To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here.
Thank you. I'm afraid my knowledge of Lisbon does not extend that far. --CharlieCares
I added "forced conversion" to the Portugal article as a choice that was given to Jews and Muslims, but I really would strongly suggest that you be fair and stop edit warring about the fact that Portuguese Jews and Muslims were given the choice to convert or leave, and those who did convert, since the conversion was forced, were suspected of a lack of sincerity, with their families in many instances hounded by the Inquisition for centuries. Forced conversion is not at all the same as "assimilation". Thank you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
We need to separate periods. There was no Portuguese Jews or Muslims before Portugal was recognised as a sovereign nation. Nascent Portugal and Spain had different social and religious ambitions. During the establishment of Portugal, the link to Charles Martell via the Burgondians, Cathars and Gnostics to the founding of Condado Portucalense, can not be ignored. For reasons of non Catholic compliance, the Vatican was not keen to recognise Portugal as a Nation and actually promoted a united Iberia, only in mid 12th century did Portugal obtain the Papal Bull confirming its independence in exchange for a large quantity of bullion. Once Christians managed to start gaining territory, manpower was at a premium and the need to keep the people or recolonize land was imperative to keep control of the conquered areas. The Norman and Germanic mercenaries were too valuable as soldiers to work the land but like the Romans before, after good service to king and the cause, estates were allocated to them and their families. That's what the Muslims did in the 8th century when they replaced the Visigoths as the Iberian people's rulers, the people of the land were a valuable commodity. The Muslim held areas held an original Moorish population of about 2%. The remainder was composed of a long established sizeable Jewish middle class, together with some remaining Pagans, crypto Pagan Christians and Christian minorities all heavily taxed and a majority of previously Pagan and Christian working class people that converted to Islam for tax reasons. From the time of Afonso Henriques up to Manuel I marriage to Isabella of Aragon, the Jewish people were held in high regard, given freedom of worship, many served in high office at the royal court and formed part of the Portuguese society. As for the Muslim nobility, with their influence and power waning, they left for Morocco, Seville and Granada with their entourages. The rural people by in large were crypto Christians to begin with, as the Pagans tended to find refuge in inhospitable parts like Trás-dos-Montes and Serra da Estrella, of the true Muslims that remained, the upper classes were heavily taxed and forbidden from worshiping publicly and the ones that couldn't afford to pay tax were either converted or asked to leave. Furthermore, in certain instances, some Muslim leaders unhappy to obbey orders from the Middle East are known to have fought with Christians against Muslims. After king Manuel I marriage to Isabella of Aragon, the Spanish pressure to implement inquisition led the king to begin ordering forced conversion and expelling of non adherents. That is at the end of 1490s. By comparison, in the Spanish context, the policy of non Christians eradication, was present from the very beginning of the so called reconquista, a term in itself rather inappropriate since these two Christian kingdoms never existed before as such. Once the Iberian union come into existence, the fervour of the Spanish inquisition transposed over to the Portuguese side. So, to try and simplify in this case with your choice of words, distorts the whole historical context by giving it an almost genocidal feeling. I was simply trying to make the wording more neutral. User:CharlieCares
- The background is quite interesting. However, it finally does have a genocidal feeling, though it took a while to get there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
"It's" and "its" are different words.
Hi, CharlieCares. Please take note of the following information:
- It's is an abbreviation of "it is". Example: "Look, a puma! Oh wait, it's not a puma, it's just a cat."
- Its is the possessive adjective of the pronoun "it". Example: "Since then, Portugal and its people have modernised."
There have been several comments in edit summaries in response to your edits saying the same thing, but as you're still writing "it's" when you mean "its", perhaps you haven't noticed these. So please do take this information on board and try to avoid making the same mistake again.
CharlieCares replies; Thank you for the sharp eye and time to edit and correct. I am aware of the correct spelling and interpretation of contracted IT IS, IT IS NOT, and his as 'in his car' and its as in 'its occupants'
- By the way if you don't understand this, please just ask. I'll be happy to explain further. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Lisbon district talks
Thank you for all your Portugal-related edits! Are you familiar with Lisbon? We recently started a discussion on how to districtify the Lisbon article, and it would be great to get some input from someone who knows the city.
Appreciated Martin and I'm sorry to say the Lisbon distric topic is a step too far me. I rather sit back and watch that one. Good luck.
Madeira and Azores
To the site administrator, powers that be and contributors; I've been thinking about the logic behind the inclusion of Funchal in the cities list... Although sometime ago I expressed a somewhat divergent opinion somewhere on this very subject... I've since then given more thought and I have to admit, it does look rather odd. Speaking from a regular visitor point of view, I say Portugal as a whole, encompasses three distinct regions separated by great distances, namely, continental Portugal and the autonomous regions of Madeira and Azores. Very rarely have I considered when visiting Portugal, to plan a hop over the Atlantic to spend a few days in either of the archipelagos. I have visited Madeira twice before (9 and 6 nights respectively and years apart) and it was so, because in the first time it was not possible to make it to Porto Santo. Furthermore, each time was planed as a proper trip in it's own right. I have not yet been to the Azores, as the logistics to do so properly, in my way of thinking, require a much larger slice of time and preparation than Madeira, to really take full advantage of what's on offer. Therefore, in my approach to Portugal trips, I don't think of Madeira and Azores as an impromptu kneejerk reaction destination for a quick pop in or whatever, like I might do if I'm in Porto and decide on a penny, to visit Gerês or Vigo for a few days. Having said so and upon reflection, I would suggest considering a separation and to keep points of interest ie; main regional areas and respective subregions, grouped according to the logic shown in the current Regions map. Furthermore, if such a change ever materialises, then, substitute Funchal for a city of equal relevance in the continental context. CharlieCares (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I greatly appreciate your enthusiasm, effort and contributions. However, we need to keep in mind that this is a travel guide, not an encyclopedia like Wikipedia in which very detailed accounts of history from all aspects are appropriate. Because of that, I mostly reverted your latest edits to the Mozambique article. If there's anything in the current text that's really inaccurate, that should be changed, but I really don't think we need to have exhaustive detail about things like precisely where most of the fighting took place during the Mozambican war of independence. A few of the details you added could be put back into the article, but very briefly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I can't disagree with you completely, although sometimes, I think for some reason you take pleasure swinging the axe. In my opinion and experience, in so far as the average traveler inteligence and curiosity may be aroused, I thought I was providing a basic neutral understanding to the situation to satisfy a need to know, while at the same time took the trouble to clean up some repetitions and smooth out a jumble up narrative that appears to have many different contributors, each droping their valued worth albeit like a square peg into a round hole. I'm well aware of the wikivoyage objectives without going precisely into an encyclopedic narrative, so, the intention was to avoid incurring a reader to hurry needlessly elsewhere, in search of more background info to paint an initial mental picture. Mind you, some of the articles found in wikivoyage are vastly much more detailed essays than in this case would have been. In any case, there will always be differences of opinion, to some, it's all about the destination, to others, it's all about the journey... As the quote goes; you can't please everyone all of the time... So, it's ok to please a few, some of the time... Besides, I'm too "traveled" and getting too old to spend time arguing about it, do whatever you see fit, this time Charliecaresnot.
- I don't really get pleasure from reversions, but I do feel that it's best to say things as briefly as possible while retaining the essential meaning and content. When I talk, I think my speaking style is often similar to your writing style, so I'm not unsympathetic to the way you think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)