Talk:Olivença

internationally recognized

Error (Remove "internationally recognized". -nl: (pt: is broken because of ç). Coat)

• Error, you removed this sentence but that is "correct". It was said, more than once (by more than one MP) in the Portuguese parliament during the discussion of this problem. They base this claim on the triety of Vienna, that is why it is "internationally recognized" (the smaller party of the government said this more than once and they justified it), because it is based on international law. Meanwhile... it is administrated by Spain. It is just an odd case. Hugs -Pedro 20:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I changed it, so that we don't give the impression that UN, EU, NATO, Hague courts, or the like have an official opinion on the matter. -- Error 00:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Should they have an oppinion on an issue that was solved peacefully and fast and from 200 yrs ago? Portugal and Spain in Vienna solved their issues very fast, while other countries in central Europe had lots of hot debates. This is a question of a delayed handover (in fact, there is any case similar to this). But you are fully correct, it can misslead. --Pedro 11:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, the United States had a say on the Perejil island crisis. The NATO treaties exclude Gibraltar, Ceuta and Melilla, I think. -- Error 03:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• What's wrong with Ceuta? Ceuta before being Spanish was Portuguese. Never Moroccan. -Pedro 00:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tell that to Mohammed VI. -- Error 22:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Olivenza crisis isnt to old to be debated like Perejil? Perejil is not an island, it is an islet.

-Pedro 00:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It may be old, but since it's not marching on, those not content with the statu quo, will have to put it into debates. -- Error 22:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

Is it NPOV to write: "Olivenca is a Portuguese territory illegaly occupied by Spain." ? olivier 15:54, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's an old (and healthy, like football) quarrell between Spain and Portugal. Thing is that Olivenca is theorectically portuguese, according to a treaty from the 12th-13th century. Somehow, the spanish overtook it. I'm portuguese and i dont care: after all, Brasil (former portuguese colony) is mostly on the theoretically spanish side of the Tordesilhas line! Muriel Gottrop 15:59, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

not only from a treaty of the 13th century. But also from a treaty from the 19th century.Pedro 11:28, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

• • just to state. I'm Portuguese and I care. Muriel, there were later agreements for the "Problem" of Brazil, Equatorial Guinea for example speaks Spanish because of something. -Pedro 23:28, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am Portuguese and I also care. It is a matter of principle. If we allowed to chew off bits of our sovereign national territory like that, we wouldn't have a country left by now.

I do not think splitting off the "Spain_declares_war_on_Portugal" page was a very good idea. Especially considering Spain invaded Portugal in other ocasions in the past. Does not make much sense. -anonymous

• Yupe. A redirect to Peninsular war is the best.-Pedro 11:55, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Olivença is an internationally recognized Portuguese territory under Spanish administration

Olivença is an internationally recognized Portuguese territory under Spanish administration

Do international instances have an official position on the Olivenza issue? Examples? -- Error 00:03, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I dont agree with that sentence, also. It is not correct. The territory is just internationnally recognized (International law) has Portuguese, (comma) and administrated by Spain.-Pedro 02:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

disinformation from the alcaide to newspapers

The alcaide of Olivenza is "known" for the disinformation, and I believe it is the source of this:

alcalde. Alcaide is a prison chief (warden?) -- Error 04:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • In Portuguese, we say "alcaide". But the term is no longer used. We use "presidente da câmara"-Pedro 00:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For outsiders, we are talking about a mayor. Alcaide comes from Arabic qaid and alcalde from qadi. -- Error 00:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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 There was no referendum about it. What I know, from Portuguese newspapers, is that people dont want to talk about that. They start to talk Spanish when journalists interview them, even if between them, before, they were talking Portuguese. And some inhabitants wanted the town to return, others wanted to keep in Spain. This phrase is somewhat partial -it missleads. About the question of Spanish public is not aware, in September-October 2003 this issue was largeely discussed in Spanish newspapers.

National newspapers or Extremaduran ones? I didn't know about it. Anyway if it is not on TV, it doesn't exist. -- Error 04:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • National , several of them. I dont recall the names of that papers (el país, El mundo, I dont remember), I was interested in the news (I knew this problem specifically in 2003 also, I've heard occasionally before. But they were mostly the same news. It is incredible how newspapers work, one says something, the others say the same. -Pedro 00:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although with a lot of disinformation. I've read Spanish newspapers I was shocked with a lot of fase information, spreed by the alcaide of Olivenza and lack of knowladge. He even said that Portuguese laugh when the question was raized, and there was no claim by Portugal or that were very few people (50 they say) in Portugal claiming that. This is fully not correct, it tries to diminish the reality, believe they are not fifthy guys in it, and anyone laughs when someone talks about it (well at least from people that I know or saw), it's the opposite. The current prime minister of Portugal is even a supporter of these groups. I dont believe he will do an active claim in this mandate. But I can be wrong, cause the he and the most powerfull minister (from the other party of the government are supporters of this cause). -Pedro 11:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Totally 'impartial' article

The portuguese point of view is the only true for this article. The spanish CURRENT name of the city is a redirection, and the territorie appears in a map with other portuguesse lands. This is the wikipedia spirit? Just one point of view?

It sucks!

I propose using the Spanish name for events after the Spanish take and the Portuguese name for events during Portuguese rule and for translations from Portuguese --Error 05:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Time line

I had a quick glance at the article, and with the time line at the end it is not clear to me, when Spain was invaded by Napoleon. The idea I got was that the Spanish king was removed by the French (let's say by Napoleon) and substituted by his brother Pepe Botella. In the time line I always read "Spain did this" and "Spanish troops did that", but at least Spaniards I spoke to feel about the time around 1800 like their country being under the lead of some Napoleonic puppet government.

Klaus