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)

Mirandese?

Let’s leave it at Portuguese ~2026-10282-49 (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Portugal area numbers

@GumballNine1Nine, @H3nrique Bregie, @Petnog, @MdMV or Emdy idk, @ThecentreCZ, @Chipmunkdavis, @Z1720 Hi there guys. A recent edit by GumballNine1Nine raised a question about the area of Portugal. In the recent edit, the previous number of 92,225 km2 was substituted to 156,597 km2, as territorial waters are counted. However, these numbers seem misleading and most government pages, national, EU, UN, you name it, don't have this number, so, I propose we discuss if we should maintain this new number or return to the old one. I personally think we should return to the 92,225 km2. Tuesp1985 (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The old number makes the most sense. That doesn't mean that the 156,597 number shouldn't be in the Geography section, but I don't think it makes sense to include territorial waters into the numbers. H3nrique Bregie (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

List of countries and dependencies by area takes into account both the land and water areas when calculating the total area. The values for Portugal in that article don't have references to back them up, unlike here. Which one is the most reliable should be clear to everyone. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Just to point out the fact that every source that was added are from the Portuguese government. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Not challenging the source, but I would add that other Portuguese government sources don't have that number: https://portaldiplomatico.mne.gov.pt/sobre-portugal

I think the old number should be returned to the table, and like @H3nrique Bregie suggested, the new number could be pointed out, separately, in the Geography section.Tuesp1985 (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. You'd be putting that figure under Total area in the infobox which is misleading, plus United States takes into account that distinction (honestly I don't see any other country article with more oversight than the US) my version of the article avoids any of this. (Not even mentioning the fact that it's just the correct one) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

My sources come from government agencies that are dedicated to geography (one of those even comes from the most recent administrative map of Portugal from days ago). Frankly, given the quality of the sources I fail to see why this even merits having this discussion in the first place... GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, I'm not disputing the source. The issue is that no other government agencies, besides the one dedicated to geography, have updated those numbers. Not the Foreign Office, nor INE, Eurostat and so on. And we need to reach a consensus on the number because it doesn't make sense the English wiki page having one number and all the other pages having another. We need also to know if this new area approved by the government (I gather it was recently approved, right?) will indeed be recognized/updated by other worldwide agencies.Tuesp1985 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the land area the proof of aproval is stated in the first paragraphs in Portuguese here, which proves the value of 92,225 instead of 92,230 that was in this article before my edits (it's stated several laws which are more recent than the Foreign Office's website that you cited above). On the fact that water area should be taken into account on the country total area, the official website of the Government Journal explains the reasons for that can be found here (in Portuguese) (The constitution says that the territorial sea and internal waters also belong to the Portuguese territory). And the values for the water area correspond to the sum of the areas of the internal water and territorial sea, the full explanation for each set of values can be found here. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Searching official sources, the number given for the area of Portugal varies, but mostly is between 92,000 to 92,400 Teixant (talk) 20:48, 23 February 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)