Talk:Lisbon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2018

The line "The city occupies 32nd place of highest gross earnings in the world" is untrue, please remove. The source given, http://www.citymayors.com/economics/richest_cities.html, is a survey, and not a study.

The source states in the title "UBS survey of 72 international cities"

For example, Vancouver, a known high-grossing city, is not on the list while Kiev is. 23.233.67.45 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

 Already done It seems another editor has already completed the requested changes on October 6th. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 12:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

unofficial capital city

"Unlike most capital cities, Lisbon's status as the capital of Portugal has never been granted or confirmed officially – by statute or in written form. Its position as the capital has formed through constitutional convention, making its position as de facto capital a part of the Constitution of Portugal."- isn't that the same as the situation of London? We do not have a written constitution and London is only the defecto capital, im pretty sure its the situation with many capital cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: add link

Under the Belém subsection, there's no link to the page for Pedro Álvares Cabral. (first paragraph, second sentence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SepiidaeSepia (talk • contribs) 09:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Questionable link with Julius Caesar

The dates don't add up. Third paragraph in intro says at present: "Julius Caesar made it a municipium called Felicitas Julia, adding to the name Olissipo." However, elsewhere on English wikipedia this event is given a date - and it's after the death of Julius Caesar in 44 BC. At http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Olisipo it says "Between 31 BC and 27 BC the city became a Municipium."

However, the reference on the Olisipo statement goes to a dead link. I'm not an expert on this stuff, but it seems quite likely that Julius Caesar, being famous, gets the credit anyway even if he didn't give Lisbon this honour. Someone familiar with the history could perhaps correct this. I won't edit myself as I'm not sure. Istobe (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments and questions

1. "According to legend, the location was named for the mythical Ulysses, who founded the settlement after he left Troy to escape the Greek coalition."

After reading a lot of Greek mythology I find this "legend" a ridiculous fabrication. Ulysses went to Troy in what is now Turkey. He then took 10 years go to back to Ithaca which is in western Greece. The idea of him going to Lisboa to found it is complete nonsense. It's totally preposterous.

2. "Local authorities were granted self-rule over a territory that extended 50 kilometres (31 miles); exempt from taxes, its citizens were given the privileges of Roman citizenship, and it was then integrated with the Roman province of Lusitania (whose capital was Emerita Augusta)."

Is it Augusta Emerita or Emerita Augusta? From what I see on Wikipedia, the first name applies.

3. "In 1506, 3,000 Jews were massacred in Lisbon."

The reason for this even should be added.

4. "The average annual temperature is 17.4 °C (63.3 °F), 21.3 °C (70.3 °F) during the day and 13.5 °C (56.3 °F) at night."

I don't understand why two temperatures are listed for day and night.

5. The image with caption "Praça do Comércio, with the Rua Augusta Arch, in the Lisbon Baixa" is horrendous. It's warped and a person is fuzzy/cut out on the right.

6. "Across the street, through Vasco da Gama Mall, is Parque das Nações (Park of the Nations), site of the 1998 World Expo."

This sentence is redundant with the first paragraph of the section.

7. "The Lisbon region is rapidly growing, with GDP (PPP) per capita calculated for each year as follows: €22,745 (2004)[76] – €23,816 (2005)[77] – €25,200 (2006)[78] – €26,100 (2007).[79]"

The numbers are old and need to be updated.

8. "efore Portugal's sovereign debt crisis and an EU-IMF rescue plan, for the decade of 2010 Lisbon was expecting to receive many state funded investments, including building a new airport, a new bridge, an expansion of 30 km (18.64 mi) underground, the construction of a mega-hospital (or central hospital), the creation of two lines of a TGV to join Madrid, Porto, Vigo and the rest of Europe, the restoration of the main part of the town (between the Marquês de Pombal roundabout and Terreiro do Paço), the creation of a large number of bike lanes, as well as modernization and renovation of various facilities."

Then? Did they receive money?

9. "A traditional form of public transport in Lisbon is the tram. Introduced in the 19th century, the trams were originally imported from the US, and called the americanos."

What city did they come from?

10. "However, the last proposal is military air base in Montijo that would be replaced by a civil airport."

This sentence needs to be revised.

11. "The total number of enrolled students in higher education in Lisbon was, for the 2007–2008 school year, of 125,867 students, of whom 81,507 in the Lisbon's public institutions."

This data is over 10 year old and needs to be updated.

ICE77 (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Perhaps you should have done some research before flinging words like "a ridiculous fabrication". Luís de Camões, Portugal's national poet, referred to the legend in verse: "Named for her founder, that coiner of words Through whose cunning Troy was burned And the city was founded by Ulysses on the exact spot Where the Tagus mingles its fresh water And white sands with the sea."

Someone who purports to be a student of Greek mythology should know that Odysseus (Ulysses) had to cross the River Ocean and sail beyond the western edge of the world to consult the prophet Tiresias in the Underworld.

2. It's true that Augusta Emerita is the form most commonly given, but some reliable sources, such as the The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization, give it as "Emerita Augusta". Carlstak (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

1. I have several issues with the claim of the foundation of Lisbon by Ulysses.

a. None of the maps that are available on Google show that Ulysses went to Lisbon (even less that he founded it): https://www.google.com/search?q=odysseus+odyssey+map&client=firefox-b-1-d&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=Yd40W7450rY4CM%253A%252C_hPyz_BCFgPrnM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRthibagOVLjXfi3Ws4Gy3d0A2hMA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3v6Lb-LDkAhXVu54KHfTvCDIQ9QEwBHoECAUQDA#imgrc=Fr8jtrULWS3YLM:&vet=1.

b. I have not read of a passage of Greek mythology from Hesiod, Homer, Pseudo-Apollodorus, Hyginus, Pausanias, Ovid or other sources that talk about Ulysses going to Lisbon and founding it.

c. The source for the claim is "Cailleux, Théophile (1879)" which is not even in the English language so it's completely out of place here since this Wikipedia page is in English. If there is a source, it should be in English and it should not be a text from 1879 but the original source from 1572 - the book you suggested is acceptable but I would go straight to the original source because the first source is the best. Although the passage turns out to have been written by the mighty Luís de Camões, this is not directly stated in the source that is currently provided and, either way, it is an invention that Luís de Camões introduced in the late 1500s and not something that goes back to the Odyssey which dates to 750 to 700 BC.

d. In addition, "he left Troy to escape the Greek coalition" does not make sense, at least in the context of the story of the Odyssey since Odysseus did not run away from his own comrades.

e. The book you suggested does not even provide a source that Lisbon was truly founded by Odysseus. In fact, pages 2 and 3 say "The earliest accounts of Lisbon, as of other ancient European cities, are to be found in Greek legend, often vague and obscure", "Ulysses must have made his discovery on one of his many voyages after the Trojan War, a period convenienty shrouded in myth and make-belief" and "The Renaissance Portuguese writers of the sixteenth century who sealed the story of Ulysses' foundation of the city, did not worry unduly about the exact moment when he arrived on the shore s of the Tagus". In two pages the writer states that (1) there is no clear source, (2) introduces alleged voyages without proof and mentions "make-belief" and (3) concludes that Renaissance Portuguese writers of the sixteenth century really did not break their heads trying to find a source to prove their claims.

f. The other book you suggest says Ulysses went "beyond the western edge of the world" and does not say he went to Lisbon or founded it. Besides, the edge of the western world was the Pillars of Hercules and the Odyssey talks about the Cimmerians so the two are not consistent. Even if he did, Lisbon is nowhere near Gibraltar. I do not read anything in regards to that at the beginning of the Odyssey in book XI (Perseus or Theoi).

g. Finally, the article says "Roman authors of the first century AD referred to popular legends that the city of Lisbon was founded by the mythical hero Odysseus on his journey home from Troy. Although modern archaeological excavations show a Phoenician presence at this location since 1200 BC, neither of these folk etymologies has any historical credibility".

The above should be sufficient to destroy the fabrication that maintains Ulysses founded Lisbon. Archeology, Greek mythology and Luís de Camões do not have any proof.

2. I would lean towards what is correct rather than what is mostly accepted. This is exactly like discussing the argument around lasagna (wrong) and lasagne (right) or the commonly held idea that people in the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat when Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle proved otherwise. Interestingly, the article on the city is inconsistently using the two forms.

ICE77 (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or to feel sorry for you, ICE77; you seem to be very confused. Ulysses/Odysseus was not a real person, he was a mythological character. No one is claiming that he actually founded Lisbon. The article merely describes the fact that there was a legend that says he did. You actually quote the article's reference to the "mythical Ulysses". One would think you know that mythical means he didn't really exist. Also, that bit you quote about "Roman authors of the first century AD referred to popular legends that the city of Lisbon was founded by the mythical hero Odysseus..." was written by me. Carlstak (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Even fools know Odysseus/Ulysses was a mythological character. I never took the Odyssey as a factual story based on the deeds of a miraculous man. Whether Odysseus/Ulysses founded or not Lisbon is pointless in this argument. This goes back to the point I made originally: the idea of him traveling all the way to Lisbon after the Trojan War is a fabrication because there is no logic behind the story and you confirmed the fabrication in points e. and g. I discussed above. The foundation of Lisbon is a legend just like the mythological Odysseus/Ulysses. What matter is that, in the context of the original story, the Odyssey, the foundation of Lisbon is clearly an appended fabrication that does not even make sense geographically. At least the Odyssey was written in great detail in 24 books. I still need to see the text for the legend, also known as the founding fabrication. That is the bottom line.

ICE77 (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Please indent your comments, ICE77. This is getting tiresome; I don't know why you're being so stubborn. We all know, or should know, that we're talking about legends that date back to ancient times. The legends don't have to make sense, because educated people today understand that they're not true. As I said, the article merely alludes to the fact that there were such legends. It doesn't matter whether or not the myth of Ulysses itself supports the legends: there were such popular legends that people, including educated people, commonly believed in those times. Have you even looked at the citations? Written Culture in a Colonial Context: Africa and the Americas 1500 - 1900, a scholarly work published by BRILL, says "Remember that Ulysses was considered the founding father of Lisbon, according to the tradition established by Saint Isidore in the Middle Ages. The hero is named as the founder of Lisbon— Olissipona—in Etimologias (Etymologies)..." and "The idea, transmitted by Saint Isidore and ratified during the Renaissance had, of course, a wide development and powerful political effects on the 16th-century Portuguese civilisation. Sylvie Deswarte-Rosa has recently indicated that in 1534 Andres de Resende made a passionate apologia in his poem Vincentius Levita et Martyr about the origin of Lisbon coming from Odysseus."

Death in Babylon: Alexander the Great and Iberian Empire in the Muslim Orient, a scholarly work published by the University of Chicago Press, says, "...(whether to Ithaka or Lisbon, the latter a city that popular myth holds was founded by Odysseus, or Ulixes, as the Latin West knew him)..." Carlstak (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: I've removed the problematic phrase "on his journey home from Troy", and added the text "Classical authors writing in Latin and Greek, including Strabo, Solinus, and Martianus Capella, referred to popular legends that the city of Lisbon was founded by the mythical hero Ulysses (Odysseus)", with sources. Carlstak (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

1. If this is getting tiresome then don't come to beat around the bushes anymore. If you can't live with the idea that somebody can have an opinion then this is not my problem. I'm sure there are plenty op people out there that read the Odyssey and Os Lusíadas and think the story of Lisbon being founded by Odysseus/Ulysses is a ridiculous fabrication, whether you like it or not. ICE77 (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess you can't figure out how to indent. We all know the legend of Lisbon being founded by Odysseus/Ulysses was made up; the point is that there were legends that said he did. Carlstak (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There is also the idea that you cannot accept other people's idea (aside from the fact nobody cares about indentation).

ICE77 (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

One of the mildest winters in Europe

A few hours ago two spanish users reverted my edits 2 times without any explanation. The disagreement is on the sentence "(below Valencia or Málaga)" in the climate section which I find irrelevant and not that true. It's irrelevant because no other city besides Lisbon has that written and there should not be any comparison to other cities unless is to give you a clear ideia that is easier to understand than to write a long essay to explain it, which is clearly not the case, as the sentence being or not being there as the exact same meaning, there's no necessity in doing that, it doesn't improve anything about the city and it's just there to call the names of other spanish cities.

It also implies Valencia and Málaga have the mildest winters in a city with 500.000+ inhabitants in Europe. Who cares? This is an article about Lisbon and should only contain subjects about or related directly to Lisbon, I also noticed there's no Palermo, maybe because aparently this sentence was made up by a spanish user who only wants to include spanish cities, either that or he doesn't know 676,118 > 500,000. 2 As I said in my first edit "[...] inland parts in the city of Valencia [and also Málaga] are much cooler in winter [than interior parts of Lisbon], so it's not fair to objectively compare 1 station to another when they're that close in means". This is also a reason to why it shouldn't be compared, because it largely depends on where you are in the city.

So, concluding my thoughts, that sentence should be removed as it's not related to anything in the article and it does not contribute to anything, if it stays there there should also be a comparison for Valencia or Palermo in their climates, which is just ridiculous and unnecessary. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm Italian, not Spanish, just as the other guy seems to be Polish by looking at his profile, none of us comes from Spain. I live in Málaga but I come from southern Italy, and you're completely mistaken. First of all, Málaga has warmer winters than Lisbon without any kind of doubt, your "inland parts of Málaga are much cooler than Lisbon" statement is just as false as you saying there are "lots of other cities with warmer winters than Lisbon" since the page of Málaga has the official airport station which is in the outskirts of the city without any nearby mountains or hills protecting the area, unlike the city of Málaga, you can check it with Google Maps or something. The city of Málaga has a very mild microclimate just as the nearby cities/towns because they're protected by nearby mountains, even the inland suburbs are warmer than the airport. But nevermind, since even the airport station is warmer than anywhere in Lisbon.

You will learn someting new today. Have you seen the 1981-2010 official averages of the AEMET Port of Málaga station from Infoclimat? What about the official AEMET station of nearby Torremolinos within the WMO website which shows perfectly how a coastal sheltered climate (like Málaga, unlike the airport) has much warmer winters. Málaga has 3 official AEMET stations, the airport one, the port one and another one from the meteorological center, which is slightly inland. The coast/port has always warmer lows, around 2-3C even in summer, just check them in the AEMET website by going to the "Weather Observation" tab. Luckily, a couple of trustworthy websites acquired from AEMET the 1981-2010 data from some of the official observatory stations. Check this out:

Port of Málaga (Official AEMET station) 1981-2010 averages from Infoclimat: https://www.infoclimat.fr/climatologie/normales-records/1981-2010/malaga-puerto/valeurs/08479.html

Torremolinos (Official AEMET station) 1981-2010 averages from the WMO website: https://worldweather.wmo.int/en/city.html?cityId=2909

Have you seen that data? And I'm being righteous using only the Airport station as a reference, not these ones, which are official too, but much warmer than the airport of Málaga itself, even more than Lisbon, obviously. Also, both IPMA stations in Lisbon are inside the city, one close to the city centre, both are affected by the Urban Heat Island phenomenon since they're in very built-up areas and even with that data, Lisbon is colder than both of these cities, period. Valencia has also warmer winters looking at the only official AEMET station inside the city's limits, which is called Viveros. I don't know much about Valencia, but I do about Málaga since I live in this city, and official data can't be wrong,

What about Palermo? Palermo has cooler winters than Lisbon, Palermo has 2 official stations, Boccadifalco and Valverde. Punta Raisi Airport is NOT located in Palermo (neither near Palermo) but in Cinisi, which is at 26km/14mi from the last NW outskirts of Palermo, more than 30km/19mi from the city itself, considering it as a Palermo station just because it's the main airport serving the region is delusional. It's like saying the typical climate in Los Angeles is the one from LAX since that's the main regional airport. Isn't that way too silly? This is basically the same thing.

Palermo, within it's city limits (counting also nearby places) has 2 official stations from the Servizio Meteorologico, Boccadifalco and Valverde:

Palermo Boccadifalco: http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Stazione_meteorologica_di_Palermo_Boccadifalco

Palermo Valverde: http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Stazione_meteorologica_di_Palermo_Valverde

Palermo-Valverde is not far from the city centre but it's even cooler than Boccadifalco, which is the one I mentioned before in my previous edit, again to be fair enough. So the three warmest cities with a population above 500.000 in Europe are Málaga, Valencia and Lisbon judging their climates by their official averages, considering just the official stations located within the city's limits, not the ones that are in other cities or at dozens of kilometers just because they're their airports or something. It's clear for you now? There's no need to put this in any other place as well, since these 3 are the warmest "big" cities by winter means in Europe backed up by official data from their respective national weather agencies.

@Pfarla: If you call yourself italian-spanish that means you're both nationalities, so you're spanish and living in Spain. I'm pretty sure I know more about climate than you do. I am very aware of the websites you linked to. Infoclimat.fr, really? that is probably one of the worst climate websites, not because the data is wrong (for the most part) but because the majority of the time the data is not really from 1981-2010, but from 2 or 3 or 10 year recordings. It's so incorrect a toddler could find errors on any page of that website, that's why you don't see Climate Tables sourced to that website. I'm going to "teach" you another thing you probably don't know, WMO's data has a remark saying the data is from 1981-2010 when it was recorded in that time period, if it doesn't have that remark it's not a Climatological normal and the values tend to be inflated, as it happens with Torremolinos. I don't know if you know this but Lisbon is warmer than Valencia in February (a winter month) so your theory/statement goes down the drain with that. Interior Valencia is also cooler than the majority (or at least a minor part) of Lisbon and you should know that if you know a thing or two about climate, the Valencia airport has an average 1.2ºC cooler than Lisbon for all winter months and is near the border of Pobles de l'Oest and Campanar, a.k.a Valencia so yes it's still incorrect to rank cities based on 1 station at 1 point.

But my point it's not if that single station is warmer or not, my point is it's unnecessary. As Wikipedia states, edits should be made to improve the article. That doesn't improve in anyway an article which is about Lisbon, that comment is just there, again, to call out spanish cities, it's redundant and should not be there.

There is another user (Holakitty) who also believes in what I'm saying so you either try to deny all the things I said with a strong argument or I'll eventually have to edit that out because not a single non-spanish user agrees with that unnecessary sentence. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Photo montage

I'm going to change the montage for a better one. If anyone opposes it, say it here before reversing. − Allice Hunter ^(Inbox) 00:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Moved from article

There might be a few more things to be "squeezed" out of the Dutch-language article. My Dutch is not great, so I might have missed something. (Use the article with care, though, there appear to be a few errors there, although it was clearer than the Portuguese on the reconquista.) I chose to leave out some information in that article that seemed to me to be general history of Portugal rather than of Lisbon. I also chose to omit the mention of Bosch and Dürer works in the National Museum. I supposed having Bosches is notable & could be added (preferably with some specifics as to what works), but what major European national museum lacks Dürers? -- Jmabel 07:15, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

lol Rita Guerra is a prominent person? this must be some kind of joke

Well, I suppose it is questionable (I didn't add her) but if you think not, you should probably nominated the article about her for deletion. -- Jmabel 16:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The following was added by an anon to the description of the Vasco da Gama Bridge. I found it incomprehinsible (and probably only marginally encyclopedic), so I cut it. "In 98 a know Detergent brand organized the biggest lunch table on the main plataform of the bridge with 20 km, beeing listed as one of the biggest in world at Guiness Book of Records." If anyone knows what this means to say and thinks it's worth saying, feel free to rewrite it comprehensibly & re-add, or to write it here in Portuguese or whatever else within reason & someone can translate. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:02, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 14 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katemackie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Expand Jewish history of Lisbon

There is no mention of the expulsion of Jews in 1496; the article currently only says, "In 1506, 3,000 Jews were massacred in Lisbon. The 16th century was Lisbon's golden era..." This is a pretty unfortunate segue to say the least. Qatarperegrine (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, man, that's pretty bad. I've added some sourced content to mitigate that. Thanks for pointing it out. Carlstak (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Pictures

Glad to have all these pictures, but the current layout is a disaster. It may work at some screen resolution, but it's a sloppy mess on the one I use. There are ways to do this so it scales. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 31 October 2004 (UTC)