Talk:Kingdom of the Algarve

coat of arms

A few versions of the COA of the Algarve kingdoms have no provable citations or informations about the souces at all, only the 1666 version is provable

• see here: Serious doubts
• and there: Talk:Algarve#Kingdom_of_the_Algarves

• 
  source cite exists (and is corresponding with this FOTW-flag)
• doubtful version
  doubtful version
• 
  doubtful version
• 
  photo from Olhao

--Roksanna (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

To me, the new coat of arms is merely a modern recreation of the 17th century version
Dear User:Cristiano Tomás, what kind of stupid argumentation is that? It is absolut not relevant what this 1666 version seems to you, private opinions are nothing against facts. And fact is, that the 1666 version has a provable source from the time when the kingdom still really did exist. Your version however ist just a private creation from the 21st century, 100 years after the kingdom was abolished. So where are your sources or citations? WHERE??? --Roksanna (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, we will keep your 1666 coat, but do you know how to conduct yourself civily? Learn how or I'll report you!Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you feel offended my way, then you should know it was not my intention. However, it is nothing I have to apologize for. I easily become angry when people subbornly do not want to see or accept facts. In the begin I softly tried to show you the current debate about the COA; you prefered to ignore. So it is normal that my style become more harsh. And, by the way, I usually ignore such threating phrases like "or I will report you". Moreover, in my opinion people who edit POV despite contrary facts should be reported. Finally I am happy we found a solution, maybe we broke the ice for a more constructive cooperation in the future, I am ready to learn and accept when I am wrong... if I am wrong. --Roksanna (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

So I have a question, If I was to make an exact copy of this 1666 coat of arms, the same just a digital version (you know what I mean, do you?), would that be acceptable? Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not understand what you want to ask. Every image what shows the 1666 version is always a copy only because in 1666 it was not yet possible to create jpg, gif or other images. I give you another example problem. I have a written descripition about a COA of a special german-dutch aristocratic family... however, it is just written. If I would create an image now, it would be just my fantasy how I imagine it. If there is a phrase like "a hangig flag" it could be like I imagine it but it is no guarantee it is how is like the original. So if you have no image to compare, maybe an old seal or a fresco or something like that, then you cannot create your own versions. So the only thing I could do with the Algarve COA was to show how it was published in a 1666 atlas. Thanks God that Atlas had an imagine of the COA, not a description only. Best regards --Roksanna (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe your version base on an image, too. But just to write "drawn Nuno A. G. Bandeira" is not a source, because nobody can know where and when it was done and where is the prove? Did he publish it in a book? Or is it painted on any wall, maybe? Where? When? How? Provable Details are missed.... Best regards --Roksanna (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, you answered my questions. I would be happy to take a look at your coa description, and I could tell you whether I could create it our not:) cheers Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You will have to go to the library and look for the Atlas of 1666, then maybe you can make a photo and then you can "create" it. However, it will not be your "own creation" then. ;-) --Roksanna (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Category : History of Morocco

Hello,

Please consider the removal of this category for two reasons :

• An article about the History of a country/territory is never linked to the category:history of its former colonies
• The two categories were added by a SockPuppet of user:Bokpasa, a notorious vandal that ignores WP rules, and keeping them despite the global use on WP is only a PoV pushing.

Thanks.

Omar-Toons (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

How lovely of you to call me a vandal, the feeling is mutual. While I did not at the categories, I find that they are truthful! The kingdom of the ALgarve is relevenant to a piece of Moroccan history and should be seen as such.

Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hum, I was talking about the IP who added these categories, per WP:DUCK.

Btw, these categories are as relevant as the ones of other colonies. Categories like "History of Mazagao", "History of Tangier" and "History of Arzila" could be appropriated (as the "History of Ceuta" one), but linking the whole country is completely irrelevant (would be as linking it to the "History of Spain" for the reason that a city that was dependent to this "vice-royalty" is now a Spanish city).

--Omar-Toons (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes the individual cities histories are relevant, but by that, the histories of the country, no? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, for the simple reason that History is related to geopolitical entities, not only geographical criteria. Associating the whole entity's History with the one of a geographical part is simply irrelevant. Feel free to create the category related to these cities. --Omar-Toons (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Freed? WHOSE freedom are we talking about?

As of July 28th 2018, this article contains the sentence "During the Reconquista, Portuguese and Castilian conquests went south, to free lands that had been conquered by Muslim armies in the 8th century." The word "free" is non-encyclopedic. It's relativistic. I'd agree if the Christian Reconquerors of the Iberian Peninsula had the aim (and, when they were in control, enacted it) of ensuring that nobody lived by anybody else's rules, including in the matter of religion. But we know that's poppycock. Yes, under Muslim rule, Christians were not as free as they would have been under Christian rulers. But under Christian rulers no Muslim or Jew was as free as they would have been under Muslim or Jewish rulers. The information that I have is that the Muslim rulers were more tolerant. You could be a Jew or a Christian but you were treated unfavorably in law. In contrast, under the Christians if you were a Jew or Muslim you had to convert, leave, or be killed. So who was "freeing" whom here? I don't pretend that the Muslim rulers fit my idea of egalitarian utopia. BUT NEITHER DO THE CHRISTIAN RULERS WHO KICKED THEM OUT!!! It's an outrage that an "encyclopedia" would tolerate having an ideological sentence like that. Once again, Wikipedia is awful beyond belief, an attack on the very idea of what it means to be objective.2604:2000:C682:2D00:DD51:B035:11FD:95CD (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

- You sound salty, not going to lie. Calm yourself and don't take this like the end is nigh. Best regards.

GumSkyloard (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)