Jump to content

Talk:Censorship in Portugal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Progress and Translation Issues

[edit]

Added the 1st republic and translated the portuguese text into english. A native speaker could please have a look and make sure that the grammar is correct. I tried keeping the original names for the institutions with translated meaning in parentesis, as this would facilitate integration with their own arcticles in the future as well as provide people doing further reseach with the proper portuguese names. Galf 23:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't brave enough to translate the rest of it yet, but added the Present Day Section, just in case someone was wondering how things are now... Galf 11:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All, Translation now stands at 90%, with only the section on "the effects of censorship in portuguese criativity" to go. I am personally not very keen on it, for 2 reasons: it's POV and it's unsourced. As it stands now, the acticle is largely unsourced, although a good history book would probably provide all the adequate referencies. as it stands that is already quite a task. the original article has 2 sources, one is a secondary source on this very subject, the other is a dead link.

I would like to see some imput here before proceeding and would also like some imput on the translation itself. Even to me some terms were not always clear, Mesa for instance means both court of law and directors board depending on the context, even during the same period.

all help is welcome Galf 09:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one thought I have: another system of presenting the original Portuguese titles of encyclicals and other written words should be found, because as the article currently presents them, it might appear to a casual reader that phrases or strings of text remain untranslated. I understand and completely support Gaif's rationale for retaining the original-language titles, but maybe they can be listed at the end of the article, like notes? -Fsotrain09 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point there, maybe italicizing the portuguese names would do it? I'm not a fan of translating portuguese names, after all, who knows who Isabel Segunda is? the damage is done for the portuguese kings, and I'm not going on a portugezation rage, reverting all names to the proper portuguese spellings. The custom of translating foreign names has been loosing ground in portugal, William and Harry were never known as Guilherme e Henrique, but on the other hand if you google for "Lapis azul" you imediatly get links on censorship in portugal (not wikipedia pages, btw) if you search for Blue Pencil, you get, well, pencils. What I mean by this is that keeping the original names enables readers to have the proper names to continue their reaserch should they have to, instead of translations, that might not be 100% correct or reversible. Mesa Grande (large table or large desk) actually means the Supreme Court, but without the original name further research is impossible. Bottom line: I agree with making clear distinctions, but keeping them in-line on the article.
On a different subject, the article has too many poetical wording and in-line references, especially to laws and dates. Law and Decree numbers are a reference in themselves, and I think they should be turned into that and removed the main body of text.
A final thing I need, before finishing the translation is an opinion on the "effects of censorship section" translate, not translate? it's very op-edish for my taste, and I can just see the NPOV and OR tags flashing before my eyes. I think the article paints a very good picture of the subject as is and it matches perfectly with my parent's description of the times before the revolution as well as the caos of the 1st republic and just before that. Galf 14:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now translated, copy-editing are to follow....any takers? Galf 12:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help with that as I can. The templates should be changed to {{cleanuptranslation}}. I will do that if no one objects. -Fsotrain09 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently that template does not exist anymore, I advanced the state of the translation to "proofreaders needed". Once the article in in proper, readable English we can remove the template. One thing I would like to see are more sources added....I really don't know how this is a featured article in PT, but for the EN wikipedia it is still lagging. I will try to put some effort on the red links, at least starting the stubs, most of the writers names are somewhat familiar to me and I believe they are all recognized in Portugal. just as a side note, António Lobo Antunes, has written a book called "The Inquisitors' Manual" which is published in English and deals with transition from the Estado Novo to the democracy.Galf 09:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Souza Lara and the Veto

[edit]

(Copied from User_talk:CSTAR#Censorship_in_Portugal)

Hi there, I noticed you made some changes to the article I have been translating and I thank you for cooperation. However, you changed vetted to rejected in the case of José Saramago and this is incorrect, Souza Lara had the fina say on the applications from Portugal and he used his power of veto to block Saramago's bock, hence, he vetted it. Also, I am aware that the comment on lobbying is not on the original Portuguese version, and I included it for clarity, as many English-speaking readers (Americans) would not understand why are lobbies refered here, since they are perfectly legal in the US. Galf 18:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The portuguese version clearly says "veto" meaning as ypu say to block; it seems to me that the sense of "vet" as ordinarily used in English does not necessarily entail rejection.--CSTAR 18:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I knew there was a good reason for not reverting other people's work. :-) do you think "Vetoed" would be more clear? This is the reason why I asked for native speaker to help, but can we have this discussion on the [Lara and the Veto|article's talk] instead? Galf 09:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I could have used "veto" (not vet, though), particularly since veto does imply rejection with the understanding that the person rejecting has final say, although sometimes it is used incorrectly to say rejection pure and simple. However, it would be better to say Souza Lara who had the final say on the applications from Portugal rejected Saramago's book or something like that.--CSTAR 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisitorial censorship

[edit]

Among other small changes, I substituted "the Dominicans" for "the Order of St. Dominic," in spite of the original article's reading "a Ordem de São Domingos"...in English, this order is known as the Dominicans their official name, the Order of Preachers. Benami 02:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand: are they better known in English as Dominican or Order of St. Dominic? because in portugal there are the Dominicans, which would be the ones present at the time and Irish missionaries from the order os St. Dominic. the 1st are priests, the second, nuns. So are we referring to the right ones?Galf 16:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The order of priests is known colloquially in English as the Dominicans, a native English speaker will assume that is what the reference is to; any order of women religious (that is, nuns) would not be anywhere as well known to English speakers by that name. -Fsotrain09 17:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case than we should definetly preserve Dominicans, because it is of Dominican Priests we are talking about here. No disretecpa, but I don't really imagine nuns running the inquisition....Galf 18:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think that at this point we should make an effort to see which redlinks have articles or even stubs on the Portuguese Wikipedia, and start the translation necessary to blueify them. With a major topic like this, there is a great opportunity to counter systematic bias through the associated articles. Thoughts? --Fsotrain09 01:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started some of that, but there's a lot to cover. Even prime ministers ware missing articles....I don't think we should de-wikilink, though. I'm portugese, but I'm not familiar with some of the periods, specially pre-republic, so information will have to be traced. I have my issues with the portuguese wikipedia editorship, but I am assuming that even redlinks in that article are somewhat important and were to be developed later. Some of the newspapers might have been absorbed into bigger ones, as happened with "O Açoriano" wich became "O Açoriano Oriental" and is now part of the Diário de Noticias group, and is still published online today. The main thing I'd like the article to convey is how the censorship covered itself, not only to abscond information from the public, but even it's own existance and how this led to the suspicion of censorship in modern portuguese society. Also, the evolution from public burnings, to more covert police arrassment, to the doctoring of news so as not to show censorship to quasi-cabalistic behind the scenes pressures of today, showing a "refinement of technique" to achieve the same goal.Galf 11:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Censorship in Portugal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Censorship_in_Portugal&oldid=1200730200"