Talk:Olivenza

Macau

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)

Spanish or Portuguese

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

I just read the article and I must say that I quite agree with "Olivença is a Portuguese town in a Spanish province". Olivença is not OFFICIALLY Spanish. That's the core of the whole issue. Olivença is de facto Spanish, but de jure Portuguese. For practical purposes it appears as part of Spain in maps, but legally it belongs to Portugal. It just was never claimed back and it definitely is not officially Spanish. We discuss about Olivença every now and then here in Portugal. People are not really concerned about it. And I believe that the citizens of Olivença actually enjoy this strange situation where they seem to belong to two different countries.

OK, I just stumbled with this article. I see there is a controversy. But it is definitely childish and uncommon in an encyclopedia not to state which country it belongs to right now. They have a town hall, they have a Police Station, their citizen have to pay taxes to a national government. Do this Police, the elections, the taxes, depend on the Spanish Government? Then it is a Spanish town. Just state it in the article, along with all the claims you want. But not saying the present status is shameful and misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pikulin (talk • contribs) 14:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Pikulin, you're commenting on an early discussion. The article has progressed a lot since. Please see the topics towards the bottom. The article has been fairly stable and NPOV for some months now. --maf 15:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Olivenza is Portuguese, and the only reason for Spain take possession of the olivenza is military power be higher than the Portuguese. If it was equal they follow law and treaties and olivenza be Portuguese today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.200.247 (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

in Portugal? or not?

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

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

Uruguay

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

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

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

NPOV

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

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

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

Neutrality

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)

THE ARTICLE IS FAR FROM NEUTRAL: THERE IS A PRO-PORTUGUESE VIEW OF THE STORY

Difficulty

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

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

Neutrality means showing both sides

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

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

Pedro 17:14, 26 Feb 2004

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

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

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

Nacho Jiménez

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

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

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

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

• The long time that they are administrating the territory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

but: There was no single referendum or a study about that; only opinions. There are those who want to continue in Spain and those who want to be returned to Portugal. And by the Portuguese constitution, a referendum can not be made, it is a constitutional violation to allienate territory. THE VAST MAYORITY OF PEOPLE IN OLIVENZA DONT WANT TO BE PORTUGUESE, THEY WANT TO REMAIN IN SPAIN

• Today, Portugal doesn't claim the territory.

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

• There are no terrorist activities.

but: No comment

• Only Amigos de olivenza claims the territory.

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

Was that at Olivenza level or Portugal level? I watched a TV report on Olivenza and the little thing I remember is that recently (since the EU) Spanish girls started to get interested in Portuguese boys and vice versa. It seems that both parties find the foreigners better (kinder, more serious?) than the local ones. Maybe it was Spanish boys and Portuguse girls. --Error 02:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That problem was nation-wide and to any kind of situation, Port. boy with Spa. girl and vice versa. In Olivenza they were prohibited to express, those who did got killed. But xenophoby between Portugal and Spain (Castille) is returning. And the level we got today, with more relation is largely due to the European Union. Now things are returning backwords. Because noone want to solve the remaing problems between the two countries.

Pedro

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

---

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

There was never in many centuries of history any case of xenophobia. Both countries, especially the people, have very good relations and many of them even have related family living in each other countries. very often people refer each others as "nostros hermanos" or "nossos irmãos" meaning "our brothers". That's the complete opposite of xenophobia. Both countries live in peace and have very good relations. like brothers. there's no sense to refer the need for peace. we are in complete peace. this is not a serious issue. most of the population of both countries didn't even heard of olivença. even though the ones who known are in favour of the returning of olivença to Portugal. but this issue was never and it's not a point of dispute or any cause of hate or something like that. both countries have centuries of history of cooperation. about the tv show. it's just a tv show. it doesn't reflect the reality. maybe some girls like Portuguese boys so what? that can happen everywhere in the world. imo I like Italian girls so what? should I hate Italy? it doesn't even make any sense.

Pedro

Despite some heated discussions (eg. those in the Portuguese as well as in the Spanish Wiki)Olivença/Olivenza doesn't seem to be a nationwide issue, neither in Spain not in Portugal. However, if anybody tried a "fast solution", that would probably change the atmosphere immediately. Which is why in all likelihood such an attempt will not be made. Meaning that the process of "assimilation into Spain", that has been going on for quite a while, will continue until the "normative power of facts" will dictate the recognition of the (then) "status quo" by all parties involved. --213.22.67.95 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright issue

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

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

Other history?

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

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

That's simply a lie to confuse people, boy, that's a lie. Gobernment is democratic, and there's no signals of pro-portuguese parties in Olivenza -- unsigned comment

In Cyprus they had a war in the 1960s. You can't compare that. --Error 02:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Portugal since its formation rarely tries to solve things by war. But occupating the territory was a possibility raized not long ago(in 1980's, before the integration in the EU).

So more like Trieste? --Error 02:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No. Tought I dont know that situation. By what I've read in that article, is different. Olivenza was till 200 years ago a normal Portuguese city like others. There was nothing different in it. No Spanish population, no Spanish language, no Spanish administration (By the Portuguese law is a Portuguese territory administrated by Spain).

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

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

---

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

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

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

Nothing special

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

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

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

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

Try to get a consensus

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

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

... what to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point by point

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

=

Olivenca is / or rather should be PORTUGUESE and that is clear cut assessment by any way you look at it. There is really no room for discussion. As Portugal returned their former colonies, so should Spain recognize that Olivenca is and always was Portuguese. That is even proven by the prominents in Olivenca...

Opening paragraph

Name of the place

• Depending

• Both are correct, but Olivenza is the oficial-one. See Lleida or Girona, the title of the articles only show the oficial names, but not the spanish true names (Lérida and Gerona) which are only mentioned inside the article. Shall we do the same? or not? Remember Portuguese isn't a oficial language of any place of Spain, unlike catalan or basque.

It is funny: Spanish "true" names? Lleida and Girona are in Catalan, Lérida and Gerona in Spanish. All these names are "true", but only Catalan ones are official. Cheers! :) Marco Neves 19:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Above the right table should the portuguese name be too? As it isn't oficial, should be?. Spanish and Portuguese are spoken in Switzerland, and in the Swiss article the Spanish and Portuguese names aren't shown in that position. But despite of that, it is unecesary to put next in what language is written, (spanish) and (portuguese) should be deleted. --Felipealvarez 07:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• the problem is that Portuguese constitution does understand it has a national territory. And the only official language in Portugal is Portuguese. It is also understood has national territory by Spain, that's why it is disputed. -Pedro 09:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Olivença
• Olivenza

Local names

• Both
• In Portuguese
• In Spanish

Spoken language

• Who speaks Portuguese
• Who speaks Spanish

Economy

• Other
• Watermelons

Current position of the Portuguese government

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

the current position of the Portuguese government is the same as the Spanish one. both denies to discuss this issue. in fact when asked about it they refuse to answer it. the very few times prime minister Socrates was asked about it it just said "I will not make any comments regarding that issue." According to the Portuguese law, Olivença is part of the Portuguese territory. According to Spain it doesn't state Olivença as a part of the territory, just part of the administrative territory. There are differences in both concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.73.86 (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Claim of Sovereignty

Opinion of the current inhabitants

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

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

History

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

Maps

• Should only neutral maps be allowed or maps showing a position are allowed if so labelled?

• I think that a map showing Olivenza in Iberia is good. Add another detailed enough to see Badajoz and Évora. --Error 23:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• As position maps aren't the nowadays real-ones, a neutral map should be better, or a scan of a XVII or XVIII century map showing Olivenza in Portugal for the history sub-article, but not a new-made digital map showing it.--Felipealvarez 07:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• yes, the article would be prettier! Old maps looks great and are free to use. I'll scan it and sobstitute this one. But I believe it would be better in here (in a smaller History section) than in History (and can also be there). This is a wikipedia article and it would gain style. -Pedro 10:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Por-Portugal groups

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

Prior Treaties

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

Improving the article

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

• From WP:NPOV, I quote Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reworded to a more NPOV version ... as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. However the sentence A newspaper from Elvas, and inhabitants say that half of the population wants Olivenza to be kept in Spain, the other half wants it returned to be returned to Portugal. is not sourced or documented at all. Such a statement (inhabitants say that half of the population wants Olivenza to be kept in Spain, the other half wants it returned to be returned to Portugal) should have a source that allows verification. Which paper? When? When did inhabitants say that? Otherwise, it should be removed.

• From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names), In absence of a common English name, the current local name of the city should be used. Regardless of the de jure sovereignty on the town, it is a legally established council under the Spanish law. It includes free and universal suffrage. Furthermore, acording to the Spanish law, any council can ask for a change in its denomination whenever it wishes. Hundreds of cities and town has used such a law to change its name (for example, Lleida, Girona, A Coruña....). That's to show that the name Olivenza is the local name of the town, regardless of its sovereignty. Olivenza and not Olivença must be used.

• From External links, some clues about What should be linked to:
  • Official sites should be added to the page of any organization, person, or other entity that has an official site. So, please, don't remove the link to the Olivenza site.
  • On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is. So please, two links with the Portuguese POV (and labeled as so) are enough. Consider also whether a MSNgroup adds useful information to a wikipedia article. Is it a High content page that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article?

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

• As I said previously, you can not say its official name is Olivenza, because Portugal does not recognize it belongs to Spain, officially the Portuguese state pretends nothing has happened, because it can make no war although it is clearly a violation of the constitution. I've no problem with Olivenza in an English article, I think it is better, because English has no "ç". It is like Moçambique which is rendered as Mozambique. About the newspaper you are correct, the name of the paper should be added, I've even forgot the name of the newspaper. Although they have an edition on the net. But is it "Elvas something...". I've searched but the news is already old (2004 maybe)... -Pedro 14:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Pedro, I'm not talking about official names, but current local names (as the policy states). As I've explained, the Olivenza council, regardless of its sovereignty, may, under the Spanish law, choose the name it wants. It has not chosen to replace it with Olivença or adopt any kind of dual toponym so that, according to the policies of es:, it's the name that should be used. With regard to the paper, I'd be sincerely glad to get the source. I'm not trying to prove which side is right, but offer the widest perspective of the problem. --Ecemaml 15:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ok... BTW, three or four days ago (was a weekday), the Portuguese channel 4 (for some months controlled by a Spanish company) did an interview to some of the people there (which I found odd). And those people they interviewed were all against, and they said would like and prefer that both countries should be joined in a single country. I think (my opinion, here) this is the issue, many Spanish feel that Portugal belongs to Spain, and that's why some don't accept the return of that municipalities. I'm now dedicated to other areas. I think the article would need to be improved, although I'm always against the removal of information (in every article, not just this one). -Pedro 00:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

• I did and not once or twice. It is irrelevant to the article, that's why I said my oppinion. That newspapers did interviews in their city (Elvas) ad in Olivenza with people from different origins. I usually dont include the name of the newspaper while writing, because of the free ad. -Pedro 13:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe that people wasnt speaking about Portugal belonging Spain, but to avoid wasting the time in such bored and useless discusion (for that people) and makes effort in other common subjects to both sides of the border, as common poor economy, roads, ... . And maybe you are distrusting Spain a little.

Oli..what??

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

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

Maybe do the same as the Spanish did? forbid Spanish language teachings and anything that has to do with Spain and let them be what they actually are: Portuguese.

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

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

Racism about the Spaniards of Pedro and the problem of Olivenza

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

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

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

Portuguese government

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

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

A fresh look at the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olivenza is administered by Spain

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

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

___________________

Comment: I do believe that even though the Portuguese Politicians are probably too busy stealing or traveling with the people's money this should be a question that they should focus on and clearly resolved. For the person that said that this issue is not known is Spain, that could show how uncultured they are but no really it is also not that widely known in Portugal as well. By reading carefully about the matter I have to say that Olivenca should clearly be acknowledged as part of Portugal, as it clearly was from the beginning, as all the treaties prove. It is a shame that Spain can get away without not acknowleding it!!! And even more apauling that Portugal does nothing about it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.121.109 (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Municipalities of Portugal

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

Someone re added it and I have removed it again, SqueakBox 19:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article is not neutral. Compare it other disputed territories like Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands and far too much weight is given to the Portuguese claim, way far too much weight, SqueakBox 01:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I find it perfectly neutral. Besides, there's no such thing as a "Portuguese claim", rather a factual limbo in respect to which country has effective sovereignty over Olivenza.--Húsönd 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I've recently contacted you about your POV concerns regarding this article. I believe that replying to my comments would have been more adequate than tagging it for POV.--Húsönd 02:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that the article is NPOV and does not deserve the POV tag. Perhaps your perceprtion of the Portugal-bias derives from the fact that Spain has not done, and does not need to do, any actions to claim its sovereignty over Olivenza, unlike Portugal. Thus, in the Chronology there are more entries originating on the Portuguese side than on the Spanish side. --maf (talk-cont) 21:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not in limbo its in Spain, whatever those who support the Portuguese claim want to claim. Questions we should be sourcing are "to which government do people pay their taxes? Who are the police? (I dont believe there are both Portuguese and Spanish police there and if it was in limbo there would either be two rival sets opf police or none at all, two rival and functioning judicial systems or none at all etc,. I got your message, Husond but didnt agree witrh it, I am just not into edit warring but to claim that the Portuguese claim is as valid as the Spanish when Spain de facto has control over the territory is POV, and I note one of the 2 above editors is from Portugal and the other speaks it as a native tongue leading me to conclude that you are both biased toward the Portuguese claim, SqueakBox 19:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not in Spain. It's administered by Spain, but many countries recognize it as being a part of Portugal. It's a fact, so the article must be written in a way that neither states the town is Spanish, nor Portuguese. Currently it belongs to two different countries and everybody is apparently happy with that ambiguous situation. The fact that Portuguese users are involved with editing this article doesn't mean that we're pushing a Portuguese POV. It's simply that by being from Portugal, we've heard about this Olivenza situation many times and we are naturally interested in this subject. Myself, I couldn't care less to which country it should belong.--Húsönd 22:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right in stating that Olivenza is de facto with Spain, but that is already very clear in the article. You are wrong in assuming there is no issue going on, because both countries acknowledge it - read the Chronology (maybe the fact that there is no blood going on makes you think otherwise). The "limbo" term could be correctly applied as both countries are not forcing a solution to the de jure situation and everyone seems to be happy with the borders not being defined in that region. But, again, all of that is covered in the article in that neutral, boring encyclopedic tone that WP must have. --maf (talk-cont) 21:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a bit more, I re-read the article lead and the first paragraph is a bit convoluted now. I prefer a previous version of mine but I let someone else decide to put it back or not:

Olivenza (Spanish spelling) or Olivença (Portuguese spelling) is a town and municipality, on the border of Portugal and Spain, which is administered as a part of the Spanish region of Extremadura. The sovereignty of Olivenza is claimed by Portugal.

--maf (talk-cont) 21:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If I recall well, I think that it was me who changed that sentence as I believe that it does not conform with NPOV. Both countries claim sovereignty over Olivenza, therefore stating that only Portugal is claiming it does seem to lean the statement towards a Spanish POV. I also think that "on the border" needs rewording. Otherwise it sounds as if the town lies exactly on the border, where in fact it is located in an entirely disputed border area.--Húsönd 22:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see now, thanks. I'm attempting to rephrase the sentence using "reclaim" but I am not succeeding without sounding POV and COI. Better keep it as is.--maf (talk-cont) 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The new president of Extremadura is born in Olivenza.

2007 Is elected Guillermo Fernandez Vara lika president of the Region of Extremadura. Fernandez Vara was born in Olivenza.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.38.254.55 (talk • contribs).

FACTS

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)

Newly-expanded infobox POV

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

See Request for Comment (first step of mediation) below, and report of behaviour here. Thanks.--maf (talk-cont) 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

POV dispute

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)

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)

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)

Double Recognition

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)

''''''Olivença - a portuguese Territory under spanish administration.

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)

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)

The truth about the portuguese Territory of Olivença

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)

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)

The Territory of Olivenza

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)

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)

It's stupid, Oliventino. I'm spanish, like you, whether you like or not, and you are free to express your views whatever, but in the appropriate channels. Wikipedia is not a blog or an editorial, it is an encyclopedia, and must tell the reality, whatever, whether we like it or not. Olivenza is Spanish because Portugal NOT THE CLAIMS only does paripé including it in their maps, but nothing more. This is the same as if now give Spain by claiming their "imperial territories." They would not be disputed areas; States would be of any State or territory unilaterally claimed by Spain, but nothing more. Discussions are quoted in the article and are developed in this section, but do not try to impose your truth, not reality, to the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.161.126 (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not call the Falkland Islands Argenbtinian or Gibraltar Spanish and we must not cal Olivemza anything but Spanish merely because a few Portuguese editors disagree with a centuries old de jure y de facto occupation. The territory is Spanish and hasm't been Portuguese in almost 23 centuries. i suggest a request for comment as this issue is not going to go away while people are only interested in their own nationalistic POV pushing. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

The Oliventino Portuguese in The Territory of Olivença

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)

NPOV

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)

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)

"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)

Olivença and Olivenza

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)

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)

Olivenza is a portuguese city administered by Spain

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)

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)

If a country signs a treaty that includes a clause stating that "it will do all that it can to return" a territory to another country, it is accepting the territory is someone else´s to return to. And that´s what Spain did when they signed, in 1817, the 1815 Treaty of Vienna. It´s a matter of simple truth and logic. Unfortunately, international politics are often more complicated. Besides that, the Treaty of Badajoz, signed in 1801, which gave Olivenza to Spain, specifically stated that the treaty and all its clauses would be nullified, if any of its articles were not to be respected. Many were not, so the Treaty of Badajoz anulls itself. There is not doubt that Olivenza is administered by Spain. But no country other than Spain has ever claimed it to be anything but Portuguese, at an official level. It seems relatively clear, though obviously disputable, that it is a Portuguese territory, administered by Spain. The claim of Portugal over Olivenza, at many levels, is comparable to the one of Spain over Gibraltar. In legal terms, it might even have stronger fundaments, as international law seems to support the Spanish claim on Gibraltar. I don´t have a fully constructed opinion on the matter, but I think it is not logical to go against the will of any people in the middle of the 21st century. After over two centuries of Spanish rule, I believe whatever the people of Olivenza want should be respected. Just as after more than three centuries of British rule, whatever the people of Gibraltar want should be respected. Nevertheless, legally, Olivenza and its surroundings, including Táliga, should, as I see it, be considered a Portuguese territory under Spanish administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.79.73.25 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Autonomy for the Territory of Olivenza

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)

Ok, I see where this is going. Please have in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Húsönd 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

When we have no arguments we must be silent

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)

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)

Oliventino is not from Olivenza. I read his words in spanish in the spanish wiki and he write like a portuguese that think that he speak good spanish. Oliventino probably (100% is a portuguese). All the people of Olivenza speak spanish like first languague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.159.173 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Olivenza is, de iure, Spanish territory

Olivenza is de iure and de facto Spanish territory, according to Article 3rd of the Treaty of Badajoz, signed in 1801 by Spain and Portugal. There's an old Portuguese claim about the city and its environs, but legally Olivenza is Spanish, in the same way Gibraltar is a British colony by the Treaty of Utrecht, 1713. That's neutrality, I think, and your extravagant introduction speaks out about a territory disputed by two countries. I only ask you for visiting Olivenza and Táliga, and telling what you see and hear. Bye.

A treaty which was void and superseded by the Treaty of Vienna. Bye. Húsönd 16:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The treaty of Vienna was not compulsory for Spain, it only recommends...It's a question of International Law. To be compulsory, this treaty should be of the same rank. Ordering and establishing a Portuguese Olivença, not merely a recommendation. Ciao, ciao. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.204.192.247 (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Portuguese claim to Olivença is not supported by the treaty of Vienna. It is supported by the 1808 manifesto by prince John, in Rio the Janeiro, that declared void the treaty of Badajoz.

== The 1801 Treaty of Badajoz is nule and of no effect ==

Olivenza is the jure and the facto portuguese territory administered by Spain,and more important then that the inhabitants are ethnic portuguese as a majority of 80%. I wonder why the spanish does not comment about that!. When the Spanish State in European Union in 2008, has not a single valid Treaty and is forced by his honor in signed international Treaties to handover the administration of the Territory of Olivenza, the situation is most unusual. We proved with a link, that the spanish never dare to comment, that for the public opinion in Spain, Olivenza is a portuguese city. And we did it again, because the spanish have trouble to understand the voice of the people, just see Pueblos de España and search for Olivenza. I bet that not one of the spanish will comment that. By the way i am an ethnic portuguese, citizen of Olivenza and i am proud of talking good portuguese and louzy spanish. Most of my people too. Our struggle is to be recognzied as what we really are and we hope that the British can realize that a small portuguese national minority has the right of basic human and political rigths. What the Irish people would say if you in the British wikipedia define Londonderry as an English city? Nevertheless Northern Ireland is a part of UK of Great Britain. What we want in Olivenza is that you say that we are a portuguese city administered by Spain. Is it so difficult to speak the truth? --Oliventino (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oliventino, you're mistaken in many ways:

• Olivenza is NOT de facto Portuguese. "De facto" it would be if Portugal had any control over the territory, which it hasn't. Olivenza is entirely administered by Spain, and appears as part of Spain in almost every single map published in the world (including maps made and used in Portugal), therefore it is de facto Spanish. That is an easily verifiable fact.
• We have no sources complying to WP:RS and WP:V that would confirm your claim that 80% of its inhabitants are ethnically Portuguese. Original research based on your personal knowledge and experience being a Portuguese citizen of Olivenza, as you claim, is not valid for Wikipedia.
• As far as I know, the citizens of Olivenza have far more than basic human and political rights. If its population really wishes to be handed over to Portugal then there are many things you can do, but promoting your "struggle" is not for Wikipedia. See WP:SOAP.
• Londonderry is not an English city, it's an Irish city of the United Kingdom. I think it's the second time you use this rather poor argument and it's the second time I say the same thing. I can't really see your point or even pertinent comparison with Olivenza.
• There is no "British" Wikipedia.
• There is no truth.

Húsönd 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oliventino, the problem is not if the Treaty of Badajoz is nule or not. This is a paragraph of the whole article, an enciclopedic article that it should reflect reality. Spain is ruling Olivenza at present without a doubt, and is not a nationalism, is a fact, because although Portugal made a gesture (I have a portuguese map that includes Olivenza in Portugal) vague, the fact is that the portuguese government HAS NO make any official complaint from the territory, so it is not in dispute. LasMatas01 00:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. The Portuguese government over the years has made many official complaints about Olivenza. But unlike the Spanish government regarding Gibraltar, those complaints have been made in private (during the Ajuda Bridge construction, during the works of the Spanish-Portuguese limits comission, etc...). BTW,In the "Friends of Olivença" web site there is a official document from the Portuguese Foreign Ministry clearly stating Olivença as Portuguese Territory.

Fact 1: The treaty of Badajoz was considered void by Portugal.

Fact 2: In two ocasions, Spain reconized the Portugese reasons about Olivenza.

Fact 3: Spain never returned the Territory.

These three facts make: "Olivenza is a Portuguese Territory administred by Spain".

NoUser01 00:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Olivenza is a Portuguese city of Spain

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)

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)

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)

Shield and Flag

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 [4]. --87.223.156.42 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

There is a mistake in the oficial text, because in the text write a royal crown but in the image is a mural crown. I dont kown how is the correct form. I send a mail to the town hall web with no answer yet.--87.223.156.42 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese de juro claim

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

The goverment of Portugal not claim sovereignty to Olivenza [5], also in the portuguese news (Martins da Cruz defende melhores relações entre a UE e os países do Sul. 04.09.2003 - 11h08 - Última Hora / PolíticaO ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Martins da Cruz, defendeu ontem à noite em Leiria o reforço das relações entre a União Europeia e os países vizinhos do Sul como medida essencial de Política Externa, Segurança e Defesa (PESD) dos Quinze.),[6] and the close towns near to the border betwen spain and portugal have a cooperation pact [7]--87.223.156.42 (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

New article on disputed status

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)

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)

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)

Why district of Évora?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Shield and Flag

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)

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)

In fact the description made is of a municipality of the Province of Badajoz. This is not the case of the Municipio of Olivenza, that has the shield and flag of the Portuguese Republic because is portuguese Territory under spanish administration. And the reason why this happens is because the democratic spanish state can not act against the will of the majority of ethnic portuguese living in the Territory of Olivenza. Spain has only the administration, not the sovereignty that gives it the right to include Olivenza as a spanish municipality. You can prove what i am sayng looking at the oficial site of the Ayuntamiento of Olivenza. --Oliventino (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Olivenza is a portuguese town administered by Spain

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)

For more information on the portuguese town of Olivenza vide the blog of Alemguadiana and the map of Portugal.--Oliventino (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What you need is reliable sources to reference this. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What is more reliable than the Vienna Treaty of 1815, the Fontainebleau Treaty or the Badajoz Treaty of 1801? The problem is that nobody cares about Olivenza but the oliventino people and their leaders. And we don`t want information in the wikipedia that don`t reflect the reality and the nationality of our Territory. Just an example, if we don´t make a move, the fake shield and flag invented by the spaniards, probably was in the english version, as currently is in the spanish, italian, german and french version of the article about Olivenza. The spanish they don`t have shame of telling lies in the internet, they count in spanish influence and the silence of the portuguese to carry on. We may be administered by Spain but we are portuguese by international law and we never give up our language our culture and the truth. --Oliventino (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia policies

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)

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)

So Spaniards and Portuguese people have a different etchnicity now? I do not think you could find differences, even genetic ones, between people living along the spanish-portuguese border. But what I think does not matter here. Wikipedia is not a forum. The article should just state that Spanish has the the facto control over the area, and then state the de iure claims of both countries. More than that is out of place. 212.163.172.180 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Leiro212.163.172.180 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Missed to include information

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)

"Recognition"?!?

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)

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

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)

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)

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

See also

• 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) Fake Shield on the municipal flag of Olivenza Almost two years after we tried to make our point and enforced the truth about de real status of the portuguese city and Territory of Olivenza, we came back and realize that those who opposed that Olivenza was defined as a portuguese city administred by Spain, acepted a fake shield on the municipal flag of Olivenza. Shame on you, that dares to affront a small portuguese minority on the European Union that with pride fight for their freedom and right to be recognized for what they are, a portuguese minority in the Spanish State. But while you think that we exist no more our singers sing with pride in our national language as you can see in that link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7cX1unEk3I). By the way our strugle continues and we will never give up hope until at last all the Nations in European Union, with responsability in our present situation, acepted our existence as a portuguese non autonomous national minority in the Spanish State. And Wikipedia must repair the damage that is doing to us and tell the truth to the english speaking world. Is it so dificult to speak the truth? As a matter of fact Spain does not gives a different interpretation of the Treaties. That is a modern claim of some spanish intelectuals with no respect for the truth and rightnous. They signed the Treaty of Vienna and that is final.The Badajoz Treaty of 1801 was never signed by the french, so the Territory of Olivenza was never spanish by international law. --Oliventino (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC) If it is a portuguese town, and there is no doubt about that, we must say portuguese, is more objective.--Oliventino (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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. [8]

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

---

Olivenza (disambiguation) → Olivenza – The stable old name. Changed on 15 January 2018 in a disruptive move [9][10]. Asqueladd (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

---

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)