Talk:Savage Islands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Savage or Salvage?[edit]

I am curious about the statement that the English speakers "incorrectly translate the word to Salvage islands. The literal translation of the Portuguese may be Savage Islands in English, but English speakers are quite capable of mangling a foreign name into something approaching an English word without knowing or caring what the translation actually is. Most English names for places are based on the original foreign word, not a translation of the word. How about Lisbon for Lisboa, its not a bad translation of Portuguese, it is the English name for the city. I would say that the English name for the islands is the Salvage Islands not Savage Islands. Certainly that is what most English spakers who have ever heard of them call them. Dabbler 03:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Salvaje (Salvage) is Spanish for Savage. -Pedro 13:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
More:
Note on translations
The Portuguese "Ilhas Salvagens" translates as "Savage Islands" in English. However, this is often mistranslated as "Salvage Islands" in English-language citations.
From Don Macnaughtan - Lane Community College Library
I think that should be readded. There was a citation in the article that selvagem meant salvage... hmm?!?! In my dictionary says Selvagem = savage. (not a surprise, really)-Pedro 15:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Islas Salvajes" in spanish, don't forget that for Spain, they are totally spanish islands, a part of the Canary Islands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.59.223.252 (talk) 14:55, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

I don´t know what some spanish think, but spanish government surely have the education and culture to recognize Salvajes as portuguese. AT least is what OFFICIALLY is accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.219 (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Territory[edit]

For Spain, the island are not Portuguese "de jure". There is a dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.3.149 (talk • contribs)

I'm from Spain and for Spaim the situation of the Islas Salvajes is conflictive. The article iin english wikipedia is fake fake. Is necessary to change it. You can check the situation in the spanish wikipedia. Javirojo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.203.104.118 (talk • contribs)
Drink less. There was a water territorial dispute between both countries, has Spain denied that these were real islands, but rocks, but these arent rocks (what is Spain to say it is?). Spain just wants these islands to have no territorial waters, thus increasing its own territorial waters. However, I don't know if Spain still says that, but the islands are de jure and de facto Portuguese and also de jure (yes, they are) and de facto islands. These were once private property of a Portuguese family over generations, and the government bought it to make a natural reserve, as these were useless to become habitable (although there were some attempts) or for tourism, because there's not much fresh water.--Pedro 23:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"However, I don't know if Spain still says that, but the islands are de jure and de facto Portuguese and also de jure (yes, they are) and de facto islands." If you don't know, please don't talk. I didn't talk about the rights of Spain, I only said that the island are disputed. The Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and the article must be neutral. There is a disputed. And I am not a drunker. Good manners, please. Javirojo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.203.104.118 (talk • contribs)
Ok Javi, But who says that the islands are disputed, do you have any reference to that? I know that Spain wanted its waters because it thinks that these are not islands, besides it, there's nothing else and as an answer, these islands are even officially recognized by law as islands. I've seen the Spanish article and the article was ok until you edited it... that's why I think you must have swallowed something... weekend, summer, the heat, these days are so hot… you know, people start hallucinating, drink water instead of alcohol to solve your problem.. Sorry for this ;). Or Spain moved to dispute the islands itself? Do you have a ref? --Pedro 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

España no reconoce la soberanía portuguesa. Hasta que no lo haga hay que reconocer que hay un conflicto sobre estos islotes por absurdo que parezca. En mi caso te aseguro de que no soy un borracho y creo que decir que otro wikipedista lo es por no estar de acuerdo con sus ideas da muestras de baja catadura moral. Nov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.3.149 (talk • contribs)

  • sabes o que é brincar?! Desculpa se te ofendi. Os "islotes" são "islas". Por acaso é um pouco absurdo (já que as ilhas nada têm a ver com Espanha, nem nunca tiveram) por isso deves apresentar uma fonte, no entanto não é assim tão absurdo vindo do país que vem: tem contendas territoriais com todos os vizinhos. Logo não penso que és um "borracho", tava na Tanga. --Pedro 11:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "por isso deves apresentar uma fonte, no entanto não é assim tão absurdo vindo do país que vem: tem contendas territoriais com todos os vizinhos" Portugal también tiene problemas con todos sus vecinos. Eres un maleducado.

Repito, en ningún momento digo que los derechos españoles sobre las Islas Salvajes sean justos, no lo sé. Solo que no reconoce la soberanía portuguesa y hay disputa.

  • Spain don´t recognize the soberany of Portugal about the islan. This web site is about the Diary of Sesion of the Spaniard Senate. The minister Narcis Serra in 1998 said that. Diario de Sesiones del Senado Español-in Spanish "Puedo decirle que ninguna pluma nos hemos tenido que dejar en esa negociación. La esfera alrededor de las islas Canarias se trazó de las dos maneras que Exteriores pidió para no hacer ninguna concesión a ese respecto (the soberany), que era por coordenadas o por dibujo, y no hubo ninguna referencia a palabras que hubieran podido dar pie a discusiones".
En ese web solamente se habla del mar al redor de las islas y además es un miembro de la oposición que lo hace. No una posición del gobierno. Lo mismo pasa con el problema de Olivenza. Oficialmente el gobierno portugues no tiene disputa... Coimbra68 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And because of that. Spain disputed the island. Noviscum 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Estou a ver que tens traumas com alcool, mas esquece isso. Quanto ao que escreveste, amigo tomas-me por quê?
  • 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.
  • Não te vais sentir ofendido com os "ciganos" agora... --Pedro 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • from your link:
Decía yo que nos han tenido en vilo porque el acuerdo que se ha producido con Portugal no es otra cosa que el que justamente un año antes, en octubre de 1996, a mí me decía el ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de Portugal, Jaime Gama, que ellos consideraban razonable: nada de desplazamiento de límites para cubrir las islas Canarias, nada de un pasillo que condujera hasta las islas Canarias, simplemente mantener las islas Canarias vinculadas al mando establecido en España, que no al mando español, y, por supuesto --y aquí suscitaban eso que es pequeño, pero que por lo visto era muy importante para los portugueses--, salvar la soberanía y la jurisdicción de lo que ellos llamaban las islas salvajes, nosotros los peñones salvajes, y supongo que alguna pluma nos hemos dejado en ese camino de ''reconocimiento del carácter de esos peñones o islas salvajes', pero éste es un problema que preocupa a nuestros diplomáticos y que a mí no me preocupa especialmente.--Pedro 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You take the words of a parliamente, not the minister. Pedro, you are a vandal and a racist. Noviscum 21:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stop vandalism. You change the page only because you dislake because I show that I say the true with a offical link of the spanish goverment. And stop racism also. Noviscum 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • stop adding false information to wikipedia, the official link of the spanish government says nothing about disputing the islands! You are out or your mind, calm down.
    • I don't consider Spanish to be a different race (it is my childhood country, you Spanish nationalists always think Portuguese hate Spain - that's not true!), I just consider it not a very serious and respectful country (based on FACTS, not prejudice); But that doesnt matter. When you present a credible link that states CLEARLY that the territory of the islands are disputed by Spain, then I'll add that information MYSELF! But behare that the president of Madeira (the Portuguese Fidel), Madeira islands (Portuguese Cuba) are his kingdom, and he is known not to like people like you a lot. he is not like most Portuguese politicians (he is scared of nothing, says and do what he wants), he will hunt you down, believe me. LOL. --Pedro 01:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When you present a credible link that states CLEARLY that the territory of the islands are disputed by Spain, then I'll add that information MYSELF!"

The link is credible because is a official link os Spain. Is a link to the diary of session of the Spanish Senate. The Senator Estrella Pedrola is asking to the minister of defense about the negociation Spain-Portugal, because the joining of the NATO. He ask about a lot of things and in this things he ask if Spain recognised the soberany of Portugal about the Salvaje Islands.

"El señor ESTRELLA PEDROLA: Señor ministro, bien está lo que bien acaba. La verdad es que nos han tenido ustedes en vilo con este tema durante varios meses. Yo quería empezar diciendo --y ahora volveré sobre algunos aspectos que nos parecen criticables-- que el Gobierno al final ha obtenido un buen resultado, por calificar algo que en una intervención anterior se desprendía de las palabras del portavoz del Grupo Popular. Quizás imbuido por el espíritu del 3 de marzo, venía a adjudicar al Gobierno del Partido Popular la voluntad de integrar a España en la nueva estructura de la Alianza. Yo quería dejar rotundamente claro que el Partido Socialista desde el primer momento, hace bastante tiempo, desde que en la Alianza se empezó a hablar de la implementación de una nueva estructura, tenía muy claro, y así lo expresó públicamente, que si la Alianza abandonaba la estructura anterior en la que había un mando en Gibraltar que no daba lugar a que España tuviese un papel acorde con su peso y con su contribución en la estructura de esa Alianza, parecía lógico que España estuviese incorporada plenamente en la nueva estructura. Ha muerto la vieja estructura, han desaparecido los obstáculos, España está en la nueva estructura, y eso era lo que queríamos todos, por lo menos los que estamos sentados en los primeros bancos de esta sala y, por supuesto, también el Gobierno. Decía yo que nos han tenido en vilo porque el acuerdo que se ha producido con Portugal no es otra cosa que el que justamente un año antes, en octubre de 1996, a mí me decía el ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de Portugal, Jaime Gama, que ellos consideraban razonable: nada de desplazamiento de límites para cubrir las islas Canarias, nada de un pasillo que condujera hasta las islas Canarias, simplemente mantener las islas Canarias vinculadas al mando establecido en España, que no al mando español, y, por supuesto --y aquí suscitaban eso que es pequeño, pero que por lo visto era muy importante para los portugueses--, salvar la soberanía y la jurisdicción de lo que ellos llamaban las islas salvajes, nosotros los peñones salvajes, y supongo que alguna pluma nos hemos dejado en ese camino de reconocimiento del carácter de esos peñones o islas salvajes, pero éste es un problema que preocupa a nuestros diplomáticos y que a mí no me preocupa especialmente. Creo que el acuerdo es satisfactorio, sobre todo, como ha dicho el señor ministro, por otras cosas que se han producido en los acuerdos sobre la estructura de mandos. Es muy importante que se haya adoptado esa fórmula flexible del mando de apoyo y el mando que es apoyado, el supporting y el supporter commander, porque eso es lo que nos da flexibilidad y permite, como ha señalado el ministro, establecer acuerdos que nos dejan operar directamente con el mando supremo del Atlántico. No tenía sentido que nos enfrentáramos con Portugal en este tema. La escalada llegó a tal extremo --y no sé si lo conoce el señor ministro-- que la Comisión de Defensa de las Asamblea Nacional portuguesa en Pleno se montó en un barco y navegó durante unas doce horas hasta llegar a los llamados peñones salvajes para constatar su propia soberanía sobre esos islotes. En cuanto a Gibraltar, la escalada verbal a que nos ha sometido el Gobierno británico, por una parte, que fue quien la inició en Madrid, a continuación secundado con gran fervor por el Gobierno español, no por el ministro de Defensa especialmente pero sí por otros miembros del Gobierno incluido el presidente, pensamos que ha sido innecesaria. Ha dicho el ministro que se trataba de discernir entre el contencioso bilateral y una cuestión que se planteaba en el ámbito multilateral. La realidad, señor ministro, es que cuando desde el Gobierno se está diciendo: No aceptaremos ninguna modificación sobre Gibraltar si no hay progresos en materia de soberanía, el mensaje que está recibiendo la opinión pública y los británicos es que el Gobierno está trasladando al ámbito de la OTAN el problema del contencioso. Cuando el ministro de Asuntos Exteriores dice: Si no hay avances en el tema del mando y los ingleses no levantan sus restricciones apretaremos las tuercas a los gibraltareños, entendemos que se está mezclando el contencioso bilateral con el multilateral, con el problema de los mandos en la OTAN. Nos pareció un error y así lo dijimos. Al final se ha resuelto, y usted decía que sorprendentemente. Está claro que el Gobierno británico se quedó solo. Retirada la reserva por parte francesa, resuelto, de una manera provisional al menos, el contencioso entre griegos y turcos, poco le quedaba que hacer al Gobierno británico excepto levantar la reserva. No ha hecho referencia el ministro a posibles problemas que puedan surgir en el futuro en esa fase de preimplementación. Hay que dotar al cuartel general que se va a establecer en España. Eso supone aprobar unos fondos, unas plantillas, etcétera. Confiamos en el Gobierno. Si el ministro no está preocupado, nosotros tampoco lo estamos especialmente. Creo que está bien encauzado el desarrollo de la próxima fase del mando en el ámbito de la OTAN. Hay una preocupación que tenemos que no viene tanto de lo que puedan hacer los británicos, sino de que puedan surgir otros obstáculos que puedan ser utilizados por el Gobierno británico para poner a su vez obstáculos. Me refiero, por ejemplo, a un nuevo desacuerdo entre Grecia y Turquía que bloquee el conjunto de la implementación de los acuerdos sobre la estructura de mandos. Pero no me voy a extender sobre eso y doy por buena la visión que da el ministro. En cuanto a los costes, quería preguntarle por una duda que nos asalta. ¿Existe el riesgo de que al final el presupuesto de infraestructuras se derive fundamentalmente a financiar las nuevas infraestructuras de los futuros miembros de la Alianza y que, por tanto, eso afecte a la financiación del cuartel general en España? Esa sería una primera cuestión. En segundo término, señor ministro, hemos hablado del qué, pero nos queda por hablar del para qué. Me refiero a cuáles van a ser las misiones de ese nuevo mando que se va a establecer en España, porque está claro que no se trata solamente de saber cuántos militares va a haber, sino qué misiones va a tener, que forman parte de las definidas en ese documento al que usted ha hecho referencia, el MCM 124/1997. Yo sé las limitaciones que tiene la información sobre las misiones, pero pediría al ministro y al presidente que buscaran un ámbito para que miembros de esta Comisión, al menos aquellos que se ocupan fundamentalmente de temas de política de seguridad y defensa, pudieran tener acceso a la información sobre qué misiones va a tener ese mando en España. Creo que es viable sin alterar, en absoluto, esas limitaciones. Otro aspecto, señor ministro. La OTAN va directamente hacia una estructura que se basa fundamentalmente en el concepto de fuerza operativa combinada conjunta, el denominado CJTF. Esa va a ser también la característica del mando que se establezca en España. Yo le haría una pregunta, ¿en qué medida nuestras propias Fuerzas Armadas, donde el jefe del Estado Mayor es jefe de las fuerzas conjuntas nominalmente, desde el punto de vista operativo están adaptadas o necesitan adaptarse a un funcionamiento como fuerza conjunta? Se lo explico de otra manera. Nuestra participación en la OTAN se va a hacer con unidades que actúan de manera combinada con fuerzas de otros países, de manera conjunta con unidades de distintas armas. ¿Es preciso dar algunos pasos en el caso de nuestras propias Fuerzas Armadas internamente? Me gustaría que nos comentase esa dicotomía. Ha hecho referencia el ministro a la adaptación a las nuevas misiones, pero quería hacerle una observación. Si seguimos la secuencia, hay un nuevo concepto estratégico que se aprueba en 1991, en Roma. España lo traslada a su normativa interna en 1992, pero ese concepto de 1991 refleja una realidad que no es la actual de la Alianza. Aparece Rusia, por ejemplo, como una amenaza todavía para la seguridad, cuando Rusia es ahora un aliado de la Alianza en la construcción de la seguridad y la estabilidad en Europa. La OTAN ha decidido elaborar un nuevo concepto estratégico adaptado a las nuevas misiones, a la nueva situación geoestratégica. Mi preocupación es la siguiente. Si la nueva estructura que se ha adoptado ahora responde al concepto estratégico vigente, que es el de 1991, ¿la adopción de un nuevo concepto estratégico, prevista para el año próximo, no nos obligará a una revisión de la estructura aprobada en diciembre? Hay que tener en cuenta, además, que es una estructura de base eminentemente territorial y que todo indica que el nuevo concepto estratégico no va a ir por esa vía fundamentalmente. Esa es la otra cuestión que quería preguntarle. Ha hablado el ministro de los trabajos previos al establecimiento del núcleo del cuartel general y ha hecho referencia al general de brigada don Juan Martínez Esparza. Le ha faltado decir en la reserva, cosa que lamento y que sé que el ministro también lamenta, porque supone desaprovechar la capacidad de una persona que ha demostrado a lo largo de muchos años ser un honesto servidor del Estado --sigue siéndolo-- y probablemente el principal experto español en materia de política de seguridad y defensa. Esto no lo digo yo, sino que lo he escuchado por donde quiera que voy. Creo que es un nombramiento inteligente, la pena es que no haya sido acompañado de un ascenso que le hubiera dado una mayor solidez a su papel. Por lo demás, señor ministro, quiero agradecerle su presencia, aunque sea cinco meses después de que pedimos esta comparecencia, y decirle que esperamos seguir manteniendo esta información sobre el desarrollo de nuestra incorporación a la estructura de la Alianza."

That the answer of the minister of defense Serra Resah to all this question and if Spain recognised the soberany of Portugal.

"El señor MINISTRO DE DEFENSA (Serra Rexach): Señor Estrella, le agradezco en lo que vale su intervención no sólo por el respaldo a la política de defensa del Gobierno en relación con la OTAN, sino que me congratulo especialmente porque el Gobierno y el principal partido de la oposición tengan una visión tan convergente en cuanto a los intereses españoles en seguridad y defensa. Le agradezco muy especialmente la confianza que tiene en la negociación del Gobierno y me gustaría responderle a las preguntas que ha hecho, lo cual creo que es factible, con la excepción de las misiones para las que gustosamente, bajo la batuta del presidente, podemos buscar el ámbito adecuado. Sinceramente estimo que el de la Alianza ha sido un buen resultado. Desde luego, nada más lejos de la intención del Gobierno que mantener en vilo a nadie y menos a esta Cámara. El problema, como usted bien sabe, es que una negociación implica dos voluntades y, por tanto, no se puede anticipar ni desvelar el estado de la negociación precisamente para no perjudicar el resultado de la misma. Es verdad que con Portugal había ya desde el principio una coincidencia en los puntos básicos que usted ha enumerado, no sólo por parte del ministro de Exteriores sino por mi colega, el hoy ex ministro de Defensa, pero no es lo mismo las líneas generales que la letra pequeña, como bien sabe S. S. No eran sólo los peñones o las islas salvajes, cuestión poco conocida por la opinión pública española, pero muy sensible para la opinión portuguesa. Puedo decirle que ninguna pluma nos hemos tenido que dejar en esa negociación. La esfera alrededor de las islas Canarias se trazó de las dos maneras que Exteriores pidió para no hacer ninguna concesión a ese respecto, que era por coordenadas o por dibujo, y no hubo ninguna referencia a palabras que hubieran podido dar pie a discusiones." Diary of Sesion of the Spanish Senate.

Maybe you don't understand spanish, but for a spanish is easy to understand the portuguese and for a portuguese the spanish. The minister says that spanish didn't accepted nothing, dinn't do any concession about the soberanity of Portugal.

Portugal do nothing about Olivenza but he doesn't recognise the soberany of Spain. And for Portugal is a claimed and I acepted that there is a disputed because there is a desagree in the border. For Spain is the same situation with Islas Salvajes because the soberany is disputed.

Change the page, please, because is clare the reality. Noviscum 19:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispite some people harsh words like those of Pedro he has the main reason . Why? It´s oficcialy and internationally recognized and accepted by the EC ( European comunity) that salvage islands are portuguese. The dispute existed but no longer exists... If still exist is only for some spanish people that want to steal the others lands... The portuguese were the FIRST to get there. Portuguese nowadays LIVE there ( natural reserve guards). Salvagens islands are a NATURAL RESERVE of Portugal. All modern ATLAS maps include these islands in Portugal. Actual governs don´t dispute these islands... They are portuguese . Whatever some people like or dislike. Even if you look in your spanish atlas they´ll show up salvajes as portuguese. This sounds like greeks that want to steal cyprus from the cypriots... Cyprus is Cyprus, not Greece. Cypriots aren´t greeks and they are asian not european and they have their own right for their own land... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.219 (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Territory Redux[edit]

Gentlemen,

It is clear that the territory is disputed. Your debate alone illustrates a level of the dispute. And your debate tells me what the nature of the dispute is.

Wikipedia is about fact—disputes are facts. We need to discuss the dispute in the article.

Being neither Spanish not Portuguese, please let me compose my understanding of the dispute and add it to the article.

Once I've done so, I'd appreciate you thoughtful criticism.

Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 20:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The waters are disputed by Spain (a fact) not the territory.--Pedro 21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've made some extensive changes to the main page. Hopefully you gentlemen will find them acceptable. If not, let's discuss the problems with my work here. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One day with only minor changes. Perhaps we have agreement that this is a suitable expression of the conflict. Williamborg (Bill) 02:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I think we made it to NPOV... Williamborg (Bill) 03:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is references in online enciclopedies about the conflict Spain versus Portugal about the Selvagens

Spanish Wikipedia

"Isla Salvaje GrandeEspaña no reconoce formalmente la posesión de las islas por Portugal. Esto se puede observar en un oficio del Ministerio de Negocios Extranjeros, datado de 23 de Julio de 1881, que decía

De los antecedentes que existen en el Ministerio de Estado en Madrid, se deduce claramente que no está determinado si la soberania de la isla pertence a España o a Portugal. En 1911 España comunicó a Portugal que iba a montar un faro en las islas pero se llegó a un acuerdo entre España y Portugal para evitar cualquier acto que pudiera obstaculizar el lograr una solución amigable. En 1929 el contraalmirante Gago-Countinho declara que las islas pertenecen a Portugal y en 1938 fue emitido por una Comisión Permanente de Derecho Marítimo Internacional un dictamen en favor de Portugal. No consta que España estuviera presente en dicha comisión y hoy por hoy no se ha aceptado de iure.

Por otro lado, España se niega a reconocer el derecho a poseer a dichas las islas una Zona Económica Exclusiva al considerar que no cumple las condiciones del Derecho del Mar establecido en la Conferencia de Montego Bay. A día de hoy sigue sin haber acuerdo al respecto entre España y Portugal ni sobre la soberanía ni sobre los limites de las ZEE de ambos paises "

Portugueses Wikipedia

"Em 1938 Portugal faz um mapa das ilhas que colocam posições de um alvo, é o momento apropriado. Espanha está na guerra civil e há um governo nenhum capaz de defender a Espanha na parte externa. Portugal, embalado, dá o sopro definitive, emite a uma lima ao commission permanente da lei de admiralty o internacional e esta falha o 15 de fevereiro de 1938 no favor de Portugal até o sovereignty. Espanha, derrota na luta interna pela guerra civil, não pode reagir nem comandar àquele defende suas direitas antes do commission. Não consiste que Espanha estava atual neste commission e no tempo atual não estêve aceitado do iure."

The Holland Wikipedia

"Er waren een aantal kleine diplomatieke incidenten met Spanje over visserijrechten en overvluchten van militaire vluchten over de eilanden. Spanje erkent de Portugese soevereiniteit over de eilanden niet, hoewel het de facto het Portugese bezit ervan erkent. Het "

French Wikipedia

"Malgré leur appartenance historique au Portugal, l'Espagne conteste la souveraineté portugaise sur l'archipel et le considère comme territoire espagnol.

Les Îles Sauvages ont été découverts en 1438 par le marin Portugais Diogo Gomes de Sintra, lors d'un voyage depuis la guinée vers le portugal.

Récupérée de « http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Eles_Selvagens »"

Pedro is doing vandalism because he doesn´t respect the neutrality of this article in the english Wikipedia. Noviscum 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't agree with this section of the article. Other wikipedias can't be reliable sources. Text is badly written. It's a shame this article is like this...

If there is a real dispute, it can't be supported on vague statements. The portuguese version of this article is even worse... Somebody is badly trying to make a point.--Taliska1 19:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • yes, Mr Noviscum is very intelligent and uses babelfish to spread his "truth".--Pedro 02:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that some people instead of realizing that there´s a dispute because only of some discussions here on wikipedia ( this sounds awesome and unreal...), should read official papers. Official papers SAY SALVAJES, SAVAJES, or SELVAGENS ARE PORTUGUESE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.219 (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lies of Pedro[edit]

The wikipedist Pedro is adding fake information. When a wikipedist do fake information for politic motivation (Ultra Portuguese Nationalist) must be considerer a Vandal.

A Quote:

The archipelago lies about 165 km from Portuguese Madeira, and 230 km from Spainish Canary Islands. The total land area of the Savage Islands is 12.73 km².

Noviscum 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real geografical data is: The archipelago lies about 165 km from from Spainish Canary Islands.and 230 km from Portuguese Madeira, The total land area of the Savage Islands is 2.73 km². Noviscum 15:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


My dear all...aren't we making a storm in a cup of water? its a couple of rocks where spain once wanted to plant a lighthouse, the fact is that they are under Portuguese jurisdiction, and quite honestly I dont see either country invading the islands over the issue. Portugal has maintained an exclusion area around them,and limits non-scientific access, as they are a wild life sancturay and performed culling of the goats (or was it rabbits) there. So, can I please suggest cooling down and giving it a rest? why dont the portuguese go work here: History_of_Portugal_(1834-1910) and the spanish here: Pedro_de_Álcantara_Téllez-Girón,_9th_Duke_of_Osuna ? Galf 10:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It´s oficcialy and internationally recognized and accepted by the EC ( European comunity) that salvage islands are portuguese. The dispute existed but no longer exists... If still exist is only for some spanish people that want to steal the others lands... The portuguese were the first to get there. Salvagens islands are a NATURAL RESERVE of Portugal. All modern ATLAS maps include these islands in Portugal. Actual governs don´t dispute these islands... They are portuguese . Whatever some people like or dislike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.219 (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The EC, a bunch of jumped-up, unelected, megalomaniacal penpushers with grandiose ambitions, has no say in the matter. As to the article itself: it's utter nonsense to call them 'uninhabitable'. If people wanted to live there, they could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over Islands or EEZ?[edit]

My friends! After I read all your comments in portuguese, spanish and english I got confused and decided to search a bit to see who has the reason. And, what I found in several official websites is a bit different. So, here it is what I found:

  • EU Website - To European Union, these Islands are portuguese and there isn't any notice of dispute
  • CIA The World Fact Book - says "Portugal does not recognize Spanish sovereignty over the territory of Olivenza based on a difference of interpretation of the 1815 Congress of Vienna and the 1801 Treaty of Badajoz" and has nothing about spanish claims over the islands.
  • Presidencia del Gobierno - Spanish Government website doesnt say anything about disputes over the islands.
  • UN website don't mention anything either

So after this I conclude that there is no dispute over the islands. About TTW and EEZ:

  • What I found is that Spain recognizes portuguese sovereignity over the islands and adjacent TTW. What Spain doesnt recognize is the EEZ Portugal added to the islands.

Meanwhile I have to mention that in the main island there is a permanent occupation by 3 guards from the Natural Reserve all the year. In Selvagem Pequena only during the period from April to September a permanent team is there.

Coimbra68 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the ones that were able to read through...

Beeing portuguese, I was somewhat ashamed by comments by Pedro. Obviously Pedro is not prepared to use a free speach platform without disrespecting others. Using the excuse of a joke is not a good way to disguise xenophobia. If Pedro wants to continue this kind of speach, I sugest he uses a chat somewhere and stop bothering us. But, this is not a characteristic of the portuguese people, and immaturity is something that graces all over the world...

As to the matter of the Ilhas Selvagens, I confess I was astonished to find there was a dispute. I knew there was interest of Spain over the islands (from what I understood, mainly because of territorial waters) and that they flew over the islans a few years ago, resulting in a diplomatic disagreement... but to call it a dispute...

Nevertheless, what i think is essential to undestand, is that the islands, as well as the waters are portuguese, and it is absurd to dispute over this! Considering that the Ilhas Selvagens are a natural reserve, I don't think it is a good idea to fly over them or to fish in its waters. Everywhere in the world, neighbour countries have disagreements. It's only natural. But as I remember the disagreements I had with my brother when I was a child about matters that really don't matter, I think that disagreement is not a sign of incompatibility. The many Iberian people are still learning to live together, but we cannot denny that we have an iberian identity that distinguishes us from the rest of Europe. This should be cultivated and understood as an advantage.

I suggest reading «Jangada de Pedra» (The Stone Raft) by the portuguese writer José Saramago, a nobel prize winner living in spain, married to a spanish journalist. As you do that, I will listen to Jordi Savall (a brilliant catalan musician) playing the Folias, music originated in Portugal in the middle ages that florished all over Europe.

There is water and land for all, if we just can ler to live in PEACE.

Content[edit]

The content in this article is a direct translation of the following website: [[1]]

and actually a bad translation. Coimbra68 19:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


look this: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/po.html#Issues

Islas Salvajes[edit]

These islands are spanish too, but every try to have all the points of view in the article, are closed. The point of view of Spain must be there too, for Spain, they are spanish islands, and the territory is officially disputed, so the categories must have "Islands of Spain" too, like part of the Canary islands.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.59.223.252 (talk • contribs).

Spain might have a claim over the islands, but they're administered by Portugal and internationally recognized as belonging to Portugal, so no, they are not Spanish islands and should not be included in that category.--Húsönd 16:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It´s oficcialy and internationally recognized and accepted by the EC ( European comunity) that salvage islands are portuguese. The dispute existed but no longer exists... If still exist is only for some spanish people that want to steal the others lands... The portuguese were the first to get there. Salvagens islands are a NATURAL RESERVE of Portugal. All modern ATLAS maps include these islands in Portugal. Actual governs don´t dispute these islands... They are portuguese . Whatever some people like or dislike.

Disputed Islands[edit]

You can find hundreds of places in internet where you can see that the islands are disputed, for Spain, they are illegally portuguese islands.

http://www.nuestraamerica.info/leer.hlvs/3527 http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano/contenido?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/Elcano_es/Zonas_es/Europa/DT34-2004 http://www.elmundo.es/1997/10/02/espana/02N0021.html http://age.ieg.csic.es/boletin/32/3208.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.2.206.105 (talk) 15:04, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

I read them all and as far as my Spanish goes it says nothing of that sort! A couple of those links only mention the EEZ dispute not the sovereignty over the islands. Miguelrj (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It´s oficcialy and internationally recognized and accepted by the EC ( European comunity) that salvage islands are portuguese. The dispute existed but no longer exists... If still exist is only for some spanish people that want to steal the others lands... The portuguese were the first to get there. Salvagens islands are a NATURAL RESERVE of Portugal. All modern ATLAS maps include these islands in Portugal. Actual governs don´t dispute these islands... They are portuguese . Whatever some people like or dislike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.219 (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South East Or South West?[edit]

I know nothing about the Savage Islands, but the article states there are two groups:- The Northeast group, and the Southeast group

Based solely on looking at the map, should this not be the The Northeast group and the Southwest group? Or is there some datum point that both these groups are to the East of? Arjayay (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy of this article[edit]

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

It´s fine. Just be aware of spanish vandals. They don´t read the official papers... They only like to think there´s dispute and that´s all. So for them these islands are spanish too. But only for some people. Not for the official sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.37.219 (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

The introduction of this article states that these islands are uninhabitable, with a citation in Portuguese. The infobox states the population is 2. The "History" section states, with no citation, that one island is permanently populated by wardens and another island is populated by wardens in summer. At face value, it would seem that if wardens do indeed live on the islands, then the islands cannot be uninhabitable or uninhabited. Can anyone help resolve this contradiction? Perhaps a citation for the warden population? --GeoWriter (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "uninhabitable" refers to the lack of permanent residency on the islands, where the environment can not support human habitation indefinitely. What there is, is a three-week rotational procedure by the Associação Portuguesa de Guardas e Vigilantes da Natureza (APVN) supported by the Portuguese Military (ferrying and security) to monitor and assist scientific projects on the islands, usually of a team of 3-4 wardens. These points are explained on the AVPN website [[2]] (Portuguese): in addition, there is a note that the time frame does change (owing to weather) and the number of vigilantes also changes depending on the circumstances (the article has an interview with three wardens, whose team includes a dog). The obvious question, is how to clarify the discrepancy. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) 12:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds more like the islands are uninhabited (at least in a permanent resident sense) than uninhabitable. Is this the case?71.142.238.187 (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

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

Edited accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.136.60.26 (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very close to the islands...[edit]

"On June 23, 2005, four Spanish fishing boats were detained 28 nm south of the islands."

Does this mean nanometres, or nautical miles? I couldn't find the number 28 in the two references for that section, so I couldn't confirm what units these are supposed to be. Should we change it to M, NM, or nmi as suggested by this: Nautical mile, assuming the author means nautical miles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.102.181 (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map, English name and political status. Page needs good revision.[edit]

It is disheartening to see the rudeness and confrontation, not only in Wikipedia but much worse in the comments of other Internet pages. This kind of attitude only discourages those who are more knowledgeable but do not want to get involved in squabbles with the rude and ignorant. I will try to contribute without getting into squabbles or confrontations.

English name:

The original Portuguese/Spanish name translates into English more correctly as "Wild Islands" than as "Savage". Wild as opposed to colonized. Savage in English has a different connotation. In any case, the name in English is whatever has been used by the English-speaking and independent of the original name or its meaning in another language.


Map:

Map of the Savage Islands

The map is in disagreement with other sea charts and with Google Earth. I believe the map of the Savage Islands in this page is in error, both in the size and in the position of the islands.

Sea chart with geographical coordinates showing the position of the Savage Islands, Islas Salvajes, in the Atlantic Ocean

Using information from sea charts, Google Earth, etc. I have prepared a map which I believe is more correct. I have asked the author of the map on this page if he would like to correct his map or if he would prefer that I use the one I made.


Political situation:

It seems to me that it is, like many things, complicated and people do not bother to study in depth and just jump to whatever conclusion they wanted. There are several different issues getting mixed up, mainly sovereignty and economic rights. They are different and distinct.

After some reading it seems like Portugal has exercised control for most of history and into the present time although it has been deserted most of the time. Spain has not formally recognized Portugal’s sovereignty although the actions of Spain have at times acknowledged Portugal's control, if not sovereignty. This was the case when Spain wanted to install a lighthouse but Portugal refused.

The international commission of 1938 did not "settle the issue of sovereignty for good". At least for Spain it didn't because Spain did not participate (being rather busy with other matters at the time) and did not formally accept the resolution.

But Spain, while not formally accepting Portugal's sovereignty over the Islands, does acknowledge with its actions Portugal's control and has not really ever pressed the issue of sovereignty. In the matter of sovereignty Spain pleads nolo contendere and just keeps its options open like all countries do when it suits them. Every country has similar issues which it leaves open.

The matter now at hand between Spain and Portugal is not sovereignty but economic rights of the surrounding seas. If the islands are considered inhabited and productive then the generate an economic zone around them whereas if they are considered barren and deserted then they do not. Spain and Portugal disagree and the matter will be resolved amicably if they want or they will just leave it undefined if that suits them better but nobody is going to fight over this or even take any unfriendly actions. Individuals and groups disagree all the time and we have learnt that it does not mean we need to fight. We have learnt that it is better to resolve things amicably and some times we even prefer to leave them unresolved. Things are not always black and white; there are many shades of other colors.

Some people get all heated up over things they didn’t even know existed and are of no consequence to them. As David Cameron said "Calm down dear, calm down".

I am not about to review and redo the article. I have done my bit with the map. But I suggest someone review it and make the issues more clear and with a neutral POV.

Of course, it could be that I am mistaken, either with the map or other facts, in which case I welcome additions and corrections. GS3 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Climate[edit]

Please, could just someone stop inventing things about these islands climate? I had the patience to edit it and put what we know about it and now I see that everything was deleted and the same ambiguity is there again.

In Madeira main island, according to IPMA (Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera (basically the official national meteorology service)), there are places with annual average of above 20ºc (1960-1990 series), so how 17-19ºc is more than that and how someone can know that Savage islands have those temperatures if there are no weather stations there at all?

All we know is that these islands are Arid, because of the vegetation and its geographic position context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.189.202.30 (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well this wikipedia page, keeps presenting erroneous, dubious and source less data on climate, so I keep deleting the vandalism that has been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.189.202.30 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now is impossible to edit the wrong informations. So I´ll report this wikipedia page, to the wikipedia staff. If people don´t know climate averages for these islands and there´s not a single study done to suggest anything, please, stop posting presumptions (based on zero sources). I wonder if that´s a problem though, as almost no one visit this stupid page, since no one calls these islands Savage Islands (it´s just another complete utter non sense). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.189.202.30 (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Savage Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English name, again[edit]

I have been looking at sources to see what is the accepted name of the islands in English. I do not doubt the translations of the Portuguese name, but the English-language name is whatever has actually been used, which may differ over time and publications.

  • The Times Atlas of the World (current) has Ilhas Selvagens, then going back to earlier publications:
  • The Bartholomew 'Advanced Atlas of Modern Geography' from 1953 has Ilhas Salvage
  • The Bartholomew 'Citizen's Atlas of the World' of 1944 has Salvages
  • The John Tallis atlas of 1851 has Salvage Is.

The prevailing usage therefore appears to be either to write the name in Portuguese, or as the 'Salvage Islands'. It might be a mistranslation or just a convenient sound-alike, but that is how the islands have been named on English language maps, or at least the ones I have found.

Hogweard (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another part of the question is "prevailing in which kinds of sources?" Cartographers are important of course, but probably equally important are such things as news reports in English-language media, political documents drawn up in English if there are any, and correspondence in English that mentions the place (historic or modern). TooManyFingers (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Dry Salvages"[edit]

"The Dry Salvages" is certainly the name of some rocks in the water near Cape Ann, Massachusetts. Is that name also really used for these islands off the west coast of Africa? Or was it just an error by someone who accidentally conflated the names due to their similarity?

Maybe there's more to this that I'm not seeing, but I tend to think "Dry Salvages" was used in error for the islands near Africa, if indeed it was used at all. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No, that name is not used for these islands off the west coast of Africa. It's a mistake Luis wiki (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the material by King and Hattendorf, which appears to be where that reference comes from. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Savage_Islands&oldid=1210235189"