Talk:Olivenza

Portuguese de juro claim

Sure we must mention the Portuguese claim in the opening but the way it was explained violated our neutrality policy which is indifference between Spain and Portugal. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? I think it was NPOV before your edit. Húsönd 00:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but you are clearly biased in favour of one side. The issue is not that Portugal claims this Spanish territory, its the completely out of proportion prominence given to that claim. I am not even suggesting it should be remo0ved from the opening but it does appear 1 Portuguese editor, motivated I imagine by the best of good faith intentions, is completely POVing this article by making out the Portuguese claim has more weight than the Spanish de facto control of this territory. This will not stand. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay I guess you depleted my patience to put up with your incessant nonsense, bad faith assumptions and ludicrous accusations. I will henceforth simply ignore your comments and if you keep interfering with the fragile NPOV of this article I shall request feedback on your actions. Húsönd 18:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil or it will be me seeking feedback on your frankly rude accusations. Do you tell everyone who disagrees with you they are talking incessant nonsense. Do we first state the Falklands are Argentinian? etc. I have asked for mediation and you have refused so up till now I have seen no evidence of any attempt on your part to resolve this issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I understand your concerns over the lead paragraph, but wirting "Olivenza is a Spanish city blah blah" is nothing but an insult, which is something more serious than plain "POV" it is not comparable to the Maldives neither. -Pedro (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The goverment of Portugal not claim sovereignty to Olivenza [1], also in the portuguese news (Martins da Cruz defende melhores relações entre a UE e os países do Sul. 04.09.2003 - 11h08 - Última Hora / PolíticaO ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Martins da Cruz, defendeu ontem à noite em Leiria o reforço das relações entre a União Europeia e os países vizinhos do Sul como medida essencial de Política Externa, Segurança e Defesa (PESD) dos Quinze.),[2] and the close towns near to the border betwen spain and portugal have a cooperation pact [3]--87.223.156.42 (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

New article on disputed status

I have just asked user Licor on his talk page why he created the article Disputed status of Olivença, as it only has content copied from this article. Depending on his answers, that article may be elligible for deletion. --maf (talk-cont) 11:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do think that there is space for a further development of the issue in a separate article. However, it should follow the same naming conventions as this article. --Ecemaml (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No answer so far, and no development on that article so far, so I'm removing the link to that article. If it can or should be deleted, someone please go ahead and do it. --maf (talk-cont) 01:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why district of Évora?

Olivença was never part of a district in Portugal. This article has always put Olivença in the district of Évora, with which it shares the most of its border, but other opinions would put it in the district of Portalegre, with which it shares almost no border but has the most affinities. So, unless someone produces an official source that places Olivença in the district of Évora, I'll remove those references from the article. --maf (talk-cont) 01:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

When Portugal was divided in districts, Olivença was placed under the district of Évora - sources abound on the internet for this (such as this one). Obviously that was a mere formality, as not even the official website of the district of Évora shows Olivença as one of the district's municipalities. However, the Portuguese Republic continues to recognize Olivença as a part of that district and therefore this article must reflect that. Húsönd 09:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there an official document to the effect of putting Olivença in Évora? I can't find one, which is different from finding lots of sources, all of which are speculative if there is indeed no official document. There are sources pro-Évora and there are sources pro-Portalegre, like these: one, two, three, and so on and so on. Find an official document or I'll also place Portalegre on the article if I can't remove Évora, just to add to the confusion. Sorry. --maf (talk-cont) 00:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your first link does not say Olivença belongs to Portalegre, same for the second one (which btw is a blog, not allowed as a source), and the so on and so on is a Google search where rendered results do not place Olivença in the district of Portalegre, just a list of articles where the three words are included. I don't know if you're trying to be funny with these "sources", but in response to your intention to "add to the confusion", here's something for you to read. Húsönd 07:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your source does not say Olivença belongs to Évora. The Google search reveals sources as authoritative as yours - it's not the search that is the source. Clear now? I repeat: to have Évora in the article is speculative as long as an official source is not found. -maf (talk-cont) 09:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, read again. Húsönd 18:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My point is made. I'm going to edit the article now with appropriate citation of source. --maf (talk-cont) 19:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit undone, and if you continue in this matter, you will be reported for transgressing WP:POINT. For the last time, the "sources" you brought are not valid, get informed first. Or at least read them. This one does not mention that Olivença belongs to Portalegre, and this one is a wiki, not valid. Now please stop with your so-called "point". Húsönd 20:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I obviously don't know the rules and guidelines like you do, and that's why I can count on you. Thanks for keeping this a tidy place. At least we got something out of this as now the placement in Évora is sourced in the article, and my assertion (can't say my point) that it is speculative based on non-admissible sources is still on record. --maf (talk-cont) 10:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's okay, I apologize if I was rather blunt in my previous comment. Please continue to contribute as before, as this discussion indeed brought something positive to the article. On a related note, I have also found this other source which also places Olivença in Évora. Thank you. Húsönd 19:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny that we're discussing whether Olivença would belong to the districts of Portalegre or Évora, and the validity of the source presented, while at the same time require a source ([citation needed]) to justify the obvious: that if it was de facto Portuguese, it would belong to the region of Alentejo! (All Portuguese regions are connected, so Olivença couldn't belong to any other region; plus, both Portalegre and Évora are fully in the Alentejo region, so either way Olivença would be part of Alentejo...) Gazilion (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Shield and Flag

The reason the spanish language Wikipedia has a fake shield and flag of Olivenza, is because some spaniards are tring to prevent the democratic world to know that the Territory in question is portuguese by law and in accordance with that has a portuguese republic municipal shield an flag. More than that the population is 80% ethnic portuguese and the portuguese language is widely spoken. I bet they will continue to lie to the wikipedia readers and the oliventino people will win in the end. --Oliventino (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The spanish language Wikipedia has the correct shield and flag of Olivenza according to the law, as it is properly referenced at Estremaduran Official Diary: De gules, una torre detrás de un lienzo de muralla, todo de oro; de entre ambos sale un olivo verde que queda resaltado de la torre, timbrado con la Corona Real española. Al timbre, Corona Real cerrada. Fuente: DOE/24 de Octubre de 2000/Número: 123, which means: In reds, a tower behind of a wall on canvas. Between them, a green olive raises standing out from the wall, with a Spanish closed royal crown above all. Over the shield, a Spanish closed royal crown. Notice that they used both time the Spanish closed royal crown and not the mural crown that Oliventino demands implicity. Felipealvarez (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact the description made is of a municipality of the Province of Badajoz. This is not the case of the Municipio of Olivenza, that has the shield and flag of the Portuguese Republic because is portuguese Territory under spanish administration. And the reason why this happens is because the democratic spanish state can not act against the will of the majority of ethnic portuguese living in the Territory of Olivenza. Spain has only the administration, not the sovereignty that gives it the right to include Olivenza as a spanish municipality. You can prove what i am sayng looking at the oficial site of the Ayuntamiento of Olivenza. --Oliventino (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Macau

For better understanding this issue please check this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_the_sovereignty_of_Macau It's easier to understand though it have some major differences. Anyway Macau was never part of the Portuguese territory. Macau was always part of China. Portugal had the sovereignty of Macau until December 20, 1999. Portugal and China always had very good relations. Olivenza is not part of the Spanish territory. Olivença is part of the Portuguese territory. Spain has the sovereignty of Olivença. According to international law Spain has to transfer the sovereignty of Olivença to Portugal. Until then Portugal doesn't have sovereignty over Olivença. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.73.86 (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Olivenza is a portuguese town administered by Spain

What defines Olivenza as a portuguese Municipality is the fact that its inhabitants are in majority ethnic portuguese, the portuguese language is spoken and the Territory is recognized internationaly as portuguese by eight european powers in the Treaty of Vienne of 1815. The spanish administration does not made a portuguese town a spanish one, as it is clearly demonstrated by the use of the portuguese municipal Shield and Flag by the Ayuntamiento, what made impossible to be considered a town of the Province of Badajoz. In this spanish province all the municipalities have shield and flag defined by law in the spanish way which is mandatory. It does not aply to Olivenza because the Territory is not legally spanish and has a special administrative link with Comunidad Autonoma de Extremadura. Olivenza is widely recognized in European Union as a portuguese Territory and the European Comission have questioned the Spanish state about the situation of the teaching of the portuguese language in schools. The oliventino people and its leaders have formed recently an association to defend their culture and language and clearly defined their portuguese ethnic nationality that is diferent from the political spanish citizenship. It is not correct to say that the nationality of the oliventinos is indifined because they are ethnic portuguese and spanish citizens. Alemguadiana is a verifiable source of the portuguese nationality of the oliventino people and nobody in the EU or otherwise can denie this reality. We hope that the Wykipedia will cooperate in the divulgation of the reality of the Territory of Olivenza in Europe as it is his obligation as an enciclopedia on line.--Oliventino (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For more information on the portuguese town of Olivenza vide the blog of Alemguadiana and the map of Portugal.--Oliventino (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What you need is reliable sources to reference this. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What is more reliable than the Vienna Treaty of 1815, the Fontainebleau Treaty or the Badajoz Treaty of 1801? The problem is that nobody cares about Olivenza but the oliventino people and their leaders. And we don`t want information in the wikipedia that don`t reflect the reality and the nationality of our Territory. Just an example, if we don´t make a move, the fake shield and flag invented by the spaniards, probably was in the english version, as currently is in the spanish, italian, german and french version of the article about Olivenza. The spanish they don`t have shame of telling lies in the internet, they count in spanish influence and the silence of the portuguese to carry on. We may be administered by Spain but we are portuguese by international law and we never give up our language our culture and the truth. --Oliventino (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia policies

I am not violating any Wikipedia WP:SOAP or WP:NPOV policies, in contrary i am enforcing a neutral and fair vision of the situation of the Territory of Olivenza. Olivenza is the facto a portuguese town administered by Spain and this a verifiable fact that can be proved by the international Treaty signed by eight european powers of Europe including Spain. An history of sistematic violation of the international law and Treaties by Spain does not change the portuguese ethnic nationality of the Oliventino people. The administration of the Territory of Olivenza by Spain does not implys sovereignty as it is proved beyond any doubt by the portuguese municipal shield and flag of Olivenza, against a law of the spanish Junta de Extremadura. The Municipal autonomy of Olivenza is a verifiable fact and the Territory is not de facto and de jure part of Spain. The situation of a Territory administered by a foreign power is recognized by the United Nations and was used some times in history to solve political problems, and i quote the case of Namibia that was administered several years by South Africa and never was South African Territory. This is clearly the case of the Olivenza Territory and can not be denied by anyone. So Olivenza is the facto a Portuguese town administered by Spain.--Oliventino (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No you're not. Spain would give a different interpretation to the treaties and their present application. As far as Spain is concerned, Olivenza is Spanish. And since there's two points of view, trying to impose one goes against WP:NPOV. And dumping your personal analysis goes against WP:SOAP. And WP:COI. And WP:NOR. If you don't stop doing this you will eventually get blocked. Húsönd 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So Spaniards and Portuguese people have a different etchnicity now? I do not think you could find differences, even genetic ones, between people living along the spanish-portuguese border. But what I think does not matter here. Wikipedia is not a forum. The article should just state that Spanish has the the facto control over the area, and then state the de iure claims of both countries. More than that is out of place. 212.163.172.180 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Leiro212.163.172.180 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Missed to include information

Spain signed the treaty of Viena, in which spain would cede sovereignity of Olivenza to Portugal. Portugal then attacked spanish colony of Uruguay, and this was the main reason why Olivenza was kept by Spain, I think this should be included. The official page of the Olivenza municipality gives an opinion about this, which I think could also be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enriquegoni (talk • contribs) 22:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Recognition"?!?

The begining paragraphs of this article mention "the 'refusal of Portugal to recognize' the Spanish sovereignty over Olivenza". That's a tremendously biased statement, based on the Spanish point of view.

Portugal does not refuse to recognize the Spanish sovereignity over that territory any more than Spain refuses to recognize the Portuguese sovereignity over Olivença.

In order to make this article more impartial, I shall fix this passage.

Popotão (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If the Spanish and Portuguese articles says the same thing, why in the English one we have all the crap about the issue?

I think the best way to explain everything is how is explained in the Portuguese article:

Olivença (em castelhano Olivenza) é uma cidade e um município numa zona fronteiriça cuja definição é objecto de litígio entre Portugal e Espanha,[1] reivindicada de jure por ambos os países e administrada de facto como parte integrante da comunidade autónoma da Extremadura.

Olivenza (name in English, we do not write Lisboa, we write Lisbon; or Sevilla, we write Seville, in English) is a city in a border zone between Portugal and Spain, which is consider as dispute zone, is claimed de jure by both countries and de facto managed as member of Spanish Autonomous Community of Extremadura.

Political interest and nationalism thinking should be outside wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.221.120 (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Olivenza is not claimed by Portugal.

http://www.portugal.gov.pt/pt/Imagens/Portugal_Imagens/Territorio/CartaPortugal_o.jpg

Even if I can't read Portugese, I can view maps. The map of Portugal officially used on the Portugese Governments website (linked above) does not include the so-called "disputed territory" of Olivenza. Von Mario (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Image can't be found (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

See also

• Disputed status of Gibraltar
• Iberian Federalism

¿Que tiene que ver eso? Como diría Saavedra Deja que los perros ladren Sancho amigo, es señal que vamos pasando —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.42.146.23 (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Fake Shield on the municipal flag of Olivenza Almost two years after we tried to make our point and enforced the truth about de real status of the portuguese city and Territory of Olivenza, we came back and realize that those who opposed that Olivenza was defined as a portuguese city administred by Spain, acepted a fake shield on the municipal flag of Olivenza. Shame on you, that dares to affront a small portuguese minority on the European Union that with pride fight for their freedom and right to be recognized for what they are, a portuguese minority in the Spanish State. But while you think that we exist no more our singers sing with pride in our national language as you can see in that link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7cX1unEk3I). By the way our strugle continues and we will never give up hope until at last all the Nations in European Union, with responsability in our present situation, acepted our existence as a portuguese non autonomous national minority in the Spanish State. And Wikipedia must repair the damage that is doing to us and tell the truth to the english speaking world. Is it so dificult to speak the truth? As a matter of fact Spain does not gives a different interpretation of the Treaties. That is a modern claim of some spanish intelectuals with no respect for the truth and rightnous. They signed the Treaty of Vienna and that is final.The Badajoz Treaty of 1801 was never signed by the french, so the Territory of Olivenza was never spanish by international law. --Oliventino (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC) If it is a portuguese town, and there is no doubt about that, we must say portuguese, is more objective.--Oliventino (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Claims of sovereignty

I've removed the following from the Claims of sovereignty section (more than once):

Neverthelsee, Olivenza has been Spanish for over 214 years and will remain as such. Perhaps, the Portuguese nation would be better to focus its energies on the current crippling economic crisis rather than focus its energies on the past and what once was; a difficult psychological task indeed. [4]

The ref was converted to an inline URL for use on this talk page.

Problems:

• The ref is a blog, not a WP:RS.
• This material was inserted in front of the original ref, making it appear that the original ref was supporting this statement.
• The "will remain as such" statement is POV. Sure, Olivenza may well remain Spanish, and even probably will, but We don't know (and can't know) that it will.
• The statement that the Portuguese nation would be better to worry about the economic crisis instead, is not encyclopedic. It's not for Wikipedia to tell the Spanish nation what issues it should be concerned with.

I wouldn't bother bringing this to the talk page, except this has been added three times now to this article and once to Disputed status of Olivenza . So, here it is. Anyone want to attempt to justify this addition? Meters (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that the sentence is ridiculously slanted and poorly sourced. It's not even close to being acceptable and should not be re-added. Pichpich (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Spurious use of "de facto" and "de jure"

We really need to set some limits on the spurious use of "de facto" vs. "de jure" borrowed from Portuguese-nationalist agitprop: Olivenza lies within Spain's internationally recognized borders (cf. the United Nations, CIA World Factbook, European Union, NATO, etc.) -- there's simply no question or ambiguity in international law about this. The notion that Spain is only "de facto" administering a territory whose "de jure" status is unknown/undetermined is effectively rubbish: There isn't a single international body which recognizes Olivenza as Portuguese territory or even as disputed territory -- only within a narrow fringe of the Lusophone Internet is this putative "dispute" even an issue.

The only way to render this non-controversy without violating WP:UNDUE would be to note, in passing, that "Portugal does not recognize Spanish sovereignty over the territory of Olivenza based on a difference of interpretation of the 1815 Congress of Vienna and the 1801 Treaty of Badajoz." Portugal is free to recognize or not recognize what it likes, and the rest of the world is free to ignore it. Albrecht (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Reverted obviously controversial move by POV editor to long term stable name. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Olivenza (disambiguation) → Olivenza – The stable old name. Changed on 15 January 2018 in a disruptive move [5][6]. Asqueladd (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit warring over two images

Four months of edit warring (with no discussion) over whether to use File:Bandera de Olivenza.svg and File:Escudo de Olivenza (corona mural).svg or File:Bandera de Olivenza DOE 123 2000.svg and File:Escudo de Olivenza.svg. I don't know which is correct. Could someone please provide a reliable source as to which we should be using? Meters (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, please look the official site web of Olivenza : http://www.olivenza.es/ SC Lusoense (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that that page uses the coat of arms file:Escudo de Olivenza (corona mural).svg. Since this is controversial it would be better to provide a reference that specifically states that this version of the coat of arms is official, or one that uses it on an official document rather than just as wallpaper on an online post. I do not see the flag on this page. Can you provide a reliable source for that? And for future reference, it's a really bad idea to revert an edit 16 times without attempting to discuss the material on the talk page, particularly after you have been given an edit warring warning. Meters (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Meters, http://doe.juntaex.es/pdfs/doe/2000/1230o/00051336.pdf the document is official. SC Lusoense (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That's the same source as is given in all four image descriptions on Wikipedia Commons. Google translate says "ORDER of October 3, 2000, which approves the Heraldic Shield and the Municipal Flag, for the City of Olivenza." This seems like it should be a good source, but it's internally inconsistent. The text says that the inscription should be "La Muy Noble, Notable y Siempre Leal Ciudad de Olivenza" (emphasis mine) but the image of the shield and flag use the shorter inscription "La Notable y Siempre Leal Ciudad de Olivenza".

File:Bandera de Olivenza.svg and File:Escudo de Olivenza (corona mural).svg match the written description of the text (but not the text in the images) from the document. The details of the tower, tree, and crown (over the shield) in both of these Wikipedia images match the images from the source.

The shield image File:Escudo_de_Olivenza.svg has no inscription at all, has a crown over the tower (inside the shield) which is not in the official image, and the details of the tower, tree, and crown (over the shield) differ from those in the official image. The flag image File:Bandera de Olivenza DOE 123 2000.svg repeats this version of the shield on the flag, but adds the inscription "La Notable y Siempre Leal Ciudad de Olivenza"., which agrees with the official; image but not the textual description. The shield shown in Bandera de Olivenza DOE 123 2000.svg is also smaller that the depiction in the official image form the reference.

The images in the source do not support using File:Escudo_de_Olivenza.svg or File:Bandera de Olivenza DOE 123 2000.svg.

As recently as 27 December 2017 http://www.olivenza.es/ has uses the version of the shield that matches File:Escudo de Olivenza (corona mural).svg in all details (full inscription, no crown inside the shield, tower details, tree details, and exterior crown details) I believe we should go back to File:Escudo de Olivenza (corona mural).svg and File:Bandera de Olivenza.svg. Meters (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Est-il possible de protéger la page contre le vandalisme ? merci SC Lusoense (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible to ask for protection since the IP user is continuing to hop to new accounts and restore his or her preferred version without discussion. I'll wait a day or two for any more input before I do so, and I suggest that you not make any more reverts in the meantime. Meters (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@SC Lusoense and Meters: Hello. For your information, the IP has come back. ^›› Fugitron - 18:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I've done what I can to analyse this issue. No-one else has since [clarification added] added any other suggestions or explained the issue. Unless someone does the images should remain as is. Meters (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree, nothing has changed and no new arguments have been added. The demeanor of the IPs is not constructive in any way. ^›› Fugitron - 19:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

If needed, I can elaborate a bit.

• On one hand, you've got a coat of arms which appears in an official document, though not matching the description it's given, and which is currently in use by the municipality of Olivenza. On the other hand, you've got a coat of arms that is described in an official document, but not drawn, and not used.
• Similarly, on the one hand, you've got a flag which appears in an official document, though not matching the description it's given, and which is currently in use by the municipality of Olivenza. And on the other hand, a flag which appears literaly nowhere else on the Internet, that is described in an official document, but not used either.

For me, it is pretty clear which two are legitimate in the infobox, and which two are not. Using symbols that are not in use and have not been drawn officially is an original research. It is neither neutral nor factual. It is not in Wikipedia's role to push the use of symbols based on some of its contributors' opinions. If the other user still refuses to cooperate (since he chose to adopt a vandalistic behaviour rather than a constructive one), I will ask for a protection of the page. ^›› Fugitron - 11:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

On a side note, the double-crowned coat of arms does not appear either anywhere outside of Wikipedia. The decision of which symbols to use should not belong to some heraldry fanatics, but to the sources. ^›› Fugitron - 11:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)