Talk:Ceuta

IPA Pronunciation

In Britain, the pronunciation is with a yod UK: /ˈsjuːtə/. In the United States, the pronunciation is yod-dropping US: /ˈseɪuːtə/. Also, anyone who is a native speaker of English from the United States, Britain, Canada or Australia, your inputs are welcome.

Here are phonetic archives dating from the 1940s with link: 6th Edition of An English Pronouncing Dictionary page 103 - https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.94053/page/n103

Also, check the 3rd edition of Longman Pronunciation Dictionary & 18th edition of Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionaries for phonetics & pronunciations.

I based pronunciations on observations & obviously common on both sides of the pond. Also, websites like Merrian-Webster that doesn't use IPA & Oxford Dictionaries with World English has so many flaws & inconsistencies.

You have to know the rules of phonetics, take into account the pronunciation of native speakers & not base everything on a book or website.

You need to read this page, this is the reason why I'm editing the phonetics for conciseness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English

NKM1974 (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@NKM1974: please change the sources in the article then, because the ones we have now don’t match the IPA. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 11:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I added your IPA myself, along with the already present one. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 11:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• OP needs to explain what he means because it's very confusing. Yod-dropping has nothing to do with this. The US pronunciation attempts a pronunciation close to the original Spanish pronunciation, while the British one has a more intuitive approach to the syllable "ceu" in English. --2001:16B8:31B9:5E00:211A:1F66:D351:CF4D (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Severe orthographic mistake

"Darija Arabic is also spoken by the 40–50% of the population who are of Moroccan origin." in the introduction means that there are people of Moroccan origin in Ceuta and that 40–50% of these speak Darija Arabic. However, in the section "Demographics", it says 48% of Ceutans are Muslim. If I understand it correctly, there aren't any other major Muslim groups, so the two percentages refer to the same people. Therefore, there should be a comma before "who", as it's a non-defining relative clause. --2001:16B8:31B9:5E00:75E9:7561:E951:20A8 (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hospitals

I added a section on Hospitals in Ceuta. There are only a few and this seemed like the best place to put them. WP:HOS -- Talk to G Moore 11:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox picture of Ceuta

Hello!

Yesterday, a short edit war seemed to take place in this article concerning the picture that shows up on the top of the Infobox, after an editor switched the original one for a new one. Currently, it is the new picture that stands there. Since nothing else has happened yet, I would like to know your opinions over which picture is the best, so that we can decide by consensus.

The options are:

• A: (the initial one)
• B: (the new one)

I personally prefer the initial one (A). I find it more beautiful, due to the predominance of blue and green colours, and because the angle from the hilltop provides a more encompassing view of the city. What are your opinions?

(By the way, a very similar incident took place in the article Melilla, which is why I've posted an entry similar to this one on its talk page.)

Thank you! LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think A is better at illustrating the topic of the article (the main purpose of the infobox image, if you ask me). Ceuta is small enough we can strive to approximate to an encompassing perspective and to give a glimpse of the geographical context of the city. Similar things can be said about Melilla, and many other cities for that matter: it's no secret that views from an elevated location (a mountain or a plane) usually offer more insight on the geography, the urban layout, et. al... In this proposal (B), while unlike Melilla's proposal, buildings at least cover a bit more than a narrow horizontal script, A actually satisfactorily illustrates the singular peninsula the city is located in (and the geographical context overall)... which makes it a no contest, IMO..--Asqueladd (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Perejil Island

The Perejil Island is administratively part of Ceuta, something that is only stated once in the article. Please fix this. Super Ψ Dro 09:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That is not clear. To begin with because it is not effectively "administered" by Ceuta in any way whatsoever. The sui generis resolution of the Perejil crisis returned the rock to the statu quo, that is, for all purposes that dating back to the 1963 Barajas accords: a neutral place with no Moroccan nor Spanish presence and a moot sovereignty.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC).

Military

Given the importance of Ceuta for the Spanish military and the Spanish military for Ceuta (now and in history), I find strange that there is a very small mention about it. The article should deal with the military presence in the city. How many troops? What kind? --Error (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Plazas de Soberania

Added a mention for Plazas de soberanía about the Spanish Territories in Africa, since the Canary Islands are mentioned in the same sentence, it should fit. Keksfresser12 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ceuta Product Exports (2020).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Statement in lead paragraph

… one of only a few that are permanently inhabited by a civilian population. It seems a bit unclear what precisely this means, in the context within which it's given. Could anyone elaborate on the point being made? MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

A point is probably being made about the Chafarinas Islands, the Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera and the Alhucemas Islands not being inhabited by a civilian population. The factoid could be removed from the lead paragraph with little loss, though.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: thanks for the explanation. I'd heard about small Spanish islands close to Morocco but I was unaware of their names. I'll adjust the text as you suggest. MidnightBlue (Talk) 15:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

This must be changed, against neutrality and history accuracy

"The official position of the Spanish government is that Ceuta is an integral part of Spain, and has been since the 16th century, centuries prior to Morocco's independence from Spain and France in 1956. The majority of Ceuta's population support continued Spanish sovereignty and are opposed to Moroccan control over the territory."

The text is implying that Morocco didn't exist prior to the independence from the European colonial powers, which is nonsense. Even comparing the "protectorate" status to other forms of colonisation we can doubt the use of the word independence as it wasn't legally under "occupation" even if it was de facto.

Long story short, if we are going to measure when a country starts existing by it's "independence" year, no nation existed before the 20th century creation of modern states with concrete borders and recorded jurisdiction.

Even Spain for example had in 1808 the known as Spanish War of Independence from Napoleon, and literally his brother ruled for a while. So:

- Did Spain cease existing during Napoleon's rule? No

- Did it start existing after the independence? No

In conclusion, Morocco as every other nation had lots of dynasties and rulers overtime, while historians point to the year 789 as the foundation of it by the Idrisies. The most easy way to disprove this claim, who recognised the US independence first? 86.106.2.216 (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The text is implying that Morocco didn't exist prior to the independence from the European colonial powers, which is nonsense. I cannot see how you're inferring that from the text. All it's saying is that during the centuries that Morocco was occupied, Spain treated Ceuta as separate from Morocco and integral to Spain, so giving Morocco independence didn't involve giving Ceuta to it. Largoplazo (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

As an American, don’t understand, but I hope that you guys all can get along 2600:1700:6DA0:D780:6036:92B3:5907:9BE0 (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

History (Spanish)

The siege of Ceuta is discussed, saying "During the longest siege in history, the city underwent changes leading to the loss of its Portuguese character.^{[clarification needed]}".

The reference for this statement is found in the Wikipedia article Sieges of Ceuta (1694-1727), and is reference 3 in that article: "Montes Ramos, Jose (1999) El sitio de Ceuta, 1694-1727: el ejercito de Carlos II y Felipe V."

It would also be good to add the actual changes which resulted, namely that the character of the city, the language and the currency, changed to Spanish from Portuguese. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Ceuta flag and coat of arms

Am I allowed to change the flag and coat of arms? I talked to GumballNine1Nine about this. They said that there was an edit war. So I want to make sure I have permission to edit it. Dynamismcool (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

No one will be able to give you a useful answer if you aren't specific. You need to explain what change you propose and why it would be an improvement. Is there something wrong with the one that's there now? What do you want to replace it with and why is that better? Also, if you expect people following this article, and seeing this thread, to know the background behind your request, you need to provide a link to that discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the flag and coat of arms are wrong from what GumballNine1Nine told me. He also said the same with Andalucia Dynamismcool (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

You are asking people here on this page to give you their opinion on whether a particular change you want to make is something they would approve of. That some other Wikipedia editor told you something, by itself, is insufficient for them to have any idea whether your proposal is a good one: they may disagree with that editor. Specifics are required. Therefore, you have to show them what change you expect to make, why you (not GumballNumberNine) believe it would be an improvement, and show them the background behind your request that you said exists so they can judge what Gumball told you. How else can they form an opinion? They aren't psychic so they don't know your reasons, and they don't all follow you or Gumball around, so they don't have the background. You have to give them that background. Largoplazo (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

When GumballNine1Nine told me about this, they didn't really put much detail. But I can tell you this; if you go on the main region page of Ceuta then choose the link that has the flag the coat of arms is gone unlike the main page. That's because the one without the coat of arms is the one citizens mostly use. For example for the main pages of Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela, & Costa Rica, you won't be able to see the one WITH the coat of arms unless you go to the main flag page. Dynamismcool (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Again: You began this by referencing a discussion you had with Gumball. Would you please give us a link to where that discussion is? It may be all the context you have, it may not be much, but you brought it up as part of your reason for wanting to make the change, and every single person you posed your request to doesn't even have that context as a basis for evaluating your request.

As for your comment about the other flags, the correct flag for Ceuta isn't determined by what's on the flags of completely unrelated countries. Some flags have coats of arms on them, while others don't. It just isn't as orderly as I think you imagine it to be. What determines which flag is correct isn't other stuff you find on Wikipedia, because, if there's a difference, that could be the stuff that's wrong. That's why we refer to reliable sources to tell us which one is right.

You're basically guessing based on flimsy evidence. That's the same thing you were doing when you repeatedly, changed the French name of French Guiana to "Guyane", which is correct, to "Guyane française", which is incorrect, because you just assumed it should be a direct translation. It's important not to treat this as a guessing game. When you make changes, you need to know that your changes are correct. Your changes and additions need to be consistent with factual information found in suitable sources outside of Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Dynamismcool (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Here's the discussion that they are referring: User talk:GumballNine1Nine GumballNine1Nine (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The conversation basically talked about the fact that there was a prior version of this page with the correct renderings of the coat of arms and flag of ceuta (at 14:33 of June 10, 2025: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ceuta&oldid=1294908096) with the ip providing the proper citations to back them up, as they said, at the time, and I quote: "According to it's Statute of Auutonomy: "The flag of the city of Ceuta is the traditional one with four white and four black alternating triangles formed by the diagonals from the corners of the rectangle and the lines perpendicular to the center of its sides, starting with the black color on the triangle between the upper left corner of the rectangle, its center, and the center of its top side."; also in the official website whttps://www.ceuta.es/ceuta/la-institucion/emblemas-institucionales" and "This is the correct coat of arms per official sources: https://www.ceuta.es/ceuta/images/documentos/ManualCorporativo/ManualEscudoCeuta.pdf", unfortunately, after a senseless edit war between the ip and Lopezsuarez, nobody was really bothered to correct this page since then, at least that's what this page's history seems to show. (Btw, what Lopezsuarez did at the time was just outright reverting any changes made by the ip with no reason stated whatsoever, I'll assume, since I couldn't find any explanation for all those revertions, that that was made just to ensure that the incorrect renderings stay in place) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

And just to back up what the ip said at the time, here's the statute of autonomy of ceuta, that the ip was referring to (article 3 in Spanish): https://www.ceuta.es/ceuta/images/documentos/Institucional/EstatutoAutonomiaCeuta.pdf GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Given this page's record, I won't make any changes to this page without broader agreement (which is redundant given all the official sources I just provided, but here we are) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Since there was a lack of activity on this topic since my last reply, I assume that there's no one against my proposed changes, therefore I've edited the page GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I still haven't been shown where this alleged discussion is that you were having, that Dynamismcool kept talking about and that you claimed to be involved in and now say there's been a lack of activity on it. I'd like to review it. Can you tell me where it is? It isn't here, on this talk page, which is where it ought to be. I looked at your user talk page, where Dynamismcoool finally said it was, and it isn't there either. There's only you claiming that the current image is wrong. The reason I'd like to look it over is because, in general "there was a lack of activity ... since my last reply" isn't generally a valid way to ascertain that you've obtained consensus. There's such a thing as arguing incessantly until everyone is exhausted from repeating themselves, when they've already said everything to have to say as to why they disagree with you. If that's why they're no longer responding, it doesn't mean you won. What you ought to do in that case is ping them and ascertain whether they've come to accept your position or whether they will declare once and for all that they don't and they're done arguing about it. If you've seen no sign that they've come around to your point of view, then deciding that they have can be seen as a matter of bad faith. Largoplazo (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

That's untrue. I even linked the specific topic in my talk page where we talked about this when I joined this conversation here, maybe you just didn't bothered to read it because I wrote a whole paragraph talking precisely about Ceuta. And also, yes, I've repeated myself, and provided here on this topic all the sources that show that I'm actually correct about this.

Also, you said: "reason I'd like to look it over is because, in general "there was a lack of activity ... since my last reply" isn't generally a valid way to ascertain that you've obtained consensus". It's curious that you say that only after I did the change because you decided to said nothing during the 10 day period between my last reply and the moment after I made the change despite of the fact that, in the meantime, you have been very active elsewhere on wikipedia. If you are just outright against any change about correcting the flag and coat of arms of a subdivision (I use the term correct for obvious reasons that were actually explained in my talk page and also here) you could've said so before

You also said: "There's such a thing as arguing incessantly until everyone is exhausted from repeating themselves, when they've already said everything to have to say as to why they disagree with you. If that's why they're no longer responding, it doesn't mean you won." as if you were on the right here. The whole point of talk pages is to talk about possible changes to the article, again you just didn't bothered to come here and at least counter what I said (mainly just citing actual legislation and official sources), and didn't engage in this process, that's on you. Don't come here only after 10 days, and say that what I did is incorrect, if anything, engaging in this discussion in the first place with all the sources I provided is redundant.

This appears to me that either you are against useful contributions to this specific article or you didn't care enought to actually read what I talked about. Claiming that what I'm doing could be seen as "a matter of bad faith" that's just outright ridiculous, and just proves the point I've made that you didn't read anything GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

What part of what I wrote is untrue? That Dynamismcool didn't give me a link until I'd asked several times, and then they only gave me a link to your own talk page where it also wasn't discussed? Oh—I see it was you who gave me the link. In response to my request for a link to the discussion, you responded Here's the discussion that they are referring: User talk:GumballNine1Nine#Luxembourg. That section contains only a dialog between you and Dynamiscmcool, mostly about Luxembourg, where you briefly also touched on Ceuta. Now you tell me that the link I was looking for is in that section, but for some reason instead of giving me that link, you gave me a link to an entire section in which it was embedded and you expect me to look for it myself?

There's nothing curious about my not having participated. How could I have participated in it when neither have you has told me yet where it is? It isn't on this page, and it isn't on your talk page. How else would I have known about it, and why would I have necessarily participated in it even if somehow I did? Do you think the entirety of Wikipedia's editorship knows about all discussions at all times and is obligated to join them all or never say anything about them if they come upon them later? I came into the situation where I came into it, via Dynamismcool, who I talked to here because because this page on my watchlist. So, just now, I saw your comment here justifying your edit, and, as an experienced editor, I'm giving you, as a relatively new one (at least as a registered user), what I meant as helpful advice: that, in the scenario of which I spoke, that's actually a bad rationale, for the reason I explained. That has nothing to do with whether I participated in or even knew about the discussion in question.

So: instead of making me hunt now for the link on your talk page to this discussion where multiple editors debated something and then dropped out while you were still going: would you please give me the link to it? Largoplazo (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not that I DISAGREE with Gumball, it's just I didn't really pay attention to this topic anymore after the conversation before today. Dynamiscool (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Out of courtesy I'll provide again the list of sources:

https://www.ceuta.es/ceuta/images/documentos/ManualCorporativo/ManualEscudoCeuta.pdf

https://www.ceuta.es/ceuta/la-institucion/emblemas-institucionales

https://www.ceuta.es/ceuta/images/documentos/Institucional/EstatutoAutonomiaCeuta.pdf (article 3 in spanish) GumballNine1Nine (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't ask for a list of sources. Again: I'm trying to find where this discussion is that you claim to have been involved in with other Wikipedia editors but that I'm starting to think is apocryphal. Largoplazo (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Those links were cited there in my discussion with Dynamiscool.

Not that that is relevant for wether or not the coat of arms and flag of Ceuta should be changed, as all the sources necessary are already at the appropriate place, where they should be, which is the talk page of the article. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I saw no such links. At this point, I don't think such discussions ever took place because I can't think of a single good-faith explanation for why you wouldn't simply answer the straightforward question I've been asking here repeatedly since 26 November, especially since you were so quick to dump a bunch of links just above that I didn't ask for. Largoplazo (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Dynamismcool, any chance you're finally willing to tell me? Because Gumball seems determined to keep it a secret, as you have been doing until now. Largoplazo (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I said that because like I said before; I didn't really pay attention, & I'm not keeping this a secret. Ever since Gumball mentioned that he changed it because no one talked about it, I didn't really think much of it. When a conversation on Wikipedia has been paused(such as this one)for a few days, I don't pay attention to it. However, if someone replies,then is when I check it. Sometimes I reply, other times I don't. Dynamiscool (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The only thing I did there and here, was providing the links to governmental sources to back up the changes in the article. Which is the only relevant thing. If you are asking for something else, then I was mistaken, but that was not the purpose for why I'm here, I only gave the necessary links that prove that a change in the flag and coat of arms was warranted. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

In what discussion did you originally provide those links for the purpose of shoring up your position in the face of others who disagreed? What discussion is it that you told Dynamismcool had occurred where the debate was happening? A link to that discussion (or links to those discussions) is what I'm asking for. I think that's plenty clear. Either that or a clarification that such discussions never actually happened. Please. Largoplazo (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok so to be absolutely crystal clear: the only thing I did here and at my discussion with that user was only pointing out the fact that the flag and coat of arms of Ceuta were wrong. If there's anyhting close to what you are asking, is the fact that there was a prior version of this article with the correct flag and coat of arms, but after a senseless edit war those chnages were reverted. That's it. If you want anything else, you should talk with Dynamismcool GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Just for the record, being against a fact doesn't qualify as an "opinion" to disagree with. All I did was just pointing out facts and providing the best possible sources when it comes to this particular subject which comes from the government. And the info there is given in a very clear manner. I see this as much of an opinion as saying that the color of the sky is blue. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Still no link. Largoplazo (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want at this point. Maybe the other user and you could talk with each other to clarify what you want, but I'm unable to do anything beyond what I already did GumballNine1Nine (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I told you specifically the previous time you said you didn't understand what I want. You wrote Since there was a lack of activity on this topic since my last reply, ... I am asking you for a link to the discussion where there was activity and now there is a lack of activity. If you don't know how to find this discussion, how did you reply there and how do you know there is now a lack of activity there? Largoplazo (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Lack of activity on this specific topic in this talk page, which was the case at the time GumballNine1Nine (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

You wrote The conversation basically talked about the fact that there was a prior version of this page with the correct renderings of the coat of arms and flag of ceuta .... That was your second contribution to this discussion, the first one being a few minutes earlier, so this specific topic is not the conversation for which I'm asking. I'm asking for a link to "the conversation" that "basically talked about the fact ...". Largoplazo (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I was refering about the conversation that took place at my talk page between me and Dynamismcool GumballNine1Nine (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, really, that discussion? Well, if you think that, on the strength of a side discussion

• on your own talk page
• about an area that's the target of edit warring
• that none of the warring parties knew about, let alone could have contributed to
• in which there was one other participant who wasn't one of the warring parties and didn't know about the edit warring till you told them about it

coming to its natural end, it's a good idea to become one of the edit warriors yourself, that seems like a bad conclusion. Such an unimaginably bad conclusion that that's why I thought for sure you had to have been talking about the matter even before that, with other people who were actually participants in the feud, and that you thought you'd reached a consensus with them.

To try to streamline this: If there's edit warring, a sidebar conversation with one uninvolved person on your own talk page that the other warriors don't know about isn't how to go about resolving it or justifying jumping into it yourself.

End of advice. Largoplazo (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)