find a fair solution that allows multiple contributors to improve the page through discussion and consensus.

I would appreciate an independent moderator/admin reviewing the editing history and the pattern of reversions and advising how this should proceed. CyberGrowl (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi CyberGrowl, I don't have the time to look into the matter, but note that admins will not necessarily see your message. If you like, you can ask for input at WP:ANI. You can tag other editors by mentioning their username in a wikilink, like User:GumballNine1Nine or use a template, like {{u|"username here"}}. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:53, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Just in case this gets any traction here, at this poinr all I have to say is that I'll let the record speak for itself. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

CyberGrowl, I agree with your concerns. The (under one year on Wikipedia) appears passionate on improving this page. That is welcome. However, presenting the history of a country from one username interpretation or aimed at a nomination is problematic. Historical accuracy and balance, quality of language content and reputable sources are paramount. I have suggested alterations at my end too- a team/shared effort and constructive input is the most sensible way forward. ~~ Melroross (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Join the talk about ongoing FA review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portugal/archive5Moxy🍁 06:51, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@Moxy, @Wareno, @CyberGrowl, @Soetermans, @GumballNine1Nine: Here is my proposal for the existing 'Portugal' article, with the specific subsections as are, followed by my suggested, much more concise content:

Portugal,[c] officially the Portuguese Republic,[d] is a country in Southwestern Europe. Mainland Portugal is located on the southwestern portion of the Iberian Peninsula, and bordered by Spain to the north and east. Portugal also includes the archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores in the Atlantic Ocean. The country has a population of 11.4 million, and Lisbon, its capital, is the largest city. Portugal's internal waters and territorial sea together account for two-fifths of its territory, and its exclusive economic zone is one of Europe's largest. The country's terrain contains a diverse range of landscapes and regional climates.

< During the Age of Discovery, the kingdom made several advancements in nautical science and maritime exploration to discover new territories and sea routes, which led to the establishment of the Portuguese Empire. The kingdom became a republic in 1910, before becoming a dictatorship in 1926, whose 1974 overthrow enabled democracy to be established in 1976.

Suggested:

The territory of present-day Portugal has been inhabited since the Paleolithic, with evidence of human presence dating back at least 500,000 years. Over successive periods it was inhabited by various peoples and incorporated into the Roman Empire, followed by Germanic kingdoms and, from the early 8th century, Muslim-ruled Al-Andalus. The County of Portugal emerged during the Christian expansion of the northern Iberian kingdoms. Afonso Henriques assumed the title of king, and Portugal was recognised as a kingdom by León-Castile in 1143; its status received papal recognition under Pope Alexander III through the bull Manifestis Probatum in 1179.

and

=== Prehistory ===

Main article: Prehistoric Iberia

The territory of present-day Portugal has been inhabited by humans for at least 400,000 years. Neanderthals inhabited the region until the Upper Paleolithic, with anatomically modern humans present by around 40,000 years ago. Agriculture reached western Iberia during the sixth millennium BC, followed by increasingly complex societies during the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age.

By the first millennium BC, much of western Iberia formed part of an Atlantic cultural and exchange network, while Indo-European and Celtic-speaking peoples, including the Lusitanians and Gallaeci, inhabited substantial areas of what is now Portugal. Mediterranean traders, particularly Phoenicians, established settlements and trading contacts along parts of the southern and western coasts during the early first millennium BC.

Suggested: === Prehistory ===

Main article: Prehistoric Iberia

The region has been inhabited by humans since approximately 400,000 years ago. Neanderthals roamed the southwestern Iberian Peninsula until 37,000 years ago, and anatomically modern humans arrived in what is now Portugal around 40,000 years ago. The onset of the Neolithic in the area dates to between 5500 BC and 5300 BC. In southern Portugal, Iron Age inscribed stele have been found, representing early evidence of writing in the Iberian Peninsula. Pre-Celtic tribes originally from the Ukrainian steppes inhabited mainland Portugal and the Lusitanians occupied mostly central, inland regions in 1250 BC. Celts may have spread westwards in Iberia in the latter 1st millennium BC. Phoenicians colonised Portugal during the 7th and 8th centuries BC. Best ~~ Melroross (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

This part (not the current passage) shoud read SUGGESTION: === Prehistory ===

Main article: Prehistoric Iberia

The territory of present-day Portugal has been inhabited by humans for at least 400,000 years.[a] Neanderthals inhabited the region until the Upper Paleolithic,[3] with anatomically modern humans present by around 40,000 years ago.[4] Agriculture reached western Iberia during the sixth millennium BC, followed by increasingly complex societies during the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age.[5]

By the first millennium BC, much of western Iberia formed part of an Atlantic cultural and exchange network, while Indo-European and Celtic-speaking peoples, including the Lusitanians and Gallaeci, inhabited substantial areas of what is now Portugal.[6] Mediterranean traders, particularly Phoenicians, established settlements and trading contacts along parts of the southern and western coasts during the early first millennium BC. ~~ Melroross (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I also agree. The user has repeatedly acted in a way which breaks WP:OWN precisely. This includes enforcing rules on other users which he himself does not abide by, refusing consensus, arbitrarily removing sourced content, replacing culturally notable images that would fit an article of this nature for inadequate and obscure ones and refusing to back down when he is in the minority, etc.

The issue was infact already brought before the attention of an admin once but nothing was done on the occasion. Wareno (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2026 (UTC)