Major General James G. Blunt

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Human rights This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Portugal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Portugal To-do: Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo. Improve key articles to Good article Portugal Lisbon Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box). Requests See Requested articles Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list —

Those remains found in macambo were not African slaves. they were Negro Portuguese- AKA Portuguese Jews. Macambo was a refugee/ghetto for them during the expulsion. It is a documented fact if you read orders from the monarchy At the times of 1400. It is a well known fact as well that Portugal was where the first trans Atlantic slave trade began. The thing about that is, they were shipping Portuguese Jews. When the Portuguese Jews confessed or converted to chatholism during the acto de fe, they would exile them to colonized countries for Slavs. You cand find that information in the monarch’s orders. Brazil, San tome, and Angola are some to name a few.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ptweil.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Spanish reconquista.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[This] edit by User:Rund Van introduced a lot of problems, particularly in terms of grammar, neutrality, factual accuracy and spelling. I've warned the user on his/her talk page, but the article still needs major attention. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I completed a full copyedit review earlier this month, so I hope that the article has improved to a reasonable standard.--Soulparadox (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sections in this article continues to display a dispute tag and the tag is also included at the top of the article. Is there any updates on where this situation stands, as of December 2012?--Soulparadox (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no further correspondence on this issue and the edit in question no longer exists so I am removing the tag.--Mevagiss (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This 'article' is a mish-mah of disjointed parts, and it is anything BUT slavery in Portugal. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions more than once "slaves who owned slaves". Is that even possible? Slaves were property - how can property own property? How could slaves exercise power of decision over their slaves? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps a little more subtle than it might seem. In many slave-owning societies it was possible for slaves to purchase their freedom. This too could not be done without their having property. Whether there was a strict legal foundation for their right to own property is probably not something that came to law very often. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

It is now a year latter and it seems that the issues you are talking about have been solved. --Apeximius (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have drafted a write up for the Black Slaves section, and the sources I use seem reputable, especially one from A. Saunders in a book he had published in 2010. You can find it in my sandbox, not sure if you can see it, I am new to Wikipedia. Let me know if I should modify the language so that I am not asserting the 10% is a concrete estimate, although it is found in two of my sources, and I also mention the Earthquake of 1755 as the cause for so much uncertainty to obtaining an accurate estimate of the population of black slaves and freedmen. Ptweil (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Slaves section, entirely based on the "Portugal" entry of the Encyclopaedia Britannica from 1911, is borderline outrageous when it claims that the in the 16th century Lisbon's population was made of 10% Black Slaves, which is completely wrong. The most recent edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica no longer carry those claims, but that 1911 entry is still often used and discussed on numerous "racial oriented" forums. I am not sure what were the contributor's intentions, but I suggest re-writing the section using a more reliable and reasonable source.Sindu5673 (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just random, this same 10% number appears in other historical sources, like John L. Vogt for example. I understand the section may be partly inaccurate, but it should remain even if it may not be perfect, as Black slavery is by far the most important story of slavery in Portugal. C1MM (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article talks about "Hideyoshi" as if this person had already been introduced, but they haven't been. Joriki (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all this article doesn't seem to contain anything earlier than "1997"--not that scholarly. Second,You might wanna be careful, distinguishing morrish prisoners from import of slaves. You have to understand that in 1777 in the United States the economy was so bad that Taylor had to work for six days to buy a pound of tea. A shirt would take four days of work just for the cloth. Everything cost $1000 because there just wasn't enough productivity. If someone was forced to be a prisoner because of their thieving and looting and invasion, they still had to work for a living. And selling them to someone else who would give them a job was a kindness. People have no idea what was going on in the past. All we know is there today people are vandalizing and spray painting and robbing the public for welfare and preferential treatment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.65.71 (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is very confusing, however You have to understand that in 1777 America was engaged in a war for its very existence!92.12.85.14 (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this article is fully wrong and messy i start wrote a new article and delete all of this but i need help i really fear of my article will delete as what always will happens. I need help and talk:)) Suwanax12 (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is 'fully wrong' about it? What changes do you intend to make? Agricolae (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What fully wrong??

The Moors used ethnic European slaves: 1/12 of Iberian population were slave Europeans, less than 1% of Iberia were Moors and more than 99% were native Iberians. Periodic Arab and Moorish raiding expeditions were sent from Islamic Iberia to ravage the remaining Christian Iberian kingdoms, bringing back stolen goods and slaves. In a raid against Lisbon in 1189, for example, the Almohad caliph Yaqub al-Mansur held 3,000 women and children as captives, while his governor of Córdoba, in a subsequent attack upon Silves, held 3,000 Christian slaves in 1191. In addition, the Christian Iberians who lived within Arab and Moorish-ruled territories were subject to specific laws and taxes for state protection.

This is fully fully fully wrong!!and there's no source it should to delete. i start to wrote compelete history with sources Suwanax12 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not "fully fully fully wrong", though it is unreferenced. For example, are you saying that there were not periodic raids from the Caliphate against the Christian kingdoms? Are you saying that Christians in the Caliphate did not pay taxes? Parts of this paragraph are indeed correct. Try again, only this time try to be less polemical and more accurate and specific as to what you think is actually wrong. Agricolae (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that they were paying the , but many of the things written are very exaggerated and have not happened at all until now I am trying to search for a source for this paragraph and I have not found any single source to prove this paragraph, so it must be deleted and written again Suwanax12 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your critique is entirely devoid of specifics. 'many of the things written are very exaggerated'? Which specific things? Exaggerated how? What do you intend to replace it with? Agricolae (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Instead of giving a point of view, could you send me the sources because I searched and couldn't find them. Suwanax12 (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that manipulating a large history like this is not a good thing. Some people need to search for find history, and they will article Wikipedia and find that some history is missing or incorrect. I have several books that I will rely on to write or generally quote here. We all have writing perspectives and we want to write what we want, but the Wikipedia encyclopedia must convey topics that have reliable sources and references so as not to convey wrong information to those who want to research Suwanax12 (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one of the biggest mistakes that I have written is the merging of slavery in the Umayyad era, the era of the monotheists and the era of the sects, and this is a wrong thing. Each slavery must be divided and separated separately. Also, each slavery must be explained how it was. Slavery against the Christians did not happen. but the "saqaliba" slavery one of the things that are missing in the article and not writing about it. The article should be more detailed and clear, as you wrote it in a chaotic manner Also, paying tribute is not part of slavery, and this is one of the big mistakes Suwanax12 (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry almohad*** Suwanax12 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't give a point of view, I asked you to explain yourself. Not the same thing at all. Further, you criticize the article "as [I] wrote it", but I didn't write it. If you think the different aspects of Medieval Iberian slavery need to be divided up, then say what specifically you propose, but if you are going to undertake it from the factually erroneous viewpoint that "Slavery against the Christians did not happen" then there is not going to be consensus. Agricolae (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a lot of Anglo Saxon propaganda to take heat off themselves and their own worst slavery.

I doubt there is anyone who thinks this is a great article, but is there something specific that you think merits attention? Generic complaints like 'this article sucks' lack the kind of specifics that are needed to be acted upon. Agricolae (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that on Wikipedia it reads that slavery was abolished in 1761 by Marques de Pombal, without a reference or anything. This date is disputed heavily, as there were still slaves in Portugal until 1869 (or even 1878). I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm giving a few sources here of the disputation: https://rr.sapo.pt/noticia/pais/2017/03/25/a-ultima-escrava-portuguesa-morreu-em-lisboa-nos-anos-1930/79112/, https://www.publico.pt/2017/04/14/politica/opiniao/portugal-evitando-falar-sobre-escravatura-desde-1761-1768756 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeroySteele (talk • contribs) 12:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]