Talk:Olivenza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list for Olivenza: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • NPOV:
    • Verify that article is NPOV throughout as this is a sensible subject --maf 13:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Requests:
    • Translate history from es:Olivenza and merge or delete the Chronology section --maf 13:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Create a references section (use es:Olivenza) --maf 13:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Expand:
  • Update:
    • Check status on restoration works to the old bridge --maf 13:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Portal:Portugal
 Portugal Portal
Olivenza is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Portugal To-do:
WikiProject_Spain
Portal:Spain
 Spain Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Spain which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.

Contents

[edit] Spanish or Portuguese

Hello. I have just changed the first line of the article where it said that it is a Portuguese town. I don't really care about this city, if it is Spanish or Portuguese (I am Spanish), though I think it should stay like that, as it is, because of the river: it would make easier the geography. But, really, I don't care. The reson I have just changed it is because it is OFFICIALLY Spanish right now. You can see both Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias and you can read that. Whether they want or not to be Portuguese, I don't know. But the fact is that it is, right now, Spainsh. As Serbia and Montenegro just splitted, lets wait till the moment it is official that Olivenza is Portuguese. Till then, I would recommend to leave the city as Spanish. Besides, as we are in the EU now, and we don't have borders, there's no point of discussing. If Olivenzan people want to be Portuguese, they should claim a referendum as they did in Gibraltar. The main point is: a city cannot be from two countries at the same time, and Wikipedia, even in different languages and different articles, should say the same. Polish Wikipedia also recognizes it as Spanish. And also the ViaMichelin Road Map [1]. And even Google [2]: try writing "olivenza, portugal" and you will be directed to the "Paseo de Portugal" Street and if you write "olivenza, spain" you will see the city and the border with Portugal.

I just read the article and I must say that I quite agree with "Olivença is a Portuguese town in a Spanish province". Olivença is not OFFICIALLY Spanish. That's the core of the whole issue. Olivença is de facto Spanish, but de jure Portuguese. For practical purposes it appears as part of Spain in maps, but legally it belongs to Portugal. It just was never claimed back and it definitely is not officially Spanish. We discuss about Olivença every now and then here in Portugal. People are not really concerned about it. And I believe that the citizens of Olivença actually enjoy this strange situation where they seem to belong to two different countries.
OK, I just stumbled with this article. I see there is a controversy. But it is definitely childish and uncommon in an encyclopedia not to state which country it belongs to right now. They have a town hall, they have a Police Station, their citizen have to pay taxes to a national government. Do this Police, the elections, the taxes, depend on the Spanish Government? Then it is a Spanish town. Just state it in the article, along with all the claims you want. But not saying the present status is shameful and misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pikulin (talk • contribs) 14:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
Pikulin, you're commenting on an early discussion. The article has progressed a lot since. Please see the topics towards the bottom. The article has been fairly stable and NPOV for some months now. --maf 15:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] in Portugal? or not?

well, de facto, no, but it is in Portugal by law, at least the constitution, the government, and the courts consider that way. But it would be weird to put a category:Cities of Portugal. Again, lets not confuse the problem of Olivenza with others like Gibraltar or Perejil. It is very different.-Pedro 17:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find no mention of Olivenza in the Portuguese Constitution, unless you count Article 5: 3. O Estado não aliena qualquer parte do território português ou dos direitos de soberania que sobre ele exerce, sem prejuízo da rectificação de fronteiras. --Error 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uruguay

new spanish view was added and it was interresting. Possibly the reason why Spain said it would return the region soon, but didnt. Portugal gave Equatorial Guinea to Spain in exchange for Uruguay (Sacramento) in the 18th century and Portugal was the first to colonize that region. Brazil became independent in 1822, but the father of the Brazilian Emperor, the Portuguese king, asked him to abandon Uruguay to recover Olivenza, has the Spanish wanted, so he did! What was the reaction in Spain to that? -Pedro 00:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brasil never abandoned Uruguay. In 1821, when almost all the Spanish colonies in American where de facto independent, they occupied the country (that was part since 1811, when it got independence from Spain (de facto, as it wasn't recognized until 1840), of the Provincias Unidas del Río de Plata (later Argentina) in that moment, but in 1826 a revolution started, and Uruguay got independence from Brasil, never returned to Spain. Notice that Spain didn't recognized the independence of his colonies until 1840. Felipealvarez 08:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • He abandoned it (cmpare the size of both countries), and many Brazilians didnt like it, because they clearly saw, that it was a wish from his father and probably another issues, and he didnt answer inmidiatly. This is also one of the reasons why the Brazilian monarchy lasted so few. The plan of the father and the son did not follow what they wanted. They just wanted to keep Brazil in the family. They feered that an independentist movement has boody has in Spanish America would start in Brazil. So, the Portuguese King, is in fact, the one who made the Brazilian independence. This is documented in letters saved in the national archive bunker. The fact, this is not known for long/ it was a secret, and both kept (father and son) were very close, and as far as I know he (father) asked him (son) to withdraw in Uruguay. References for this... I dont know but I read in some place, I dont know if I have something at home. In the net maybe? But, yes, Uruguay became independent and it didnt return to Spain. But, this could really be the reason why Spain didnt return the region. Although, the king John has faar has I know he tryed to regain Olivenza in the ways that he could. It just seems that the 19th century wasnt a good century to live in... war everywhere! -Pedro 18:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I came here because someone alerted me to copyright problems--namely that the history seems to be lifted wholesale from the second external link.

I have attempted to NPOV the article. It's a fact, and thus reasonable for us to cover, that Portugal claims Olivenza based on various treaties. Wikipedia cannot support or oppose that claim, however.

Also, what is the copyright/permission status of that history info? There's a copyright statement on the page in question.Vicki Rosenzweig 15:07, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

It is neutral. It's based on facts. Many want to ocult them.

1297 - Through the Alcanizes Treaty between Dinis, King of Portugal and Fernando IV, King of Castila, Olivenza was definitely made part of the Portuguese territory.

That's what's written in the Treaty. "Forever"

  • In order to make it more clear to the reader not aware of the facts (i'm portuguese, i know the story), you should perhaps explain the spanish side of the issue. What is their claim on olivenca? Muriel Gottrop

[edit] Difficulty

That's particulary difficult to explain, it has to be with proud, even if they are wrong and against justice.

  • I can guess that it must be difficult for you. But it's the only way of making a wiki-article. For the time being, if i were you, i would concentrate in proving that you can use the chronology as it is, or, to rewrite it and make it a little shorter and compreensible. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop


[edit] Neutrality means showing both sides

However sure you are that the Spanish claims are wrong, we need to state them. Something like "Portugal's claim to Olivenza is based on the Alcanizes Treaty. Spain, however, asserts that {whatever the Spanish argument is}." Similarly, since we know that there are Spanish-speaking inhabitants of the town, what do they think about all this organizing? Are there Websites supporting Spain's claim to the area? Vicki Rosenzweig 16:23, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Portuguese claim is based on the Alcanizes Treaty and in the Congress of Vienna - Where the problem was solved. But Spain didnt make what it as promissed, it is just that, nothing more. What can Spain argues? Nothing, that's why they dont talk about that.

Pedro 17:14, 26 Feb 2004


I've added a bit of the spanish look on things (basic idea taken from the Comarca de Olivenza website and completed googling arround).

Also changed the history section, adding the spanish side of things and rephrasing the Treaty of Vienna phrase for quite a different (and more realistic) one.

I'm going to look for an online copy of the treaty just in case.

Nacho Jiménez


Here it comes again! :-) I've read Spanish newspapers and eard some Spanish opinions.

Here's all I could find: (its every thing really that was written)

  • The Triety of Badajoz where Portugal gives Olivenza to Spain.

but: This triety was not rectified. And Spain signs that this triety was, de-facto, invalid and promisses to deliver Olivenza as it did with other conquered territories in Portugal (some of the occupied territory are part of another Portuguese municipality - Jurumenha -, not only the municipality of Olivenza is occupied). But it is communly raized in Spanish media.

  • The long time that they are administrating the territory.

but: if this was valid, large African territories, Brazil, India, and other regions of the world should be returned to Portugal. In some areas Portuguese ruled faar more than 500 years. Altought there were no Chinese claims, Portugal returned Macao to China.

  • The European Union. They claim that today there is no need to territorial claims within the EU.

but: They are claiming Gibraltar to the UK. And borders among the European countries are valid and should be respected. Each state must respect the other.

  • It was first conquered by Spain. (in some media, rectified to Leon later)

but: Spain didn't exist at the time. In fact, it was firstly conquered by Portugal, and later conquered by the Kingdom of Leon (controlled by the king of Castille), kindgom that Portugal (County of Portucale) and Castille (County of Burgos) were once part. Olivenza was returned to Portugal in exchange of other territories conquered by Portugal, that are today part of Spain.

  • The Olivenza people wouldn't want to be returned to Portugal.

but: There was no single referendum or a study about that; only opinions. There are those who want to continue in Spain and those who want to be returned to Portugal. And by the Portuguese constitution, a referendum can not be made, it is a constitutional violation to allienate territory.

  • Today, Portugal doesn't claim the territory.

but: It is not true. Portuguese government says that they can not solve this issue in a short time and it shouldnt put at risk the relation between the two countries.

  • There are no terrorist activities.

but: No comment

  • Only Amigos de olivenza claims the territory.

but: There are at least three liberation groups moving in Portugal. It is largelly discussed in universities, among instructed people in Portugal, and allways raised by the public when news is written about Spanish influence in Portugal. Till, ten years ago, marring a Spanish was seen as a shame. The girls that married with spanish boys were seen worse as prostitutes and her family would be not be seen in public for some time. And Spanish girls that married Portuguese boys were seen as witches.

Was that at Olivenza level or Portugal level? I watched a TV report on Olivenza and the little thing I remember is that recently (since the EU) Spanish girls started to get interested in Portuguese boys and vice versa. It seems that both parties find the foreigners better (kinder, more serious?) than the local ones. Maybe it was Spanish boys and Portuguse girls. --Error 02:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That problem was nation-wide and to any kind of situation, Port. boy with Spa. girl and vice versa. In Olivenza they were prohibited to express, those who did got killed. But xenophoby between Portugal and Spain (Castille) is returning. And the level we got today, with more relation is largely due to the European Union. Now things are returning backwords. Because noone want to solve the remaing problems between the two countries.

Pedro

Nonsense. I've never heard about xenophobic sentiments against Spaniards. How can you say that? Because we tell a few jokes? Get a grip on yourself. I agree this issue has to be solve, but let's not go postal over it. A proud Portuguese, Pedro Vaz 09:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I say: that this problem should be solved fast. It could, we are in the same union, and by the new relation between the two countries, the problem would be solved easily and would change the opinion that Spain has in Portugal. I don't understand all this fuss. And Portugal and Spain should be good neighbours and build Europe in real peace.

Pedro

[edit] Copyright issue

I'm still worried about copyright problems on the chronology. See http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2382/brevhisi.htm Vicki Rosenzweig 14:21, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


There are no copyright problems, the author has contacted the liberation groups of Olivenza. I've seen an email about that. I'm not a member of this groups, but I wanted to know that specific problem, so I've talked to them. Pedro 16:54, 26 Fev 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other history?

Has anything ever happened in the town other than the ongoing border dispute and some building? If so, it would be nice to cover it. Vicki Rosenzweig 22:34, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As I know only a Party from the Portuguese government (PP) as talked about this, for governmental pressure on Spain. And a recent seminar (two weeks ago) in Alentejo (the region to which Olivença belongs) - about the future of that region- of the PCP party has talked about this issue. It is also being used by the anti-spanish groups, showing, at their perspective, what Spain, really, is doing to our culture. There are many Spanish that says that the people of Olivenza wants to belong to Spain, but that is not truth. There are some that want to(spanish descent) and other that dont want to (portuguese descent). This case is very similar to Cyprus, just older.

That's simply a lie to confuse people, boy, that's a lie. Gobernment is democratic, and there's no signals of pro-portuguese parties in Olivenza -- unsigned comment
In Cyprus they had a war in the 1960s. You can't compare that. --Error 02:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Portugal since its formation rarely tries to solve things by war. But occupating the territory was a possibility raized not long ago(in 1980's, before the integration in the EU).
So more like Trieste? --Error 02:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No. Tought I dont know that situation. By what I've read in that article, is different. Olivenza was till 200 years ago a normal Portuguese city like others. There was nothing different in it. No Spanish population, no Spanish language, no Spanish administration (By the Portuguese law is a Portuguese territory administrated by Spain).

Today the situation is different, most Portuguese people fled; or imprisoned by the Spaniards, the Portuguese language was forbitten (today schools teaches Portuguese). Then, Portuguese was talked by 100% of the population, and Portuguese were 100% of its inhabitants. Today only 30% speaks Portuguese. And the numbers of Portuguese descendants are, maybe, in that level. And always till today the territory is Portuguese, internationally recognized. If you read the article you will understand why Olivença was and still is not part of Spain. Officially, the Portuguese government is still waiting the handover. It is somewhat like a colony. Like Hong Kong was, maybe...Pedro 19:44, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pedro, I was thinking that you were talking about Sarajevo, but not. Another thing, not always was a portuguese village, and not always was a normal city: wars between Spain and Portugal in this border were usual for centuries.

I think you can't compare the situation with Hong Kong as Spain does not acknowdelege any special status on the Olivenza Region. For Spanish law Olivenza is just the same as any other part of Extremadura (or any other spanish region for that matter), as Spain believes that the Badajoz treaty still applies.

This article looks very biased. It may speak only facts, but only those facts that pursue the idea of Portuguese administration of Olivenza.

I'll look for info on the spanish side and post it in the article.

[edit] Nothing special

The main part of the buildings were constructed during the Portuguese "de facto" administration.

Isn't the map wrong? I thought Portugal+Olivença was much more natural-looking than that thing attached to Portugal in the article's map. :)


It depends on what you mean by wrong. I believe the original region of OlivenÇa, taken by the spanish, was much larger (and "natural looking"), but that map may be referring to the modern boundaries of OlivenZa. I want to replace it with the "natural-looking" version I have, but I havent been able to reach the relevant copyright holders yet.

this is the new map, he was talking about the old one, that olivença was in orange, but you can substitute with a new one. About the name Olivença or Olivenza is irrelevant. If Olivenza is a more natural word in English, why not? I've old maps of Portugal, i can scan them and i think they havent copyright.Pedro 00:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Try to get a consensus

Please Luis and Pedro, instead of a revert war, use this Talk page to try to achieve a consensus on the article. Discuss specific issues and present your arguments for changes. See Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, Wikipedia:NPOV --Error 01:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • conclude for yourself, use this talk. -Pedro 10:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] no concensus with portuguese chauvinism

I can't stand maps with Olivenza and Portugal, they aren't true and are a very personal-non neutral pointof view of the situation. The History should be move to another page cause is too long and gets the article too heavy for a first view. Try to not to be so Pro-Portuguese and accept the Spanish point of view too. - Felipe, el nacionalista!

-- What? there are many maps with that? Do you want me to scan them? The official maps of Portugal dont include Olivenza nor in Portugal nor in Spain. They didnt draw the border, and that's official! Spain shouldnt also draw.

  • Ceuta was also Portuguese and it was delivered to Spain in the end of the restauration war. Do you see any Portuguese groups claiming it? I'm not being Pro-Portuguese. The fact, it that I dedicate to Portuguese subjects on the English wiki, doesnt mean I'm a nationalist like you. You are just trying to hide things, and you are not getting it. Just for you, I'll re-install my scanner and scan an old map of Portugal with complete borders. It is a PD. In fact, the article it has pro-Spanish POV:
ups..Portugal belonged to Leon long time ago, and now ..is Leon claiming Portugal? So, in short, congratulations, your POV is quite nacionalist, as Ive read in your comments.
  • A leader of the Group of the Friends of Olivença says that, as Spain requests the United Kingdom to return Gibraltar, though this is not what its inhabitants want, Portugal is requesting that Spain return Olivença, despite the wishes of its current inhabitants [1] (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/23/wgib123.xml).
    • clearly with false information, given by some people to the newspaper and glued here. There was a study in Olivenza? there was a contested referendum there? Why justify what a guy said (He is from Forum Olivenza, not Amigos de Olivença and he is a Portuguese-Angolan), isn't he free to say what he wants? I even know a Spanish guy (Spanish parents that went to live there) living there that support the delivery, he says it does seem a Portuguese town. Did I put that in the article?

Olivenza isnt a Spanish speaking territory (see language maps from Spain), the fact they speak Spanish with strangers is a Spanish cultural problem that you should know. You must not, because you are a castillian and no one had forbitted you to speak Spanish. Did I put that? es:Extremeño Filipe go to that article and remove the image, it is clearly showing Olivenza has a Portuguese speaking territory. Dont forget also to delete all languages maps of Spain and Portugal. And go to the houses of that people with a gun and see if they talk Portuguese, kill the ones that do it.

wrong. Olivenza, as I know because I live near it, is spanish speaking, but also portuguese. Oddly, most of the people that can speak portuguese (but also spanish) is quite old, so this fact denies those incredible plots proportuguese groups imagine. Now portuguese language is learnt again in school, in order young people not to lose its cultural heritage. Thats because people lives democratically. And because of that, proportuguese parties doesn't exist there, because that's not an Olivenza's people problem.

Did I put what everybody knows - Spain devided Olivenza from Taliga (just like China divided Tibet) just in case Portugal gets Olivenza back, it will keep a part of it. Did I put that?

Did I put that when people from that groups go to Olivenza, there is always a lot of police around?

Did I put that when there a question about Spain (TGV, bridges, economy) many raizes this problem?

Still, noone claims Ceuta. Nor your Canary islands that were also Portuguese. So why they claim Olivenza? Why there are many groups about that? It is also a problem in Portugal, because it could raze nationalism. So this subjects is kept a little quiet in here. Noone is interrested with problems in Spain. Noone would ever want Spanish territory.

And where did I said, that Ceuta should be delivered to Morocco? And, my friend, that islets near Marocco, are really IN Morocco, they havent territorial waters and are sorrounded by Morocco. I'm not saying that they are Moroccans.

Go back to the Spanish wikipedia and put your lies and POV in there. If you see the Portuguese language wiki, there isnt a single POV, like there is in the spanish. The Spanish article even tries to justify the triety of Vienna what an absurd! -Pedro 12:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You could scan a map of the Roman Empire too, with lusitania, gallecia, tarraconensis, and those other provinces if you want. Or a map with the divisions of Al-Andalus, or other historic maps, it doesn't matter me cause they are old and don't reflect the real boundaries, towns, cities, roads... nor railways too!

I'm not trying to hide nothing, I DON'T clean the parts that say that Portugal claims Olivenza, I'm adding the Spanish point of view. You say I have a Spanish point of view. But yours is almost the double Pro-Portuguese than mine, you are the ONE THAT WANT TO HIDE INFORMATION, as you don't accept any point of view differing from the clearly pro-portuguese that you say is neutral...

Ceuta was Portuguese, and Portugal itself was Spanish too, and there aren't any Spanish group claiming the Portuguese territory.

You ask why there are police when the olivença-groups come to Olivenza (not to take a coffee)?, In Spain in its recent history there were lots of that groups, or similar, every one with their particular way of thinking (one more crazy than others), with makes lots of noise, disturbs, hikjaking,... pro-communist, pro-fascist, pro-nationalist, (basques, catalanian, galician, aranese,...), anarchist, and others, and in every public concentration there are police, also in those which demand saving the wales, the world peace, the declaration of a natural park or the catolic-religious "procesiones" with sculptures of saints... The police is there to preserve the public peace and order.

And the Canary Islands were never Portuguese!!!, in fact they were colonized by french under the sovereignity of the kingdom of Castile at first, then by the Castile Crown itself. The islets near Morocco are in Morocco's Economical-Exclusive Waters, as the Spanish military forces and ships could navigato to them without ask permission. Morocco only has the rigts of the economical product (fishing, submarine oil...)

If you think the Spanish version isn't NPOV, why their talk page is shorter than English? and, WHY DID YOU HAVE PROBLES WITH POV ARTICLES WITH SO MANY PEOPLE!!!!! You are the real nationalist, and shortminded cause you can't view the facts. --Felipealvarez 15:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • It really depends the amont of police. where there is the Portuguese POV in the article? The map? what's about the map? It is forbitten? It is POV, in what? Old maps have no copyright, so I can add them! why did you removed the history section? why did you removed the info that some groups were founded by people from Olivenza? Has I told you in the previous comment, I didnt had that info in relieable websites. Mostly because they have very few google hits (how things seems to work in here). What facts, I really can't see the facts, show them. My friend a dinastic union doesnt mean belonging and there were trieties. And the canaries where Portuguese, study History, please. The problem of olivenza, is that Portugal signed OBLIGED a triety where it gave the land to Spain if Spain would not invade it. Spain invaded, it break the triety, and it signed two trieties where it said he would return the municipality SHORTLY. 200 yrs is not shortly... read bellow, by a Spanish newspaper. So put text and present proofs to that. -Pedro 01:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

El Pais: El teniente coronel Manuel Couto, uno de los directivos del Instituto Geográfico del Ejército, explicó ayer a este periódico que "la Carta Militar intineraria del Ejército no marca este trozo de frontera (entre el río Caia, junto a Badajoz, y el río Cuncos, cerca de Mourao) al no estar reconocida por las autoridades del Ministerio de Exteriores. España debería haber devuelto esa población y, según el derecho internacional, el caso constituye una ocupación del territorio". El embajador y presidente de la comisión internacional fronteriza entre España y Portugal, Júlio Mascarehnas, reconocía recientemente al vespertino A Capital que "el asunto está fuera de la agenda diplomática lusa desde 1919", pero el conflicto persiste "porque Portugal no reconoce la soberanía de España en la margen izquierda del Guadiana desde la confluencia con el río Caia y el Cuncos. España está ocupando un pedazo de Portugal". Viernes 12 noviembre 1999 - Nº 1288

It seems there is another treaty, the triety of Cadis, similar to the one of Vienna. This should be also mentioned in the article.

I see you still think in the same way. I have no more to discuss with you. When you were ready, please call me. El Pais isn't a credibly newspaper, lots of its articles have been taken back because of diffamation... --Felipealvarez 08:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ... what to do

(To User:PedroPVZ) I'm getting bored. This neverending revert war is illogical. I want to end it. I could accept the portuguese point of view (that you think is neutral, but I don't, and I think most of spaniards think like me) but the article should notice the spanish point too. This argue isn't good for wikipedia, wikipedists and wikiusers. I suggest discuss point per point all the article, to get a concensus one. I accept I was a bit pro-spanish, but ... sorry. --Felipealvarez 20:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) o_O Spanish names are fully acceptable for instance. But because it is a disputed area and the original author of this article putted the names in Portuguese it should be kept. -Pedro 22:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having read all the comments, the first thing I say is that this looks like a Luso-Castillian slanging match, and is not worthy of two modern, democratic european nations.

History is full of injustices, and if we go back far enough we can always find justification to support one or another position.

In an ideal world Spain would have returned Olivenza to Portugal, Britain would not have invaded Gibraltar, Britain would not have retained N Ireland and Spain would not have occupied Ceuta and Melilla when the Moors fled. However, we are not in an ideal world. The portuguese have to ask themselves whether the de-jure status of a town warrants creating unrest in the realtions between the two countries.

As with N Ireland or Gibraltar I suggest that the country with a claim to the territory accept that until now the inhabitants do not wnat to chan ge their status. That being so, the only pracitical way to turn the situation around is to make a change so attractive that people stop voting with their hearts but with their heads.

Take Ireland. It has grown so economically powerful in the last 15yrs that now people in the North go to work in the Republic. Spain has tried to do the same with Gibraltar. If Gibraltar (with its current inhabitants) is ever to return to Spain, then it will only be when the economic, social and political environment is so attractive that people want to.

The same is true for Olivenza. Portugal should do all in its power to improve the economic, social and political environment in portugal, promote the Portuguese language in Extremadura and live in harmony with its neighbour.

In the meantime, I suggest Spain and Portugal create a EUROREGION (as between Germany, Holland and Belgium), where public services are shared and each side comes to the others help when needed.

[edit] Point by point

Maybe listing the points of contention could help to achieve a partial consensus on each of them. You may use additional colons or asterisks to indent paragraphs. --Error 23:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

[edit] Name of the place

  • Depending
  • Both are correct, but Olivenza is the oficial-one. See Lleida or Girona, the title of the articles only show the oficial names, but not the spanish true names (Lérida and Gerona) which are only mentioned inside the article. Shall we do the same? or not? Remember Portuguese isn't a oficial language of any place of Spain, unlike catalan or basque.
It is funny: Spanish "true" names? Lleida and Girona are in Catalan, Lérida and Gerona in Spanish. All these names are "true", but only Catalan ones are official. Cheers! :) Marco Neves 19:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Above the right table should the portuguese name be too? As it isn't oficial, should be?. Spanish and Portuguese are spoken in Switzerland, and in the Swiss article the Spanish and Portuguese names aren't shown in that position. But despite of that, it is unecesary to put next in what language is written, (spanish) and (portuguese) should be deleted. --Felipealvarez 07:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • the problem is that Portuguese constitution does understand it has a national territory. And the only official language in Portugal is Portuguese. It is also understood has national territory by Spain, that's why it is disputed. -Pedro 09:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Olivença
  • Olivenza

[edit] Local names

  • Both
  • In Portuguese
  • In Spanish

[edit] Spoken language

  • Who speaks Portuguese
  • Who speaks Spanish

[edit] Economy

  • Other
  • Watermelons

[edit] Current position of the Portuguese government

  • The current government (elected in February) has not said nothing about this issue. The minister of Foreign affair only said, that the International Law (Direito Internacional) his important to them, not sayind if it is about Olivenza or Iraq. I dont know if they discussed this issue with the Spanish president of government, if they did, it will not become public. I think the current minister has talked about this issue in the past, not sure. -Pedro 14:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Claim of Sovereignty

[edit] Napoleonic wars

[edit] Teatry of Vienna

[edit] Attitude of the Spanish public

[edit] Opinion of the current inhabitants

  • Can we say something with certainty?
  • there shoulb be more about 10000 oppinions, I believe. -Pedro 09:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, we can say that current Olivenza's mayor, spaniard but with portuguese ancestors, hates these pro-ultra-portuguese groups ;))) ... I know it, I read newspapers. So you can see, that's is a good aproximation to the current inhabitants' opinion. I think that Olivenza's discussion is only a border problem, quite usual in Europe. Usually this shouldn't be a problem, but I think that the war that caused the Olivenza's lostwas very humiliating for a number of ultra-nacionalists in Portugal. This kind of nacionalist is very typical in Portugal, hating all Spain's actions. It's understable, but not realistic. So, in short, there isn't any problem for current inhabitants, in spite of these portuguese groups.

Re-reading my last paragraph, I must specify: the mayor can't see or hates those pro-portuguese groups because they usually lie about current Olivenza's reality.

[edit] History

  • In this article or in a standalone article?
  • It's too long for the article. I think a brief paragraph and a link to a complete article should be better. Wikiusers that only want a quick view of Olivenza aren't interest in all the long history. I think a standalone is better, with a short brief condensed paragraph in the main article. --Felipealvarez 07:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • An history section is one of the most important sections in a wikipedia. I dont know if we have enough info for a standalone article, but the most important information must be kept in this article. And the more detailed one could go to the other articles. But just a link is uneceptable, more in a encyclopedia view than a Portuguese nationalistical one. Making the same that has been done for other articles in wikipedia. -Pedro 10:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

  • Should only neutral maps be allowed or maps showing a position are allowed if so labelled?
  • I think that a map showing Olivenza in Iberia is good. Add another detailed enough to see Badajoz and Évora. --Error 23:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As position maps aren't the nowadays real-ones, a neutral map should be better, or a scan of a XVII or XVIII century map showing Olivenza in Portugal for the history sub-article, but not a new-made digital map showing it.--Felipealvarez 07:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • yes, the article would be prettier! Old maps looks great and are free to use. I'll scan it and sobstitute this one. But I believe it would be better in here (in a smaller History section) than in History (and can also be there). This is a wikipedia article and it would gain style. -Pedro 10:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Por-Portugal groups

Is something important missing? --Error 23:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) there are more. Even in Spain (Galicia). Or Portuguese nationalists groups or emigrants groups. I believe the king of Morocco (I dont know if the current, or the previous one) also supported these groups. But I think we shouldnt mention that, it is not important.

[edit] Prior Treaties

I tried to clarify the history section - someone should double-check that it still means what it originally meant. Peter Grey 06:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the article

As it seems as if User:PedroPVZ doesn't know anything about Wikipedia policies and guidelines (especially those related to Wikipetiquette saying Don't label or personally attack people or their edits as the comment in his reversion shows), I'll try to explain all the alleged disagreement points (however explained in all my edits):

  • From WP:NPOV, I quote Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reworded to a more NPOV version ... as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. However the sentence A newspaper from Elvas, and inhabitants say that half of the population wants Olivenza to be kept in Spain, the other half wants it returned to be returned to Portugal. is not sourced or documented at all. Such a statement (inhabitants say that half of the population wants Olivenza to be kept in Spain, the other half wants it returned to be returned to Portugal) should have a source that allows verification. Which paper? When? When did inhabitants say that? Otherwise, it should be removed.
  • From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names), In absence of a common English name, the current local name of the city should be used. Regardless of the de jure sovereignty on the town, it is a legally established council under the Spanish law. It includes free and universal suffrage. Furthermore, acording to the Spanish law, any council can ask for a change in its denomination whenever it wishes. Hundreds of cities and town has used such a law to change its name (for example, Lleida, Girona, A Coruña....). That's to show that the name Olivenza is the local name of the town, regardless of its sovereignty. Olivenza and not Olivença must be used.
  • From External links, some clues about What should be linked to:
    • Official sites should be added to the page of any organization, person, or other entity that has an official site. So, please, don't remove the link to the Olivenza site.
    • On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is. So please, two links with the Portuguese POV (and labeled as so) are enough. Consider also whether a MSNgroup adds useful information to a wikipedia article. Is it a High content page that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article?

An alleged sp. nationalist vandal. --Ecemaml 19:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  • As I said previously, you can not say its official name is Olivenza, because Portugal does not recognize it belongs to Spain, officially the Portuguese state pretends nothing has happened, because it can make no war although it is clearly a violation of the constitution. I've no problem with Olivenza in an English article, I think it is better, because English has no "ç". It is like Moçambique which is rendered as Mozambique. About the newspaper you are correct, the name of the paper should be added, I've even forgot the name of the newspaper. Although they have an edition on the net. But is it "Elvas something...". I've searched but the news is already old (2004 maybe)... -Pedro 14:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Pedro, I'm not talking about official names, but current local names (as the policy states). As I've explained, the Olivenza council, regardless of its sovereignty, may, under the Spanish law, choose the name it wants. It has not chosen to replace it with Olivença or adopt any kind of dual toponym so that, according to the policies of es:, it's the name that should be used. With regard to the paper, I'd be sincerely glad to get the source. I'm not trying to prove which side is right, but offer the widest perspective of the problem. --Ecemaml 15:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok... BTW, three or four days ago (was a weekday), the Portuguese channel 4 (for some months controlled by a Spanish company) did an interview to some of the people there (which I found odd). And those people they interviewed were all against, and they said would like and prefer that both countries should be joined in a single country. I think (my opinion, here) this is the issue, many Spanish feel that Portugal belongs to Spain, and that's why some don't accept the return of that municipalities. I'm now dedicated to other areas. I think the article would need to be improved, although I'm always against the removal of information (in every article, not just this one). -Pedro 00:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be good that as many sources as possible would be included so that when you find them, I'd dare that wikipedia would be glad to offer as much information as available. With regard to your statement "many Spanish feel that Portugal belongs to Spain" I'd say that such an oppinion is nowadays irrelevant. I haven't heard of it ever, in any Spanish media or taking to anyone. --Ecemaml 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I did and not once or twice. It is irrelevant to the article, that's why I said my oppinion. That newspapers did interviews in their city (Elvas) ad in Olivenza with people from different origins. I usually dont include the name of the newspaper while writing, because of the free ad. -Pedro 13:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe that people wasnt speaking about Portugal belonging Spain, but to avoid wasting the time in such bored and useless discusion (for that people) and makes effort in other common subjects to both sides of the border, as common poor economy, roads, ... . And maybe you are distrusting Spain a little.

[edit] Oli..what??

Seems the Olivenza "conflict" is only known in Portugal, in Spain most people have no idea about it. That leads me to the conclusion that there's no such conflict except in some portuguese ultranationalists, otherwise Olivenza people would have already claimed that they wanted to be portuguese. Let's say it was occupied by spaniards and that right now they are overwhelming majority, so what are you going to do? kick spaniards out of their hometown and bring portugueses from Lisboa to colonize it? sounds nice. What I find very funny are those comments about how portuguese it looks...if you can difference it from any other Extremadura town then my kudos, because you might have some kind of very sensitive portuguesometer.

Yes... but, you see, the only problem is that the Portuguese State does not recognize the incorporation of Olivenza in Spain (even if it does not press the issue), and official Portuguese maps refuse to draw the border in that area. Puting aside those "Portuguese ultranationalists" (let's neglect them!), this seems to be the only "conflict"... The Ogre 12:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ceuta was Portuguese, and Portugal itself was Spanish too, and there aren't any Spanish group claiming the Portuguese territory." To the person who wrote this: Portugal was never spanish (maybe in the union with the Filipes, or if you are talking about Hispania, and this is different from Spain). Portugal already had his boundaries established before Spain was even formed by the union of the catholic kings. And, infortunately, some short minded people do think that portugal should be a province of spain, but lets ignore them as always. I don't want to start a war, just make things clear. Cheers. Saudações. Saludos. P.S.: The kingdom of Léon recognized Portugal's independency, Portugal did not recognize Spain's rule over Olivença.

Well, the Savage Islands "conflict" (see below) isn't generally known in Portugal, either. I guess there's no such conflict except in some Spanish ultranationalists... FilipeS 02:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism about the Spaniards of Pedro and the problem of Olivenza

That is the reason about is not possible to talk with Pedro about Olivenza. Pedro is a racist again spaniards. I change the article of Savage Islands with information about the dispute of Spain about the island. Not about if the Spain has right or not only I probe with a link to the diary os sesion of the spanish senate that Spain doesn´t recognize the soberany of Portugal. The wikipedist Pedro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PedroPVZ revert my article and in the discusion discualified the people of Spain with racism: " again, that doesnt say much: "La esfera alrededor de las islas Canarias" that's about the waters, not the islands - the islands are no sphere! Portugal has no problems with no country! it just has Olivenza because our neighbours are like gypsies, not because of gypsie culture of Southern Spain, but because it invades other people's property: Spain = Turkey part II 1/2 (as in Cyprus) - and still Portugal does nothing. See, it even respects those who doesnt deserve it, in my opinion, that's because we have chilcken and monkeys insted of politicians, but that's another issue. "

For Pedro [[3]] Spain=gypsies=thieves. That is racism about the spaniards and the gypsies. Noviscum 08:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • yeah, yeah. stop typing my name. Do you want it in all wikipedia? --Pedro 11:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese government

However, the Portuguese government considers it as part of the Portuguese district of Évora, but normal diplomatic relations within the European Union are maintained between the two countries.

It is not the Portuguese government alone, is the Portuguese Republic or the Portuguese State.Page Up 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A fresh look at the article

I've just read the article for the first time. I would like to add my two cents to the Talk going on but, considering most of the above discussion is over a year old, and too convoluted by now, I'll just add my points here.

First, the disclaimer that I am Portuguese, but I acknowledge that, although both Portugal and Spain have valid de jure arguments, the de facto situation gives Spain an advantage on the issue. For that matter, the article is correctly placed at the Spanish spelling of Olivenza, instead of the Portuguese spelling of Olivença.

I found the article to be generally NPOV, with a few exceptions, starting with the lead (the section before the TOC). In the lead, to reinforce the NPOV, I would merge the last paragraph with the very first one and would add the de jure arguments of either side and the de facto situation. This way, no one can accuse the article of being biased either way. This would be my very first paragraph of the article:

Olivenza (Spanish spelling) or Olivença (Portuguese spelling) is a city and municipality on the border of Portugal and Spain, and disputed by both countries. Spain received Olivenza under the Treaty of Badajoz in 1801 and since then has administered the territory as part of the province of Badajoz, whilst Portugal claims Olivença back under the Treaty of Vienna of 1817 and considers it part of the district of Évora. Nevertheless, diplomatic relations within the European Union between the two countries have not been strained.

(Notice how I change the spelling to "Olivença" when talking about Portugal.) With that cleared right away on the very opening of the paragraph, I would then move section "Claim of sovereignty" to the bottom, past the History and Famous people sections, which deserve to be higher up in the article.

As for section "Olivença Groups", I don't think it merits being a section because a) there is no Spanish counterpart to maintain NPOV, but especially b) frankly, Portuguese in general don't give as much a damn (to paraphrase Clark Gable) about Olivenza as the text may imply. So, I would condense the section into a single sentence and merge it into the "Claim of sovereignty" section. Something like this:

Some cross-cultural activities have been affected by the ongoing dispute, with Spain halting restoration work on an old Portuguese-built bridge, under pressure from Portuguese groups dedicated to the cause of Olivença.

Finally, when reading through the "Claim of sovereignty" section, I got confused between the Congress of Vienna and the Treaty of Vienna, as the latter is not properly introduced and explained. That part should be rewritten. --maf 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Part II: Now that the article has been unprotected, I have just made my pass at NPOV'ing the article. I did the abovementioned changes, plus these:

  • general tightening of English and narrative
  • created a Geography section to shorten the lead
  • removed the map of Portugal with Olivença - a closer map centered on Olivenza, showing Portugal and Spain on both sides would be neutral, but not as it was, showing one country in full and not the other one
  • all monument names are in the three languages
  • removed references to the preservation of the language and culture in the "surrounding countryside" for lack of source, although I left a not-so-definite "there are traces of the Portuguese culture and language in the people" but with a warning
  • harmonized references to the War of the Oranges with the contents from the article War of the Oranges
  • Changed section title "History" to "Chronology". The section could still be improved if turned into fluid narrative, though
  • removed non-Olivenza-related mentions from the Chronology - there are links to the appropriate articles in their place
  • fixed the confusion between the Treaty and the Congress of Vienna (the treaty is the final minutes of the congress - Spain did not sign it in 1815 but signed in 1817).
  • I added some entries to the Chronology, expanding the history of both the old and the new Olivenza bridge
  • I shortened the 1981 entry on Pinheiro de Azevedo as the original already stated that his actions were met with "indifference" ie they were non-relevant events
  • I replaced "Question of Olivenza" by "situation of Olivenza" as I believe that the former is not an expression used internationally (and this is the en.wikipedia)
  • I removed the link to the article on the Treaty of Paris from the entry for May 30, 1814 in the History section because that article - Treaty of Paris (1814) - makes no mention of Portugal. Were there two Treaties of Paris signed on the same day?
  • I moved section "Claim of sovereignty" to past the Chronology section and either moved info into the Chronology or removed all redundant info already in the Chronology.
  • As for the external links sections, I merged both and removed the ones that were in Portuguese. In honesty, I would also have removed the ones in Spanish as they are of no interest for the en.wikipedia but that would then leave an unbalanced section with just pro-Portuguese links.

I welcome your comments on my NPOV'ing. This has taken me the better part of a day to complete, so, if you are going to make changes (and please do), please document them either here or on the "Edit summary" box. --maf 17:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Part III: No comments so far, which must be a good sign, so I removed the POV tag from the article. I also took the opportunity to replace the term "dispute" with the softer "claim" as no country is actively disputing/warring over the sovereingty of Olivenza; I also reworte the "Claims of Sovereignty" section to make both sides' arguments stand out more clearly. --maf 09:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olivenza is administered by Spain

Olivenza may be or not rightfully claimed by Portugal, but in all practical aspects it is part of the region of Extremadura in Spain. Any person looking for information about this city in an encyclopedia would like to know that Olivenza is today in all aspects of everyday legal, municipal and economic life a part of Spain. That is, Olivenza is at the very least currently administered by Spain only. The Portuguese government does not have any authority over the city today. That was not refered in the first paragraph and it is a grave omission that does not benefit the impartial reader of wikipedia, independently of his political or historical viewpoint 84.90.18.136 15:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Having written the previous version, I do not object to your change. But let me note that the fact that Olivenza is administered by Spain is clearly stated (and now, repeated) in the second paragraph, which is still part of the lead section. --maf 14:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Municipalities of Portugal

Category "Municipalities of Portugal" was added to this article, and I have reverted it. Even though Olivenza is claimed by Portugal, the territory is not included in any Portuguese official listing of municipalities. --maf 11:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/l/i/Talk%7EOlivenza_10e6.html"