Talk:Olivenza

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Olivenza article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

Other talk page banners

Portugal Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

Spain Mid‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Olivenza is not claimed by Portugal.

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

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

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

Claims of sovereignty

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

Neverthelsee, Olivenza has been Spanish for over 214 years and will remain as such. Perhaps, the Portuguese nation would be better to focus its energies on the current crippling economic crisis rather than focus its energies on the past and what once was; a difficult psychological task indeed. [1]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Requested move 15 January 2018

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

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

Olivenza (disambiguation) → Olivenza – The stable old name. Changed on 15 January 2018 in a disruptive move [2][3]. Asqueladd (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit warring over two images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If needed, I can elaborate a bit.

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

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

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