Talk:Savage Islands

message: Gentlemen, 
It is clear that the territory is disputed. Your debate alone illustrates a level of the dispute.  And your debate tells me what the nature of the dispute is. 
Wikipedia is about fact—disputes are facts.  We need to discuss the dispute in the article. 
Being neither Spanish not Portuguese, please let me compose my understanding of the dispute and add it to the article. 
Once I've done so, I'd appreciate you thoughtful criticism. 
Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 20:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some extensive changes to the main page. Hopefully you gentlemen will find them acceptable. If not, let's discuss the problems with my work here. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think we made it to NPOV...  Williamborg (Bill) 03:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Territory  Redux 

message: The wikipedist Pedro is adding fake information. When a wikipedist do fake information for politic motivation (Ultra Portuguese Nationalist) must be considerer a Vandal.
A Quote:
The archipelago lies about 165 km from Portuguese Madeira, and 230 km from Spainish Canary Islands. The total land area of the Savage Islands is 12.73 km². 
Noviscum 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My dear all...aren't we making a storm in a cup of water? its a couple of rocks where spain once wanted to plant a lighthouse, the fact is that they are under Portuguese jurisdiction, and quite honestly I dont see either country invading the islands over the issue. Portugal has maintained an exclusion area around them,and limits non-scientific access, as they are a wild life sancturay and performed culling of the goats (or was it rabbits) there. So, can I please suggest cooling down and giving it a rest? why dont the portuguese go work here: History_of_Portugal_%281834-1910%29 and the spanish here: Pedro_de_%C3%81lcantara_T%C3%A9llez-Gir%C3%B3n%2C_9th_Duke_of_Osuna ? Galf 10:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lies of Pedro 

message: My friends!
After I read all your comments in portuguese, spanish and english I got confused and decided to search a bit to see who has the reason. And, what I found in several official websites is a bit different. So, here it is what I found:
*EU Website - To European Union, these Islands are portuguese and there isn't any notice of dispute
*CIA The World Fact Book - says "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" and has nothing about spanish claims over the islands.
*Presidencia del Gobierno - Spanish Government website doesnt say anything about disputes over the islands.
*UN website don't mention anything either
So after this I conclude that there is no dispute over the islands.
About TTW and EEZ:
*What I found is that Spain recognizes portuguese sovereignity over the islands and adjacent TTW. What Spain doesnt recognize is the EEZ Portugal added to the islands.
Meanwhile I have to mention that in the main island there is a permanent occupation by 3 guards from the Natural Reserve all the year. In Selvagem Pequena only during the period from April to September a permanent team is there.
Coimbra68 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over Islands or EEZ? 

message: The content in this article is a direct translation of the following website:
[]
and actually a bad translation.
Coimbra68 19:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: These islands are spanish too, but every try to have all the points of view in the article, are closed. The point of view of Spain must be there too, for Spain, they are spanish islands, and the territory is officially disputed, so the categories must have "Islands of Spain" too, like part of the Canary islands.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.59.223.252 (talk • contribs).
:Spain might have a claim over the islands, but they're administered by Portugal and internationally recognized as belonging to Portugal, so no, they are not Spanish islands and should not be included in that category.--Húsönd 16:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islas Salvajes 

message: You can find hundreds of places in internet where you can see that the islands are disputed, for Spain, they are illegally portuguese islands.
http://www.nuestraamerica.info/leer.hlvs/3527
http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano/contenido?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/Elcano_es/Zonas_es/Europa/DT34-2004
http://www.elmundo.es/1997/10/02/espana/02N0021.html
http://age.ieg.csic.es/boletin/32/3208.pdf  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.2.206.105 (talk) 15:04, August 23, 2007 (UTC) 
:I read them all and as far as my Spanish goes it says nothing of that sort! A couple of those links only mention the EEZ dispute not the sovereignty over the islands. Miguelrj (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Islands 

message: I know nothing about the Savage Islands, but the article states there are two groups:- The Northeast group, and the Southeast group
Based solely on looking at the map, should this not be the The Northeast group and the Southwest group? Or is there some datum point that both these groups are to the East of?     
Arjayay (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South East Or South West? 

message: What facts are challenged on the current version of this article? Can we remove the Factual accuracy label already?  Miguelrj (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy of this article 

message: The introduction of this article states that these islands are uninhabitable, with a citation in Portuguese. The infobox states the population is 2. The "History" section states, with no citation, that one island is permanently populated by wardens and another island is populated by wardens in summer. At face value, it would seem that if wardens do indeed live on the islands, then the islands cannot be uninhabitable or uninhabited. Can anyone help resolve this contradiction? Perhaps a citation for the warden population?   --GeoWriter (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "uninhabitable" refers to the lack of permanent residency on the islands, where the environment can not support human habitation indefinitely. What there is, is a three-week rotational procedure by the Associação Portuguesa de Guardas e Vigilantes da Natureza (APVN) supported by the Portuguese Military (ferrying and security) to monitor and assist scientific projects on the islands, usually of a team of 3-4 wardens. These points are explained on the AVPN website [] (Portuguese): in addition, there is a note that the time frame does change (owing to weather) and the number of vigilantes also changes depending on the circumstances (the article has an interview with three wardens, whose team includes a dog). The obvious question, is how to clarify the discrepancy. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) 12:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: I can not see the Salvagens islands in Pizzigani chart (1367), but I can see in Cresques chart and in Soler Chart. Perhaps there is a confusion with the chart of Zuane Pizzigano, more modern, 1424.--Lliura (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: "On June 23, 2005, four Spanish fishing boats were detained 28 nm south of the islands."
Does this mean nanometres, or nautical miles?  I couldn't find the number 28 in the two references for that section, so I couldn't confirm what units these are supposed to be.  Should we change it to M, NM, or nmi as suggested by this: Nautical mile, assuming the author means nautical miles?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.102.181 (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very close to the islands... 

message: It is disheartening to see the rudeness and confrontation, not only in Wikipedia but much worse in the comments of other Internet pages. This kind of attitude only discourages those who are more knowledgeable but do not want to get involved in squabbles with the rude and ignorant.  I will try to contribute without getting into squabbles or confrontations.
English name:
The original Portuguese/Spanish name translates into English more correctly as "Wild Islands" than as "Savage".  Wild as opposed to colonized.  Savage in English has a different connotation.  In any case, the name in English is whatever has been used by the English-speaking and independent of the original name or its meaning in another language. 
Map:
The map is in disagreement with other sea charts and with Google Earth. I believe the map of the Savage Islands in this page is in error, both in the size and in the position of the islands.  Using information from sea charts, Google Earth, etc. I have prepared a map which I believe is more correct. I have asked the author of the map on this page if he would like to correct his map or if he would prefer that I use the one I made.   
Political situation:
It seems to me that it is, like many things, complicated and people do not bother to study in depth and just jump to whatever conclusion they wanted. There are several different issues getting mixed up, mainly sovereignty and economic rights. They are different and distinct.
After some reading it seems like Portugal has exercised control for most of history and into the present time although it has been deserted most of the time. Spain has not formally recognized Portugal’s sovereignty although the actions of Spain have at times acknowledged Portugal's control, if not sovereignty. This was the case when Spain wanted to install a lighthouse but Portugal refused.  
The international commission of 1938 did not "settle the issue of sovereignty for good". At least for Spain it didn't because Spain did not participate (being rather busy with other matters at the time) and did not formally accept the resolution. 
But Spain, while not formally accepting Portugal's sovereignty over the Islands, does acknowledge with its actions Portugal's control and has not really ever pressed the issue of sovereignty.  In the matter of sovereignty Spain pleads nolo contendere and just keeps its options open like all countries do when it suits them.  Every country has similar issues which it leaves open.  
The matter now at hand between Spain and Portugal is not sovereignty but economic rights of the surrounding seas. If the islands are considered inhabited and productive then the generate an economic zone around them whereas if they are considered barren and deserted then they do not.  Spain and Portugal disagree and the matter will be resolved amicably if they want or they will just leave it undefined if that suits them better but nobody is going to fight over this or even take any unfriendly actions.  Individuals and groups disagree all the time and we have learnt that it does not mean we need to fight.  We have learnt that it is better to resolve things amicably and some times we even prefer to leave them unresolved. Things are not always black and white; there are many shades of other colors.
Some people get all heated up over things they didn’t even know existed and are of no consequence to them. As David Cameron said "Calm down dear, calm down". 
I am not about to review and redo the article. I have done my bit with the map. But I suggest someone review it and make the issues more clear and with a neutral POV. 
Of course, it could be that I am mistaken, either with the map or other facts, in which case I welcome additions and corrections. GS3 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map, English name and political status. Page needs good revision. 

message: Please, could just someone stop inventing things about these islands climate?
I had the patience to edit it and put what we know about it and now I see that everything was deleted and the same ambiguity is there again.
In Madeira main island, according to IPMA (Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera (basically the official national meteorology service)), there are places with annual average of above 20ºc (1960-1990 series), so how 17-19ºc is more than that and how someone can know that Savage islands have those temperatures if there are no weather stations there at all?
All we know is that these islands are Arid, because of the vegetation and its geographic position context.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.189.202.30 (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Savage Islands. 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/20080223055330/http://tercud.ulusofona.pt/Publicacoes/2005/LeitaoN_CarvalhoL_Text.pdf to http://tercud.ulusofona.pt/Publicacoes/2005/LeitaoN_CarvalhoL_Text.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080223055330/http://tercud.ulusofona.pt/Publicacoes/2005/LeitaoN_CarvalhoL_Text.pdf to http://tercud.ulusofona.pt/Publicacoes/2005/LeitaoN_CarvalhoL_Text.pdf
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) 13:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have been looking at sources to see what is the accepted name of the islands in English. I do not doubt the translations of the Portuguese name, but the English-language name is whatever has actually been used, which may differ over time and publications.
*The Times Atlas of the World (current) has Ilhas Selvagens, then going back to earlier publications:
*The Bartholomew 'Advanced Atlas of Modern Geography' from 1953 has Ilhas Salvage
*The Bartholomew 'Citizen's Atlas of the World' of 1944 has Salvages
*The John Tallis atlas of 1851 has Salvage Is.
The prevailing usage therefore appears to be either to write the name in Portuguese, or as the 'Salvage Islands'.  It might be a mistranslation or just a convenient sound-alike, but that is how the islands have been named on English language maps, or at least the ones I have found.
Hogweard (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Another part of the question is "prevailing in which kinds of sources?" Cartographers are important of course, but probably equally important are such things as news reports in English-language media, political documents drawn up in English if there are any, and correspondence in English that mentions the place (historic or modern).  TooManyFingers (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English name, again 

message: "The Dry Salvages" is certainly the name of some rocks in the water near Cape Ann, Massachusetts. Is that name also really used for these islands off the west coast of Africa? Or was it just an error by someone who accidentally conflated the names due to their similarity?
Maybe there's more to this that I'm not seeing, but I tend to think "Dry Salvages" was used in error for the islands near Africa, if indeed it was used at all. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have access to the material by King and Hattendorf, which appears to be where that reference comes from. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dry Salvages"