Talk:Ceuta/Archive 1

Archive 1

Immigration issues

I think some comments should be added regarding the recent problems that they are having with illegal immigration. I just saw something in the news and came here looking for info, but there is nothing in this article.

The above from someone anonymous was unsigned, my own comments follow.

Reported today by international news agencies, in connection with hundreds of immigrants tearing down a fence and pouring into Melilla (The other Spanish Enclave in Morocco)- "In a separate incident, another 350 people, described as migrants from sub-Saharan Africa, tried to reach Spain's other North African territory, Ceuta, by swimming to one of its beaches from a nearby Moroccan shore." There have been other incidences of this happening, and reportedly the Ceuta detention centre currently holds around 750 refugees. Puzzled as to why there is no reference to this in the article. --MichaelGG (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Misc.

According to the article Enclave, "Ceuta is not normally called an enclave, since it is reachable by sea." Anyone has an idea for modifying the article Ceuta accordingly? - User:Olivier

I think I'd be more in favour of modifying Enclave - not counting "coastal enclaves" seems to be a very idiosyncratic definition. -- Khendon

See also: Talk:Enclave - User:Olivier

It is claimed that Ceuta is known in France as Sebta, but I've never seen this spelling used, and it seems to be far less common than the other. Removed the remark. David.Monniaux 22:14, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I notice there is a separate History of Ceuta page which could be merged with the main Ceuta page. If no one else objects, I will move it & make it a section for it on the Ceuta page. --Roisterer 01:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was browsing throw the former Portuguese colonies info, and stopped in ceuta (just by instance and after seeing several) [1] and saw something wrong, it uses the portuguese shield in the flag. (the Portuguese shield is the most important symbol in the Portuguese flag, and it's used since the foundation of the nation. While the rest of the flag changed with different kings and w/the republic, but the shield was always kept. I though there is something wrong in here. And I get to the the official site and I learned that they use Lisbon's flag (what I didnt notice at first) [[2]]. o.O I knew the people from Ceuta see their formation has a city in the conquest of it to the Moors, and they are very friendly to Portuguese, but I honestly didnt expect it to use those symbols. Although the shield can be related to Ceuta cause it was part of the reconquista. And in the Portuguese shield the reconquista is alluded. -Pedro 16:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

First, as you have said, Ceuta was a Portuguese Colony. If you look carefully, you will see that ceuta didn't use exactly the portuguese shield in the flag. The portuguese shield is Lisbon's old shield, that was used by Portugal too when Ceuta was a colony. But Ceuta's shield is a bit different cause Ceuta isn't the capital of Portugal, because the castle in the middle-top border of the shield of the Portuguese shield is in a middle-botton position in Ceuta's shield (that in heraldics means Cauta is a colony, not the capital city). Moreover, Ceuta uses a 'Marquesal' (marquisal) Crown, instead of a Royal or Republican Crown like Portugal used in the past. That is because Ceuta was a 'Marca' (mark) or border of Portugal. During the portuguese colonization Ceuta uses during a time another shield, but when it was kept by Castile after Portugal Independence, the Portuguese shield was kept too. Felipealvarez 20:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Olá Felipe. I know about the crown. The shield is THE symbol of Portugal, is THE real flag, you can find it everywhere from old castles built in the 12th century to a todays website. There is no republican crown. The crown was removed since the republic was installed. You can read the symbology of the Portuguese shield. I was shocked to see such a symbol used by another country. Although linked to Portugal in the History. Ceuta was given to Spain because it was full of Spanish people, so the governor didnt accept the new Portuguese king in 1640. And Portugal officially gave the colony to Spain as a symbol and as gift to end the restauration war of the Portuguese crown.

You should read again, carefully, the shield is the national symbol it isnt the symbol of Lisbon. The symbol of Lisbon is what ceuta uses has the flag. The shield is exactly the Portuguese shield with a crown.

the importance of the shield: when the new flag was created , they said about the shield: this is one of the most energetic symbols of the national integrity and independence.

It is one of the oldest national symbols in Europe. The flags since 1143: [3]. Did they talk to the Portuguese government when they adopted that flag? -Pedro 21:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• See the differences between Ceuta's [4] and Portugal [5] (Notice the possition of the castles, the center of the shield is the same. What I said in the last comment was extracted from [6] (In Spanish). I doubt they talk to the portuguese government when they adopted the flag, in Spain, when a town wants to have a shield or a flag, they do a project and sends it to the autonomous community government (regional goverment) for approval. Ceuta is a town and a autonomous community (called city in this case) and a town, so they choose the shield and the flag they wanted without supervision. In the autonomous community creation act ('Estatuto de Autonomía de Ceuta de 1995') said that the flag and the shield would be the tradicional ones, that were being used since the Portuguese colonization. So Ceuta didn't change their flag and shield when they became Spanish. Felipealvarez 23:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC) (I try to explain in a clear way, any doubt?)
• I read that link, I gave it innitially. But I see the difference!!!! A castle has a different position! But also see this: [7] <- see the castles changing in each royal flag. I read that they only used the flag of Lisbon and they later added (or readded) the shield. But you are correct, they always used it. Strange. BTW it would be useful to add that flag in this article. And I bet there will be more people thinking "There's something wrong in here!" ;) -Pedro 00:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

A question. The article states, "Together with Calpe on the European side, it formed one of the famous "Pillars of Hercules"". Isn't Gibraltar the pillar of Hercules on the European side? 92.28.170.58 (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC) David

Demographics

Shouldn't this article include something about Demographics? What percentage are Muslim, what percentage are N. African vs. Spanish, etc.

Yom 18:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it should. A majority of Ceutíes are Christian although there is a large and probably growing Muslim minority. In any case 100% are North African since Ceuta happens to be in North Africa.:-)

Revert

I reverted the sentence starting with "Septem redirects here..." since I assume that if somebody is actually searching for Septem, and they get here, they will certainly realize they've been forwarded. If somebody believes a dab is in order, please add properly.

Thanks

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I can think of several alternate meanings of the word, but not off the top of my head. I may put up a dab page later if I can think of a few. Thank you for your explanation. Don't give an Ameriflag 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Economy?

This article really needs an economy section. Anyone know? I'm guessing its tourism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.40 (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Well I started it for ya :) The data is mostly from two sources, one a government document, from IBRU, (with a very CIA-worldbook-ish slant but otherwise remarkably fact-full), and the other the Ceunta web page. I did a little searching online, for more, but I couldn't find much: it is a small city (according to the standard definition of >100,000 people, it is not a city at all) which happily promotes tourism and especially wants businesses to locate there, but acts principaly as a truck stop for international trade, so it's hard to find a lot of coverage in the common media. The spanish-language page for Ceunta goes into great detail about the cultural/tourist events, but I felt that wasn't apt, at least for this section, since tourism is not actually the primary source of income for the city. — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 20:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Acording

Acording to Larousse, Marinids, was a Kingdom and dynasty, and the Kingdom of Grenada took the place.Bokpasa 07:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion

What's the proportion of muslims and christians in the city?thanks Digodf (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC) PS: Aljazeera english is broadcasting a serie called "walls of shame". One of the episodes is about Ceuta. The links are:part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5av8Pb0z3o8&feature=related and part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXd_9Fr72BE&feature=related

I'm not sure, the city webpage doesn't have the actual statistics. But there are primarily 3 ethno-national groups there: the spanish (afterall, they've held the place for the better part of the last millenium), the marruecones, and the hindus. the hindus definitely come in third. — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 20:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Well if the current revision of the article [8] accurately reflects the official Spanish Government position, then I'm fine with that. There is an obvious double standard there but we should let the readers decide that for themselves. Justin talk 19:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just peachy! Thats fine. Justin talk 19:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Spanish have four words for "hypocrisy": Malvinas, Cueta, Melilla, & Gibraltar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.35.161 (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Semptem

Why does Septem redirect here? The word is Latin and means 'Seven'. Actually, it has several different meanings.. A dissambiguation should be made. --67.172.13.176 (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Are people of Ceuta - light-skinned European or dark-skinned African? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.218.253 (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, like Morocco, it's the other way around: they're a mix of dark-skinned Europeans and light-skinned Africans. Santamoly (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The inhabitants of Ceuta are mostly light-skinned Europeans. There is also a large minority (15%-25%) of people of Maghrebi descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.76.0.106 (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Don Julián

I suggest to double check the byzantinian background of Don Julián. On all accounts, he was a nobleman closely linked to Toledo´s Visigoth Court. Her daughter Florinda was sent there to obtain an education and a noble husband. Alas, according to tradition, she was seduced by King Don Rodrigo, ushering then, Julian's thirst for blood and vengeance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.212.47 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Geobox elaboration and content

Obviously, there seems to be some ongoing edit-warring here within the past few days. I thought it best to address the reverts created from my point of view. As we know Wikipedia is both collaborative and consensual, and people are free to elaborate content and make alterations. A while back I added the Geobox format as an upgrade to the simple Infobox used on this page, as an upgrade to content and aesthetic. It was immediately reverted by a user who has since been banned for edit-warring and for a lack of good-faith attitude to other users. At that time, I along with another administrator found that this user reverted the content on this page without justifying their actions, nor responding to user inquiries. Recently, a second edit-war began using a complete revert to that users original content. This was not limited to merely eliminating the Geobox content, but completely reverting the content on this page to the exact detail left by the former protagonist. User:Diplomatiko, I would address this to you, specifically, as to why you been reverting not only the Geobox, but also the content in the body of this article to the former protagonists version? Further:

• I suggest that the reversion of the Geobox to the older Infobox was unjust, as it clearly replaced rich-content done in good faith, with basic snippets of information; and that the Geobox is a modern retooling of basic Infoboxes;
• User:Diplomatiko indicated during one reversion, that there was no consensus on the use of Geobox. Although I do agree on this point, I do note that Wikiproject Spain has not defined a standard on Infobox usage, therefore, upgrades to the Geobox standard are not disallowed;
• and since the original change was mostly aesthetic, any revision should have still maintained the content placed in the updated Geobox, in any reverted Infobox format.

Finally, a note from User:Chipmunkdavis's comments: the placement of a linguistic reference in the header is not an ad-hoc indication of official language status. Since the community of Ceuta is in North Africa, was a Portuguese colony and now a dependency of Spain, it makes no sense to create a conflictive perspective by removing the Arabic notation. This is not the European Court of Justice, the U.N. Security Council or League of Nations, its just an article. Lets be a little inclusive here. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Martyrdom Site

In 1227, during Saracen rule in Ceuta, six Franciscan friars from Tuscany- Angellus, Samuel, Donulus, Leo, Hugolinus, and Nicholas recieved permission from the Vicar-general Bro. Elias, to preach the Gospel in Morocco. Going by way of Spain where they rendezvoused with Bro. Daniel (from Belvedere Marittimo) who was the Minister Provincial of Calabria.

They set sail from Spain on 20 September 1227, reaching the coast of Africa, where they sojourned a few days in a small village that was a compound of Christian merchants from Genoa, Pisa, and Marseille, and was just beyond the walls of Ceuta. Early on Sunday morning, they entered the city of Ceuta and began preaching the Gospel and urged the people to abandon the religion of Mahomet. They were soon apprehended and jailed. Later, they were brought before the sultan. Presuming them to be mad, the sultan tried using promises and threats to make the friars renounce their Christian religion. They were condemned to death and summarily beheaded on 10 October. Musicwriter (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Arabic name

Why does appear the arabic name of Ceuta in the lead? It doesn't have any official status. Doesn't it legitimate the claims of Morocco and therefore failling at NPOV? Also, note the differences with Falkland islands--Aner77 | Talk 00:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A name doesn't legitimise anything. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Therefore I can put the name in japanese, can't I?--Aner77 | Talk 15:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's historically relevant. Note arabic is not included in the infobox, which is about the official name etc. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you argue the historical relevancy? Because I can argue the irrelevant one.--Aner77 | Talk 17:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The city does have a lot of history to do with arabs. In addition, the city also contains a large minority of arabic speakers. If you do have a good argument for removal, present it. Claiming a name should not be included because it legitimises a claim is not a good argument. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The city doesn't have a lot of history with arabs, but with berber people. It's not the same. The contact with arabs is relaqtively short if we compared with other rulers. Because with that argument we can argue that the city has an important history with ancient Greece and therefore include the classic greek name. The fact that the city contains a large minority of arabic people is irrelevant: San Francisco contains a large minority of asiatic people. New York has an important hispanic population and the article doesn't include the spanish name, Nueva York. I'm not pretending expose a sophism just to expose the irrelevance of that point. My argument is clear: it's not official and it's not supported by anyone, not even the most of the people in Ceuta with moroccian ancestors. I propose to include it in the part where it's described the moroccian claims, something like: "Morocco claims Ceuta (under the name of سبتة)" -or something like that, I'm not fluent at english-. Thank you for oyur attention. --Aner77 | Talk 01:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've looked around a few other comparable articles and have seen a mixed variety of using the alternative names or not. The name is unsourced right now anyway, and if as you claim it's not important then I would be perfectly fine with you editing like you stated above. Your english is far better than any of my other languages. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll wait a week for more answers and if there's no more, I'll change it as I described it here. Thanks again. --Aner77 | Talk 12:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Did it.--Aner77 | Talk 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In Ceuta there shouldn't be the name in Arabic because it's not official. The Berber name also shouldn't be and with more reasons because appart of it's not official, the Muslims of Ceuta don't speak Berber, but Arabic. Naimito02 (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

History

Is "After Julian's death, the Berbers took direct control of the city, which the indigenous Berber tribes resented." correct? Lavateraguy (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Some kook emended the original text from Arabs. (Yes, the army had plenty of Berbers in it by that point but, no, that wasn't what the local Berbers resented.) — LlywelynII 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ceuta's muslims are mixed Arabs and mixed arabs-berbers.

It is not true that all muslims in Ceuta are berbers, they are mixed Arabs-berbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.43.76 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"Ceuta, Spain"

Hi. In the article Lent, there is a photo in this section with a caption that says the scene takes place in "Ceuta, Spain". I am discussing this here for obvious reasons - at Lent, we most likely will encounter editors that understand issues related to religious practices, while those editing here obviously know more about Ceuta's status. Whereas I know exactly what is meant with "Ceuta, Spain", I would like hear if this is the correct way to refer to this city. My concern is that some readers will imagine that Ceuta is a place in Spain. To broaden the question, imagine the photo portrayed a secene that is typical only of Ceuta — some local custom or a type of vegetation, unrealated to anything Spanish or of Spain. In such a case, it would most certainly be confusing to refer to Spain. My instinct is to just remove the reference to "Spain", explain it briefly in the talkpage and leave a note about the talkpage in the edit summary. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia I don't understand your point. Ceuta is in Spain. Do you mean it may be confused with another Ceuta in some other country? I think there is none.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Vanguardia CIS reliable

I think not, honestly. Any thoughts?Asilah1981 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

immgration section

The section on African migrants is politicised. Article 14 of the Geneva Convention grants any person the rights to seek asylum, a court decides the valididty of such a claim and should not be casualy commented on by a neutral website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KholgerR (talk • contribs) 23:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Dispute with Morocco

Alluding to the frequent comparisons with the status of Gibraltar is fine. Providing a summary of the Spanish position on Gibraltar and how it differs from its claim to Ceuta unbalances the section, making it more about the Gibraltar dispute than about the dispute with Morocco. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Alluding to the Moroccan position comparing with Gibraltar without Ceuta without providing the counter argument on how both are not comparableAsilah1981 (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC) is unbalanced. I will source the reverted statemement.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Could we shorten the comparison so that it doesn't take up 80% of the section? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with L.R. Wormwood it does need shortening. I rather fear the people who go to such lengths to explain how Ceuta is "different" do rather more damage to the Spanish nationalist cause than they realise. WCM_email 17:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Has been shortened. I also fixed a typo.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Shortened it a great deal more by removing WP:OR and WP:SYN, removed duplication and removed irrelevant references to religion. WCM_email 19:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed berber as a language spoken in Ceuta. The Muslims population there largely speaks the Jebli dialect of darija. They are descendants of immigrants from surrounding areas where Tamazight is not spoken at all, only Jebli Arabic. Tamazight (or riffan) is however the main language of Muslims in Melilla.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Its a long standing undisputed text, so right now the onus on you is to provide a cite to back that up. Otherwise it will be reverted. WCM_email 20:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

W Why are you being problematic? I speak Jebli Arabic and Spanish, have lived in Ceuta. You know nothing of our part of the world which you clearly have never visited. You just want to revert me on principle because its me or what? Just do some research instead of being destructive in your editing on wikipedia.Asilah1981 (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Just look at the map, jeez. Some people. I don´t even know what your purpose is on wikipedia except this ridiculous jingoistic BS. You should apply for a job with a tabloid or something, if you are not even interested in our region, history or cultures or improving articles related to them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebli_Arabic#/media/File:Nord_du_Maroc,_carte_ethno-linguistique.PNG Asilah1981 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. If there is no source for the Jebli variety, Arabic can be enough, but please drop the berber language, which is spoken in Melilla, not Ceuta. Bislama.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you incapable of respecting a simple request to STOP PINGING ME AT EVERY CHANCE YOU GET? I've politely pointed out there is a problem with a lack of citation, I haven't reverted yet out of politeness to give you a chance to add a cite and instead you're a WP:DICK about it. Don't be a dick, just add a cite. WCM_email 20:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Asilah1981, Can you stop pinging this user (who is able to deactivate notifications by mention, anyways)? Wee Curry Monster. Can you stop shouting? Stay civil, pals. I am going to leave arabic and whoever wishes to put jebli arabic and/or berber, provide a source... riiiight?--Asqueladd (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure Asqueladd. I try not to ping this particular user. Hard to remember since i ping everyone else. Jebli Arabic is the northern variety spoken in Tetouan and surrounding areas down to Ouazzane. It is distinct from Atlantic coast varieties and also from the Oujda variety east of the Rif which is closer to Algerian. In any case there are not many berber speakers in the towns surrounding Ceuta. It is not indigenous to those parts. However, for historical reasons, Jebli does have more berber influence than some other Arabic dialects of the Maghreb, possibly because it is pre-Hilalian.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, Asilah1981. I have referenced the obvious (dariya arabic is the other main native language in Ceuta) with the abstract of this paper (it's in english, invaluable for non-spanish speakers knowing little about Spain editing in Spain centered topics!): Fernández García, Alicia (2016). "Nacionalismo y representaciones lingüísticas en Ceuta y en Melilla". Revista de Filología Románica. 33 (1). Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid: 23–46. doi:10.5209/RFRM.55230. ISSN 0212-999X., that follows:

Castilian is the official language, but the inhabitants of Moroccan origin and Muslim faith, who represent numerically the second most important community of cities, have as their mother tongue Tamazight in Melilla, and Dariya or dialectal Arabic in Ceuta. These two languages are spoken by about 40% of their respective populations.

— Fernández García 2016, p. 23

I do not know if more precisions are needed for the lead... Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, I would also point out that even though the Arabic spoken in Ceuta is 100 times more influenced by Spanish than Llanito is influenced by English and other languages, no one in Ceuta or elsewhere in Spain tries to argue the point that Ceuti Arabic is a "separate language" from Moroccan Arabic out of insecurity over sovereignty matters. This goes to show how ridiculous your edit warring is regarding Llanito trying to present it as a different language to Spanish. Llanito is 100% Spanish and closer to (actually practically indistinguishable from) standard Cadiz Andalusian Spanish than, say Mexican or Argentine Spanish. This is what bothers me about politically fueled editing by editors who are ignorant of the subject matter and only care about their political statements. If you are not interested or knowledgeable in matters related to linguistics, keep away from such articles, otherwise you are harming the Wikipedia project.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Asqueladd, I also added another source mentioning which dialect of darija it is and some of its peculiarities. Remember that Dariya is the spelling in Spanish. In English it should be Darija.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Asilah. I think you are not giving proper weight to the Jebli issue, Asilah, mentioning that way in the lead. Of course. If we could expand into that, the body could dissect the intrincacies of Dariya dialects in Ceuta, but the sources tend to present it as Dariya/Dialectal Moroccan Arabic (the very same source you used says dariya, is titled dariya and only mentions Jebbala as region, not as dialect), and we are dealing with the lead of the article, after all.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I guess from my perspective is different, since I am more acutely aware of internal differences in Moroccan dialects. I understand if you think its too much detail for the lead. So Moroccan Darija is fine. It is very influenced by Spanish though. Even Jebli in Tetouan has a lot of Spanish influence but in Ceuta it is much more accute.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

My exposure to Arabic is certainly limited. I see ok to use the points following Para completar la visión general que estamos ofreciendo sobre la situación lingüística ceutí como entorno o medio diglósico, hemos de puntualizar lo siguiente to deal with the situation of Arabic in Ceuta in the body. It's a very useful source in that regard. And of course: Darija it is! ;-)--Asqueladd (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This is off topic but might be interesting to you. In Moroccan Arabic, "I don´t feel like it" you say "ma 3andi gana". There are lots of examples like this. Ceuta arabic goes over the top though, they widely conjugate Spanish verbs in Arabic, even more so than Algerians do so with French. And much of the lexicon is simply Spanish.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: I still disagree with the balance of the lead and I think it is not necessarily a matter of perspective, as it is kinda inside the sources, but as I am not very knowleadgeable in the nuances of Arabic, it would be good to read third opinions on whether precisions should be briefly dealt with in the lead (as you are proposing) or whether we should stick to the natively spoken Darija Arabic in the lead and deal with the rest of details (dialect characteristic of the Jebbala Region, influence of Spanish, et al...) in the body. But well, the article has improved nonetheless, dropping the berber from the lead. Regards. PD2: No me da la gana? xD--Asqueladd (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha yes, that is the origin. Innovations in Darija are quite fascinating, Its what I call an "open source" language which makes it quite interesting. I agree with your proposal, perhaps a separate section or even a new article, instead of having on lead. TBD. Regards and good night.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, FFS, all I did was ask you politely to source an edit, you really must contain the urge to be a WP:DICK. WCM_email 07:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

[9] You know what, revert again if you like and I won't be changing it. But consider this, it has the appearance of trying to cram in every irrelevant detail you can think of to reinforce the point and only weakens it. WCM_email 07:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The point is discussing the difference/similarities between Ceuta and Gibraltar, right? Either we remove the entire paragraph or we include both Moroccan and Spanish positions as sourced and as per NPOV.Asilah1981 (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that the Spanish protectorate over Morocco (which indeed was a colony and was decolonized) did not include Ceuta or Melilla.Asilah1981 (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please, cram that in as well, shove in every tiny irrelevant detail you can think of. I'm sure that'll convince readers why Ceuta is different. WCM_email 07:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

And if that's not clear enough, please go mental, fill your boots, shove in every argument you can think of. I won't revert you. WCM_email 07:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure and a former leader of the current ruling party threatening to go to war with Spain over Gibraltar, making the headlines the world over is irrelevant to the article on the Disputed Status of Gibraltar. You are a funny guy. Seems you are among those losing their cool with Brexit. :-DAsilah1981 (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You open this thread and go repeatedly calling out users as dicks defending a higher non-confrontational ground? WCM, your approach to article editing and talk-page talk here is having a metaparodic ring to it..--Asqueladd (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Asqueladd Although Im currently defending the Spanish side on this issue, I do think the final sentence on "Greater Morocco" is borderline NPOV and excessively anti-Moroccan. I think it should be removed for neutrality sake. What do you think?Asilah1981 (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the context is certainly changed from the source. The source mentions that on 3 July 1956 Istiqlal presented in Cairo a map with the reclamations of Morocco, that included Ceuta, propelling the thesis of a Great Morocco. You may argue about including it in the history section (although the default placement is a not yet created "reclamation of Ceuta and Melilla by Morocco" article), even you can drop the according to Torres García, but there with that context... it doesn't work. It is a bad use of the source--Asqueladd (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not satisfied with this section - it continues to read like a justification of the Spanish position. I'm also concerned by a user's admission of a POV-problem, and comments concerning another user "loosing their cool with Brexit" (again, POV). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I have shortened the section and removed the editorialising. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this edition and its correspondent edit summary... I don't see the motivation expressed in the summary clearly expressed in the resulting edition. In the other hand I am pretty sure Morocco presents its reclamation with something more than a straight comparison to Gibraltar, which this section seems to focus itself (or editors push in that direction). I've have not yet looked into the sources, but, as reader, I would expect scholarly sources (are they?) presented the statu quo, the moroccan position, the Spanish one, the attempts to change the statu quo, punctual diplomatic crisis and not (at least mainly) a compendium of whatever Gibraltar Ceuta comparison has been stablished (in the same way I do not see a essay of Ceuta & Gibraltar in the Gibraltar article nor the disputed status of Gibraltar article. I don't know if that helps.-Asqueladd (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the mention of support for retaining ties with UK in Gib. at the beginning, thereby de-emphasising it. The rest of your objections are not valid re: my changes, since I was merely cutting down the discussion you claim is unduly emphasised. If you want to elaborate on the Moroccan position (I don't have time), that would be excellent, since there is a clear imbalance here. Otherwise, nothing you have raised here would justify reverting my changes. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"why you drop Morocco considers Spanish presence in Ceuta and the other presidios on its coast is a remnant of the... then?" Because it's unnecessary and redundant elaboration. In future, if you want to restore specific lines I have removed, do that, and please don't revert all the changes. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: Could you please restore my changes with any changes you would like to add, rather than wholesale revert my contribution. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. L.R. Wormwood. I've revamped the section. It is way shorter, but it is probably better that way than as a convoluted essay with plenty of WP:UNDUENESS and editorialising. Regards.-Asqueladd (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I have incorporated some of your changes into my recent edit. I think the reference to the Gib. dispute can remain with more elaboration of the Moroccan position. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I see you are not into giving a balanced synopsis (as secondary sources present the dispute) but prefer to editorialise and give weight arbitrarily cherrypicking. I suggest you to read secondary sources on the topic when you find time instead of reverting people who do read those sources and add content based on them (or editorialise the content they insert). Also re-read WP:UNDUE. Goodbye.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way. This is how the secondary cited source (a English Language specific monography on Ceuta and Melilla) summarize the dispute in the introduction:

One such external problem concerns the relationship between the Spanish towns and the Kingdom of Morocco, since 1956 an independent sovereign state with a population of nearly 27 million and an area of almost 450,000 square kilometres which lies around and behind them. Known euphemistically in Spain as ‘the neighbour to the south’ and in the territories as ‘the neighbouring country’, the modern state of Morocco has laid claim to the two towns since the 1950s, principally on the grounds of wishing to restore its territorial integrity. Spain, which calls them plazas de soberanía (literally ‘sovereign towns’) or ‘enclaves’, has shown no signs of making any concessions in the direction of transferring their sovereignty to Morocco.4 Morocco also claims that the enclaves are colonies and therefore an anachronism, but the United Nations, which is keen to promote decolonization, does not include them in its list of territories waiting to be decolonized, on the grounds that Spanish settlers have been living there since long before the establishment of present-day Morocco.

— Peter Gold (2000, pp. XII-XIII)

Now compare to the crappy attempts to give undue weight to a comparison with Gibraltar (I wonder if it is due to the Daily Mail bombarding these days with the comparison... Or just because everything has to relate to the UK?)--Asqueladd (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I don't think a discussion of Spain's position concerning how Ceuta differs from Gib. needs to feature here. Can someone adjust this, I don't have time. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Most of the time Peter Gold is very accurate but there he is incorrect. Territories on the decolonisation list are on there because they were listed by the member state. Ceuta isn't simply because Spain didn't list it. I totally agree with Wormwood, the section reads like you're justifying the Spanish position. I'm sure anyone reading this will realise that and you have no idea as to how badly it comes across for Spain. I would like to see this written in a NPOV but TBH if you wish to make Spain look foolish by justifying this go right ahead. WCM_email 12:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

False. See, for example, resolution 1542 (XV). --Discasto (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand it might have been used as argument to include Ceuta and Melilla in the list of territories to be decolonised or that it may have been commented by Morocco at some point but how on Earth drawing a comparison to territories under british sovereignty has become (by art of Magic of editors) a main argument of the Moroccan position? What bloody problem do you lot have with the balance of this version, if I may ask? How on Earth does it read like justifying the Spanish position, ffs?--Asqueladd (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The UN list of non-self-governing territories does not need to be mentioned. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Ceuta

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ceuta's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Payne":

• From Francisco Franco: Payne (2000), p. 67
• From Conquest of Ceuta: Payne, Stanley G., A History of Spain and Portugal, Vol.1, Chap.10 "The Expansion"

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

POV-pushing

Hey, so I haven't regularly edited Wikipedia under my account since 2013, but I still revert vandalism and other unproductive edits when I see them. I noticed that certain user seems to have been aggressively pushing the Moroccan POV here and on Melilla, and unlike most such vandalism is actually patrolling and reverting. I've reverted the most recent edits but cannot be bothered to patrol these pages, so someone still active on Wikipedia may wish to do something about this. I'm kind of surprised that neither of these pages is semi-protected, TBH; border disputes seem like magnets for POV-pushing and vandalism. --2605:A601:4007:3800:1C60:EA9A:5462:398B (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger of sections

So I have done quite a bit of expansion on Morocco's claim over Melilla; I think that this page's section explaining Morocco claims on Ceuta are lacking. I would like to know if there is anything wrong with copying and pasting what has been written on Melilla's page here since the information there is the similar and the links used also mention Morocco's claim on Ceuta.Somenolife (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there very much to expand on? "We want. Gib now plox." — LlywelynII 21:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Era/Engvar

This edit established the use of the page as BC/AD and American English. Kindly maintain them consistently, pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 21:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Target of Vandalism

This article is currently the target of vandals as a result of political disagreements between Spain and the UK over Gibraltar. Perhaps this page should recieve protected status for a period of time. 86.5.213.154 (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)