Talk:Olivenza

message: 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)
thread_title: Macau

message: 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 . And even Google : 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Both Spanish and Portuguese entries in the wikipedia said that Olivenza is a town of Spain. Why English not?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.141.97.87 (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

text: No it is not. Portuguese did signed a threat that gives souverenity to Spain (The treaty of Badajoz and The Treaty of Vienna doesnt annulled that of Badajoz and did not expressly made Spain return olivenza, it only recognizes Portugal having a claim, otherwise Spain would have never signed it). By the treaty of Vienna, England would have returned Trinidad but they didnt because it was not obliged just as Spain. Also by signing the treaty of Maastricht for the EU, Portugal officially recognized Spain's possesion of Olivenza. In fact, Olivenzans dont want to be Portuguese. Most of them speak Spanish and are Spanish culturally. All countries, by admiting it in ONU, recognized Spain's entire territorial integrity, meaning they accept Olivenza as Spain except Portugal. if the case was to ever be presented in The Hague, Spain will keep Olivenza due to jurisdictional reasons. Military power has nothing to do with it. 88.14.224.228 (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish or Portuguese

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: in Portugal? or not?

message: 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)
thread_title: Uruguay

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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
* The article only shows where Olivenza is according to Spanish maps, and not Portugal's side. Spanish editors also consistently remove the Portuguese Évora's municipality Infobox, while keeping the Spanish one. Should I request lock? luiz187  —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright issue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nothing special 

message: 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)
thread_title: Try to get a consensus

message: (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)
thread_title:  ... what to do 

message: ====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)
replies: text: *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)

text: * 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)
thread_title: Opening paragraph

message: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: * 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)
thread_title: Name of the place

message: *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)
thread_title: Current position of the Portuguese government

message: ====Napoleonic wars====
====Teatry of Vienna====
====Attitude of the Spanish public====
====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)
thread_title: Claim of Sovereignty

message: *Can we say something with certainty?
* there shoulb be more about 10000 oppinions, I believe. -Pedro 09:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion of the current inhabitants

message: *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)
thread_title: History

message: *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)
thread_title: Maps

message: Is something important missing? --Error 23:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Por-Portugal groups

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prior Treaties 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Oli..what?? 

message: 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 [] Spain=gypsies=thieves. That is racism about the spaniards and the gypsies. Noviscum 08:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism about the Spaniards of Pedro and the problem of Olivenza

message: :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)
thread_title:  Portuguese government 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A fresh look at the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Olivenza is administered by Spain 

message: 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)
replies: text: Someone re added it and I have removed it again, SqueakBox 19:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Municipalities of Portugal

message: Concentrate on facts:
Olivença is part of Portugal. 
Olivença is administrated by the Spanish government.
Spanish administrates Olivença but Olivença does not belong to the Spanish territory.
Spanish and Portugal recognizes Olivença has part of Portuguese territory.
Spain and Portugal recognizes the sovereignty of Portugal in Olivença.
Olivença is a Portuguese territory legally occupied by Spain because they just haven't return the administration yet.
Olivença was part of the Spanish territory between 1801 and 1807.
These are not arguments. It's pure facts. Nothing can be said against these facts so stop spaming.
__-_-_-__ 15:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FACTS 

message: The infobox has just been expanded and now contains the following POV and just wrong facts:
* "Country: Spain (de facto)/Portugal (de jure)". This is Portugal's POV; to prove it, a Spanish POV would be "Spain (de facto/de jure)"
* The editor added "District (Portugal): Évora" because that was the pre-1801 situation; as of today, there is no official inclusion of Olivenza in any Portuguese district. At the very least it should read "District (Portugal): Évora (as of 1801)".
I am not changing the article immediately to let the editor respond. --maf (talk-cont) 18:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This info has been discussed ad nauseam. I fail to grasp your entire POV rhetoric, where you accept the fact that Olivenza is de jure Portuguese, but mentioning so in the infobox would be a POV breach. Same for the district. Húsönd 18:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be failing to grasp my rhetoric because I am not expressing my ideas correctly. So I will try again - I am writing in English. I do not accept, nor do I deny, that Olivenza is de jure Portuguese. My opinion is irrelevant here (I will not question your siding on the matter, because you have already warned me on that on my Talk page, and you are an admin). The facts, and only the facts, are: Olivenza is not de jure Portuguese or there would be no dispute at all. From Olivenza#Claims of sovereignty: "Spain claims the de jure sovereignty (...) Portugal claims the de jure sovereignty." Again I assert that writing "Country: Spain (de facto)/Portugal (de jure)" is definitely Portugal POV, as much as "Spain (de facto/de jure)" would be its counterpart Spain POV. As for the district, it's still POV, but for a different reason, not the "same", so I would still appreciate your response. --maf (talk-cont) 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had warned you against being uncivil, you are free and welcome to express your position as long as you do it civilly and without resorting to any snideness or personal attacks. Now, regarding the de jure situation, I believe you're mistaken. It's not just Portugal that claims that Olivenza is de jure Portuguese. Any country that deems the Badajoz Treaty void automatically considers Olivenza de jure Portuguese. France, for instance, likely does (as it invaded Portugal right after calling the treaty void). In my view, any data in the article mentioning that Olivenza is Spanish only without making a reference to the de jure situation bends the article towards Spanish POV. For this to be completely neutral, the entire article should comply with a de facto Spanish/de jure Portuguese stance. As for the district, although Olivenza de facto doesn't integrate the district of Évora, Portugal has never ceased to consider it a municipality of the said district, thus it is still a de jure part it. Húsönd 22:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again? Ok, again: to consider Olivenza to belong de jure to Portugal is Portuguese POV as a) Spain does not acknowledge it, b) other countries (besides France on the BT) have not expressed a view on the matter other than the twisted wording on the Vienna Treaty which can be interpreted any way one pleases. To want to give the "de jure prize" to Portugal just because Spain already gets the "de facto prize", in an attempt to "balance" the article, is ludicrous. Why not go ahead and continue "balancing" the article, stating the Portuguese time zone, the Portuguese mayor, and the Portuguese postal code? As I said before, the description of the de jure claim by Portugal must be confined to the state-relations level and not pervade into the practical aspects of political administration and everyday life. The Portuguese know there is a dispute going on, yet do not count Olivenza as a municipality of the district of Évora (see), do not count Olivenza as a municipality of Portugal (see), do not include Olivenza's area in the country's area, and so on and so on. To tell an English-language reader consulting the en.WP that Olivenza is de jure in the district of Évora is not only factually wrong but also, again, Portuguese POV. And now I rest my case. --maf (talk-cont) 23:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just a personal, unreasonable and illogical view of this situation and its relation with the WP:NPOV, insisting on it won't be any productive, and neither will your attitude. Húsönd 01:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no arguments here. I am reverting your changes and then, if necessary, will request mediation from an(other) admin. --maf (talk-cont) 10:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have reverted the article to your version. I will now seek mediation and report your behaviour as I believe you are invoking WP:POINT to refuse anyone's arguments to your own edits. --maf (talk-cont) 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Request for Comment (first step of mediation) below, and report of behaviour here. Thanks.--maf (talk-cont) 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newly-expanded infobox POV

message: Newly-added content to a sensitive article may be POV. Discussion here ended without consensus.
:I saw the RFC. I would like to know if maf has a reliable source which shows the Spanish view is as he says it is. Eiler7 19:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your question. This dispute is about the Portuguese view/attitude, not the Spanish view. Since the Treaty of Vienna, there have been no international rulings on this case, and both countries use this treaty's ambiguous wording to base their case (as detailed in the Chronology section): to the Spanish, Olivenza belongs to Spain de jure and thus its de facto status is correct; to the Portuguese, Olivenza belongs to Portugal de jure and thus its de facto status is unacceptable. It is thus not correct the current article version that the de jure status rests with Portugal while the de facto status rests with Spain.--maf (talk-cont) 01:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think I finally understood your point. And I applaud the "Spain (de facto/claimed de jure), Portugal (claimed de jure)" solution. --Húsönd 14:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV dispute

message: The best thing would be to belong to boath countries, everyone would gain with that decision, maybe this could lead to a major boost in this town, region and therefore, countries. We could see how well Portuguese and Spaniards would relate, it would be a wise decison. Can you imagine Olivença in the Future like an Iberian New York? A modern, beautiful, healthy metropolus. Haha, that would be pretty cool.
But i guess the population should decide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.173.35 (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Recognition 

message: The Territory of Olivença is part of the Portuguese Republic, a fact that is recognized by the spanish administration since 1817,when the representative of the spanish King signed the Treaty of Vienna. The main problem is that the negotiation to handover the Territory to portuguese administration never take place. The fact is that 80% of the population of the Territory of Olivença is Portuguese ethnic, and the portuguese language is native to them. As a matter of fact there is no diference between the spelling of Olivença and Olivenza, being this last word, the spanish translation of the portuguese name Olivença. If Olivenza was a spanish word it would be written as Olivencia, like similar spanish words, as Valencia, in portuguese Valença.It is not possible to spell the name Valencia in spanish as Valenza, so it is proved that Olivenza is a spanish translation from the portuguese Olivença (Olivenza). By international law the Territory of Olivença was never  spanish and it is only correct to say that is a portuguese Territory under spanish administration. 12/11/2007.Oliventino 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed thoroughly above. Your changes are disrupting Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy on this article. By the way, Spain does not recognize any Portuguese sovereignty over Olivenza. And your ethnicity claims lack sources. Please do not make unilateral changes to the article before discussing them with other users here on the talk page. Thank you. Húsönd 19:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''''''''''Olivença - a portuguese Territory under spanish administrat'''ion'''''.''' 

message: I believe that no matter the error and the ignorance about historical facts are easy to make it is our obligation to insist on the documented facts supported by international law. So it is not true that Spain does not recognize Portuguese sovereignty over the Territory of Olivença because there is a Treaty of Vienna sayng exactly the opposit and to ignore this is to violate the WP NPOV. About the 80% of ethnic Portuguese in the Territory of Olivença, it does not lack any sources, it is a fact that can be proved by cientific historical methods that the Portuguese were not expeled from the Territory and for this they still live in Olivença as a majority of the population. What is incredible in modern times is to try to hide this facts and to deny the right to his culture and language to a part of the Portuguese people. As a matter of fact the recognition of the diferent nationalities of Spain is included in the actual Constitution of Spain. Why to deny that right to the portuguese majority of the Territory of Olivença? So it is not right or neutral to ignore that Olivença is a Portuguese Territory under Spanish administration and Olivença is a portuguese town in the border of Portugal.The illegal and unjustified ocupation of a Territory and a population by a foreign power does not change the nationality of it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliventino (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop forcing your unilateral changes to this article, they are easily rolled back and if you persist in this manner you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:V and WP:RS, which clearly state that your claims must be corroborated by sources. Otherwise your claims are just original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. No facts are being hidden on this article, the sovereignty over Olivença is very well documented. Your frustration regarding this international issue is evident, but Wikipedia is not the solution. Húsönd 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''The truth about the portuguese Territory of Olivença''' 

message: Once again and several months after my last change i am obliged to correct the article, saing that Olivenza is a portuguese town administred by Spain. That fact can not be denied by anyone with knowledge  of international law, and myself as a citizen of Olivenza have the right to say it until it is understand for all the peopple.In fact there is no frustation about this international issue, and i think that the majority of 80% of portuguese oliventinos, have the right to tell the truth to the world. Please respect the values of democracy and accept the fact that Olivenza is a portuguese town administred by Spain in the XXI century European Union.--Oliventino (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing you'll achieve is being reverted. We work by consensus here and unilateral changes are promptly reverted. Wikipedia's neither a democracy, and nor is its duty to "tell the truth to the world". Please read WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#Democracy, WP:Consensus and WP:V. Húsönd 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: SqueakBox, this article has been neutral for a long time and the disputes only occur when you drop by from time to time. I think that you should reflect on who's disrupting it instead of accusing inexistent nationalistic Portuguese POV pushing which only very rarely occurs here and is rapidly reverted. Most Portuguese don't care about Olivenza or even care to learn anything about it. And me, I only strive to keep this neutral. Olivenza has nothing to do with the Falklands. The status is completely different, it's not merely a territorial claim, it's an international sovereignty recognition issue. You are free to open a request for comment, but just like in previous times I doubt that its outcome would allow you to proceed with your changes. The article has a perfectly balanced and neutral POV and so should it remain. By the way, 23 centuries is indeed a long time. Húsönd 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Territory of Olivenza 

message: I never said that i was not a spanish citizen, only that i was ethnic portuguese living in a portuguese town administered by Spain. And i think i am a good and loyal spanish citizen that only wants cultural freedom to my people and the same autonomy that the others nationalities of Spain. If Galicia,Catalunya, Euskadi and others have the recognition of a language and culture of themselves why not Olivença? Are we diferent from the others? Somebody please explains me why. Is this because we are 80% of ethnic portuguese? We expect nothing from the Portuguese Republic, we know that they abandoned us many years ago and even now in the European Union don't suport our mouvement. But we count only on our determination on having a voice in the European Union as a national minority in Spain that wants political an cultural autonomy. And soon or later justice will be done to our people. Regarding others situations, we must say that we are solidary with our brothers of Ceuta and Melilla that are spanish and want to stay in Spain. We also respect the will of the people of Gibraltar that want to maintain connected with Great Britain. --Oliventino (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''The Oliventino Portuguese in The Territory of Olivença''' 

message: Please do not remove the NPOV tag again, this looks like it is heading towards arbcom (and not because of what Husond is doing but because we cannot allow a 300 year old dispute to drag this article down. It goes on and on and we need a solution. BTW, Husond, your claim it is just 2 people (and one experienced wikipedian) who are seriously concerned by the POV pushing of the Portuguese claim in this article are not backed up by the facts. This is not remotely like Gibraltar as gibraltar is administered by the British. Husond, you cannot use your wikipedia reputation to enforce sich a POV, so please reconsider your actions here. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may leave the tag, it's not that bothersome. But expect someone to remove it as it happened before. The neutrality of the article is indeed disputed, but by you only. For a long time you've been a one-man crusade against the current strict npov of this article. Sure, you may add the occasional Spanish IP zealots who attempt to make the town Spanish only. But those, just like the occasional Portuguese IP zealots who do the opposite, count for little more than vandals. And for a long time, your arguments haven't convinced anyone. I'm not using any Wikipedia reputation (I doubt such thing even exists) to enforce a pov, I'm simply thwarting unilateral pov insertion from an article that's been discussed, reviewed and accepted as npov in its current form. I don't think this is heading towards Arbcom, hardly any grounds for them to accept this. Húsönd 13:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: "gibraltar is administered by the British", implying that Gibraltar is Spanish de jure, is in absolute contradiction with Gibraltar. Either my interpretation of SqueakBox's words is wrong or Gibraltar is wrong or SqueakBox is wrong in defending Gibraltar being Spanish de jure. If the latter option is the correct one, then SqueakBox can only be assumed as being a nationalist who defends his stance beyond any reason, therefore not neutral nor suitable for WP's purposes. --maf (talk-cont) 11:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: It is very sad to see that in the XXI century ignorance is still strong. In my opinion it is important in the Territory of Olivenza dispute the truth wins. If everibody knows that the Treaty of Badajoz is not valid because was self anuled in 1807, following the war made by France an Spain to Portugal and that Spain recognized the portuguese sovereinity in 1817 after signing the Vienna Treaty, why to insist that a Territory with a majority of 80% of ethnic portuguese is not a portuguese Territory under spanish administration. As a citizen of Olivenza I demand an explanation. It is correct to say that Londonderry is a british city? Or that nobody knows if it is irish or british. It is not correct to say that Olivenza is a portuguese city? Somebody tell me why? --Oliventino (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oliventino, content on Wikipedia does not abide by the truth, but by verifiability. The Treaty of Badajoz was indeed annulled, but Spain doesn't think so. So, at least for Spain, Olivenza is Spanish, not Portuguese. In order to have this article written in a neutral point of view, we must neither say that Olivenza is Spanish nor Portuguese. We may simply write what's verifiable, such as the indisputable fact that Olivenza is administered by Spain. And we may of course document the Spanish and Portuguese positions, but not try to enforce one of them as being the right/true one. By the way, Londonderry is located in Ireland, not Britain, therefore I don't think it could ever be considered British. It is an Irish city of the United Kingdom. Húsönd 18:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olivença and Olivenza 

message: The truth must be verifiable, and in this case it is proved beyond any doubt that Olivenza is a portuguese town and that fact is widely recognized not only by Spain as a state but also by the public opinion in Spain. I must say that it is not correct to say that Spain think that Olivenza is spanish. We can not know what a state thinks, that is quite impossible and means nothing. What is real is the Treaties that a state signes and reading those Treaties Spain have signed we can only asssume that Spain recognizes Olivenza as a portuguese city. This is  verifiable truth and a neutral point of view. I quite agree that Olivenza is administered by Spain. As a citizen of Olivenza i know that too well. What i am telling is that a Territory with a majority of 80% ethnic portuguese and recognized by both countries Spain and Portugal as portuguese, what is verifiable by the Treaties they signed, must be considered by a neutral wikipedia as portuguese. To confirm this is important to see  Pueblos de España  and search for extremadura/badajoz/olivenza, to see that Olivenza is the only portuguese city of Spain (Situación: "la unica ciudad portuguesa de España").--Oliventino (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not proved beyond doubt that Olivenza is a Portuguese town, if no doubt existed then this dispute would simply not exist. As far as I know, through the Treaty of Vienna, Spain has vowed to work for the return of Olivenza to Portugal sometime in the future. But since Spain interprets the Treaty of Vienna as neither being mandatory on this issue, nor stipulating a timetable for the return of Olivenza, things remain as they are. Much like Sweden joining the eurozone. Until Spain effectively hands over Olivenza to Portugal, it will not recognize it as a Portuguese city. But Spain has lacked that good-will so far, and Portugal doesn't seem particularly interested. And, nobody seems to know what the people of Olivenza think about it. Actually, the lack of action by the people of Olivenza might just indicate that the people there are either satisfied or simply not interested with the current situation. Húsönd 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olivenza is a portuguese city administered by Spain 

message: The fact that Spain has been administered Olivenza does not mean that Olivenza is a spanish city. To be precise we can say that Olivenza is the only portuguese city of Spain. It is very curious that you do not refer to the spanish public opinion that is reflected in the site Pueblos de España.I think this is because you can not be neutral, imparcial and respect the rights of the oliventino people. You do not refer either to the fact that our people is composed of 80% of ethnic portuguese. That means the fact that we were not expelled from the Territory in 1801 and continued to live in our town, speaking our language, no matter the spanish autorities forbiden the teaching of the portuguese language in our schools. For that reason we are a national minority in Spain but a majority in our Territory and we have right to a status of autonomy  and to be recognized by the European Union. We do not want to be hand over to the Portuguese Republic, they abandoned us many years ago and we expect nothing from them. We want  the world to recognized our inalienavel right to our culture, our language and our political autonomy. And do not say that we are not interested in our situation because that is not true and if you go to Olivenza and talk to the people of portuguese origin,  not only with the spanish minority you will confirm this. This issue is a question of historical justice and with the democracy in Spain we have all reasons to be confident that we will win as our brothers of the others nationalities have win the autonomy. We can count on our determination and with the solidarity of all the democratic forces in the European Union. Soon or later the Territory of Olivenza will be autonomous. --Oliventino (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see where this is going. Please have in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Húsönd 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autonomy for the Territory of Olivenza 

message: It is the old way the spaniards deal with the reality of Olivenza, they prefer to ignore the Treaties they signed, do not listen the language that is spoken in the streets, refuse to know the public opinion in Spain, and hope that in the silence they will prevail. It is a huge mistake. They will never brake our determination to tell the truth about the portuguese Territory of Olivenza and nobody will be able to turn a portuguese city into a spanish one and to ignore the voice of the oliventino people. We only want that our city be recognized as portuguese in the Wikipedia as it is in Spain by the public opinion reflected in articles in the Internet as we just proved. We do not understand why no matter all the evidences that we are portuguese some people insist that we are something else. It is very sad to see that in the XXI century the cultural rights of a small national minority in Spain are not full respected.    --Oliventino (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oliventino, please don't create a new section every time you write a comment, just indent below the one above. And again, I must remind you that Wikipedia is neither a forum nor a soapbox. This talk page exists for users to comment on the content of the article, not to express political views. Húsönd 18:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  When we have no arguments we must be silent 

message: We quite agree with you, de facto Olivenza is administered by Spain. The statement that you have no sources to confirm that 80% of the population of Olivenza is ethnic Portuguese is not valid, because is of general historical documented knowledge that in 1801 the population was not expelled from their homes  and that in the late XIX century the portuguese language was forbiden in Olivenza. It is verifiable by all methods of historical research, the most easy of all is the spanish public opinion that defines Olivenza as the only Portuguese city of Spain. Why do you insist not to refer to that link Pueblos de España? .Are you afraid of a reality that is widely verifiable? The people of Olivenza does not wish to be hand over to Portugal. The Portuguese authorities dont care about us, i know that is strange but is the reality. We must count only on our strength and that is what we have been doing in the last two hundred years. Against all the powers of Spain we survived and in the XXI century we maintain our cultural and linguistic identity and is very sad that those who enjoy political and cultural freedom denies the international recognition of a small Portuguese ethnic minority in Spain. We must explain why the comparison with Londonderry. This Irish city was ocupied and administered by the British so many years and nobody claim that it was an English city. The Portuguese city of Olivenza was ocupied by the Spanish and everibody claims that is Spanish. Why? Even knowing for sure that the population is ethnic Portuguese and that the portuguese language is spoken? And ignoring the common sayng in Spain that Olivenza is a Portuguese city? We want to be known in the world as a national Portuguese minority in Spain and nobody can seriously say that is not a verifiable truth.--Oliventino (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oliventino I'm not losing more of my time with you. This is not a forum, and the only thing you need to know is that on Wikipedia we use verifiable content, not what a user believes is the truth. And, as I've told you before, please do not create a new talk section every time you add a comment, just thread it like everyone else does (or like I'm doing right now). Húsönd 17:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing more to say, is a proved fact that you can not comment the verifiable issues that we present in our discussion, like the link to spanish opinion, but we think that you compreend the reality of Olivenza.--Oliventino (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olivenza is a Portuguese city of Spain 

message: The oficial shield and flag of olivenza was passed by the city council in 1991 and publish in the D.O.E (Diario oficial de Extremadura) in 2000 . --87.223.156.42 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the document, the description talks about a Spanish royal crown, but then the images in the annexes show a mural crown. What should we follow? --Bluedenim (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shield and Flag 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Portuguese de juro claim

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New article on disputed status 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Why district of Évora? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Shield and Flag 

message: 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)
replies: text: What you need is reliable sources to reference this. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olivenza is a portuguese town administered by Spain 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Violation of Wikipedia policies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missed to include information 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Recognition"?!? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Olivenza is not claimed by Portugal. 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  See also

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spurious use of "de facto" and "de jure" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Olivenza. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726071032/http://www.elperiodicoextremadura.com/noticias/noticia.asp?pkid=70565 to http://www.elperiodicoextremadura.com/noticias/noticia.asp?pkid=70565
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726071201/http://www.elperiodicoextremadura.com/noticias/noticia.asp?pkid=362510 to http://www.elperiodicoextremadura.com/noticias/noticia.asp?pkid=362510
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20100612174630/http%3A//dn.sapo.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id%3D1590520%26seccao%3DSul to http://dn.sapo.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1590520&seccao=Sul
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021225856/http://www.igeoe.pt/downloads/500mil/500mil_24bits.zip to http://www.igeoe.pt/downloads/500mil/500mil_24bits.zip
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified