Talk:Self-governing colony

Neutral language

I'm glad that what apparently began as a semantic argument has grown up to a content one, since the latter edition is changing this wording:

• In 1981, under the British Nationality Act, former 'Crown Colonies' were renamed 'British dependent territories'. As of 2002, by the means of the British Overseas Territories Act, are to be known as 'British overseas territories' .

For this one:

• In 1981, under the British Nationality Act, former 'Crown Colonies' became 'British dependent territories'. As of 2002, by the means of the British Overseas Territories Act, they became 'British overseas territories '.

On the grounds of "neutral language". However, the former wording is a direct quote from the provided sources. Namely the British Nationality Act 1981, published by The UK Statute Law Database, and the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, published by the Office of Public Sector Information. Both are aseptic legal texts.
Likewise, it was very similiar to the current redaction of the British Overseas Territories' article, which states "The name "British Overseas Territory" was introduced by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, and replaced the name British Dependent Territory, which was introduced by the British Nationality Act 1981. Before that, the territories were known as colonies or Crown colonies". I have not edited the aforementioned article, and its text is pretty much accepted. The same can be said about Crown Colonies' article, which reads like this "The term continued to be used up until 1981, when the British Nationality Act 1981 reclassified the few remaining British colonies as "British-Dependent Territories". From 2002 they have been known as British Overseas Territories".
Additionally the former phrasing isn't just as neutral but more precise as well, owing to both the British Nationality Act and the British Overseas Territories Act having made provisions concerning nationality of British subjects and renaming the former 'Crown Colonies', but not regarding their political organisation. That was to be addressed (when addressed) on a case by case basis with particular legal acts such as the British Virgin Islands Constitution Order. Therefore, 'British Overseas Territory' is a denomination which designs vastly different governance structures like those seen in the Pitcairn Islands, the Sovereign Base Areas located in Cyprus or the Turks and Caicos Islands, for instance. --Cremallera (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral language because the status changed in more than name, as you've noted. Much as I would like to enjoy a semantic argument there is some paint drying that I need to watch. Have a nice day now. Justin talk 15:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've duly explained my position here. If that's all you have to say, I'm restoring the wording you've edited on the grounds of 'neutrality'. Feel free to add further reasonings when you're done with the paint. Good night.--Cremallera (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral language because the status changed in more than name, as you've noted emphasis added to make it plain. Justin talk

Oh and I quote "Sorry. I am not stalking neither Ecemaml nor yourself. So, I'm unaware of most of your editions here." J'accuse. Justin talk 21:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The status changed in more than name if and when it changed. As already stated, neither the 'British Nationality Act 1981' nor the 'British Overseas Territories Act 2002' made provisions concerning the political structure of the former Crown Colonies. Those changes have obeyed invariably to other legislation such as the British Virgin Islands 2007 Constitution Order, the Caiman Islands' 2009 Constitution or the British Indian Ocean Territory 2004 Order. Not that all BOTs have undergone such changes either, as mentioned above.
And I am not wikihounding you. That was me. I forgot to log in. You reverted me 10 minutes after, while affirming "rvv & rs cited material" in spite of the article being uninterruptedly unreferenced since 7 march 2004 and included in the category "articles lacking sources" since 13 september 2009.
Regarding neutrality, my edition is substantially similar to:
1- British Overseas Territories Act 2002: "As the territories mentioned in Schedule 6 to the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) are now known as 'British overseas territories' " (article 1, First section, entitled 'change of names' ).
2- British Overseas Territories' article: "The name "British Overseas Territory" was introduced by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, and replaced the name British Dependent Territory, which was introduced by the British Nationality Act 1981. Before that, the territories were known as colonies or Crown colonies".
3- Crown Colonies' article: "The term continued to be used up until 1981, when the British Nationality Act 1981 reclassified the few remaining British colonies as 'British-Dependent Territories'. From 2002 they have been known as British Overseas Territories".

Perhaps you should edit those as well, if you feel this way about the wording you keep reverting. --Cremallera (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No its not, there are two things here, the switch to BOT is associated with greater devolution toward self-government and eventual independence. Your edit merely implies a name change, which doesn't convey the changes that actually happened. You're seeking to use a semantic argument to imply it was a change of name only and that they're effectively colonies in all but name. This doesn't happen to be true, the article is the poorer for it. I hope you're very proud of it. Justin talk 22:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Then work with me to improve it, Justin. The last phrase states "By 2007, the only self-governing former colonies under the above definition are: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, and the Turks and Caicos Islands. All other British overseas territories experience greater degrees of UK government intervention in their affairs". And I guess that this is a reference to that legislation. I'd like to add a sentence before on the lines of "Some British Overseas Territories have endorsed thenceforth further legislation conducive to greater self-government". "By 2007 (...)" --Cremallera (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of things that need mentioning.

1) The British Government is publicly committed to supporting independence of BOT and self-determination for the people living there.

2) The British Government has increasingly devolved self-government to the BOT. It varies, yes, but thats a function of population. In the main BOT are self-governing with the exception of defence and foreign relations. The exceptions are the BOT that have no settled population, only a transient military or scientific one. Justin talk 09:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please notice that there is an article devoted to British Overseas/Dependent Territories and another addressing former British Crown Colonies already.

As for the British Government devolving self-government to the BOTs, I agree partially. As stated, not every BOT is self-governing. And that's something to be adressed in the BOT article, at the most, or in the articles dedicated to those territories individually, at the least. Furthermore, the word ' devolution' has its specific meaning in UK's politics, hence not being the most suitable term here. I've proposed the phrase "Some British Overseas Territories have endorsed thenceforth further legislation conducive to greater self-government" as an example. Your English is better than mine by a long shot, thus I am sure that you can ameliorate the sentence or come up with something better. Cheers. --Cremallera (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Every populated BOT is self-governing, the ones that are not don't have a permanent population just a transient military or scientific one. The point you're not getting is that the transition to BOT is associated with greater rights as citizens and self-government, it isn't just a name change. Thats the point I'm making, if you insist we can only use renamed then that requires further explanation my original change.

"The change in legislation is associated with more than a mere name change, each of the BOT with a permanent population receiving greater degrees of self-government and autonomy. This has been enacted through a series of constituions defining the degree of self-government in each territory, with the British Government retaining responsibility for defence and international relations/" I'd wikilink BOT to allow more information. Justin talk 14:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

'BOT' isn't a political form in itself. It is the designation of 14 different territories with 14 distinct governance structures which happen to be overseas and happen to be British. Not all BOT are currently self-governing. Although they might be in the future. Those which are, have achieved it at disparate paces and in diverse ways, generally consisting in endorsing legal acts denominated 'Constitution Orders' in most cases, which can be either prior to 2002 or not. The wikilink to the BOT article is a good idea, though.

"British Overseas Territories with a permanent civilian population have endorsed further legislation conducive to greater autonomy. Their respective Constitutional Orders define the degree of self-government in each territory. The United Kingdom retains responsibility for defence and international relations in all cases". What do you think? There is further information in the BOT article, and reams of it in any article concerning a specific Overseas Territory. --Cremallera (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, all BOT with a permanent population ARE self-governing and you're severing the link with the legislation which is incorrect. Each BOT has had several consitutions, each conferring greater self-government. What limits the constitution is the island population with the Pitcairn Islands only having an island council for example, whereas Bermuda has a Parliament. Constitution orders are not conducive to greater autonomy they create it. Justin talk 16:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I can't see what you feel is wrong in my proposal: "British Overseas Territories with a permanent civilian population have endorsed further legislation conducive to greater autonomy. Their respective Constitutional Orders define the degree of self-government in each territory. The United Kingdom retains responsibility for defence and international relations in all cases". --Cremallera (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this a wind up? I've explained whats wrong with it, what exactly in my explanation don't you understand. Justin talk 17:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. No. It isn't a wind up. You said:

• "All BOT with a permanent population ARE self-governing".
• "Each BOT has had several consitutions, each conferring greater self-government".
• And, previously, (...)"This has been enacted through a series of constituions defining the degree of self-government in each territory, with the British Government retaining responsibility for defence and international relations".

I've proposed: "British Overseas Territories with a permanent civilian population have endorsed further legislation conducive to greater autonomy. Their respective Constitutional Orders define the degree of self-government in each territory. The United Kingdom retains responsibility for defence and international relations in all cases". Which is inclusive of your points and can be referenced by citing some Constitution orders. What else would you like to include? Please, bear in mind that this article already exists.--Cremallera (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Because your text doesn't convey those points, whereas the text I proposed did. Mine also made the point it isn't JUST a name change. Justin talk 09:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Its also inaccurate to state that the UK retains all responsibility for foreign relations, since Bermuda, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands for example have represented themselves at the UN and other international bodies. Justin talk 09:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It addresses those points. What it does not is to affirm statements such as "the change in legislation is associated with more than a mere name change", which calls for a reference indicating who associates it with more than a mere name change. Neither British Nationality Act 1981 nor British Overseas Territories Act 2002, which modified the former were 'mere name changes' indeed. Both acts made provisions concerning the nationality of British subjects. Both are wikilinked. However, they remained silent concerning the governance of BOTs. The changes you allude to have been addressed by other legislation.

Finally, to my knowledge, the UK retains all responsibility for foreign relations. Here's the list of members of the UN. Neither Bermuda, Gibraltar nor the Falkland Islands appear in it. If you have further information, please share it with me, so we can change the article for good. Cheers.--Cremallera (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar, Bermuda, Falkland Islands have represented themselves at the UN C24, the FIG was invited to the international fisheries convention this year. All easily referenced. I didn't say they were UN members but they had represented themselves. And no, your text does not affirm those points. [1] the policy on former colonies goes back to 1966, it has never changed, [2] and if we have to, we can trawl through Hansard, where you'll find plenty to sustain the fact that it is more than just a name change it is about intent. To assert they are merely a change of name is demonstrably untrue. The British Government has an affirmed policy going back over 40 years of providing greater self-government leading toward eventual independence or autonomy. Justin talk 10:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that such a policy has been followed. But you won't find that neither within the text of BNA1981 nor in BOTA2002. What you suggest is something else. As for foreign relations: "Foreign affairs of the overseas territories are handled by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London". And I am quoting this article here.
Likewise, some territories maintain diplomatic officers in nearby countries for trade and immigration purposes. Some German länder, Italian regions, Spanish communities and French départements do so as well. Some even have representation in regional interests organisations (the caribbean islands) such as the Caribbean Community (although BOTS are not 'members' per se, but 'associates') or the Caribbean Development Bank (although the UK is a member 'as well'). However, they do not have embassies nor consulates on their own.
As for the UN C24. That's the UN Special Committee on Decolonization. Obviously, substate entities are heard. In fact, all those territories you've cited are enumerated in the UN list of non-self-governing territories. I can't see your point, I'm afraid. --Cremallera (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

On foreign relations, you've found a source that says one thing, which is contradicted by others providing numerous examples of BOT engaging in foreign relations on their own behalf. On that basis you say we cannot mention verified facts. That is nonsense.

On the UN C24, the British Government used to attend on behalf of BOT, they now represent themselves. You argument for excluding that is fallacious and mendacious.

There is plenty of sources to support the UK Government policy, reliable secondary and primary sources that enunciate it. The fact it isn't mentioned in the legislation is utterly immaterial.

You have not come up with one solid reason for insisting on an edit that claims it is a name change and nothing more. Do you actually know anything about this subject? Because from my point of view it seems to be POV motivated to claim that BOT are still colonies when they are not. Justin talk 12:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Then start providing all those sources. I am quite fed up, at this point, of your incivility. Moreover when I've not refused to discuss this matter here in the talk page with someone who has previously edit warred to keep nonsensical, baseless and unsourced statements such as "Under the Overseas Territories Act 2002 the term, 'colony' became obsolete". Have a nice day.--Cremallera (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you have not looked at the sources I've already supplied i.e. the ones that sustain all the points already made. I didn't edit war to keep text that as incorrect, I was trying to edit to keep text that is demonstrably accurate. Now I also asked if you actually knew something about the subject you're editing, do I assume from your lack of an answer that you don't?

From 2 above:

"The partnership that we wish to establish with the territories for the new Millennium is based on four fundamental principles:

• self-determination;
• mutual obligations and responsibilities;
• freedom for the territories to run their own affairs to the greatest degree possible;
• and a firm commitment from the UK to help them develop economically and to assist them in emergencies."

"None of the territories said they wanted independence. If they had, or ever do, we would willingly grant it, where this is an option."

"It is the start of a partnership appropriate to the 21st Century. One symbol of this is the change of name from 'Dependent' to 'Overseas' Territories. Not a trivial issue, but one needing to be tackled if legislation is to be brought up-to-date and if time expired euphemisms like 'Dependent Territories' are to be got rid of."

The above quote is quite telling, the change of name is merely a symbol of a changing relationship.

From 1 above

"We are ready to work out suitable arrangements to grant independence to those dependent territories overseas which want it and can sustain it."

The edit you're insisting on is not sustained by the sources, whereas mine is. Now if you're going to make false allegations of incivility, then you should be aware that demanding sources when they've already been supplied is considered uncivil. Further if you're editing on a subject you don't know anything about, after making the same edits on Gibraltar asserting the premise that Gibraltar is still a colony, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that there is an element of POV is steering your edits. I can also sustain this by a shed load more if necessary, Hansard is replete with such policy statements. Justin talk 13:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And how exactly the 1966 question and the statement made by the organism responsible of BOTs foreign affairs (yes, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) contradict this: "British Overseas Territories with a permanent civilian population have endorsed further legislation conducive to greater autonomy. Their respective Constitutional Orders define the degree of self-government in each territory. The United Kingdom retains responsibility for defence and international relations in all cases"? Thanks in advance. Cremallera (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Because for the umpteenth time it doesn't reflect it is more than a simple name change, nor it does it reflect reality. There are plenty of sources to sustain that BOT have represented their own interests. You keep returning to the same point which has been refuted time and time again and then innocently wonder why people get pissed off. There comes a point where good faith is exhausted and I'm rapidly reaching it. How many different ways do you think you can make the same point repeatedly. Justin talk 14:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As entertaining as watching this debate rage on my watchlist is, I'd acctually suggest that as it stands this article adds very little. It seems to want to say at the beginning that this is more than just the legal/technical term for a stage of a colony as defined by statute...but then it doesn't. Before we get into specifics, someone really might want to address just what this article is trying to say. If there are no other self governing colonies (or ones identified) than the British ones, then it is effectivly a synonym for BOT. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, a merge with the BOT article might be in order. But as far as I understand, the subject of this article is somewhat wider. Or it isn't? BOTs exist since 2002, whereas self-governing colonies are previous stages when compared to most overseas territories. Furthermore, it is quite probable that other non-british historic territories fit in the description, although admittedly, the current article is British-focused. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, much of what is here could fit into either a history bit on the BOT article or as a section in the oolony page. I can't say I'm aware of the term being used pre-WW2 or even widely used outside of the British example though, do we have it applied to other territories in a consistant fashion without comparison to the British? The question should be whether the definition is used on anything outside of the British idea, not whether any definition would cover anything else. One of the key texts on modern imperialism studies, Among Empires, doesn't even mention the term at all. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And if we understand the terms 'self-governing colony' as a denomination on the likes of "British Dependent Territory" or "British Overseas Territory" I'd agree. But I must admit that I've understood this article as descriptive of a form of governance (which could be appliable to some regions prior to WW2 such as Rhode Island or Connecticut in the XVII Century, for instance). Cremallera (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A self-governing colony has traditionally been a point in transition toward independence, its an old-fashioned term. The issue here is an editor refusing to allow an edit that provides readers with the information that the status of BOT is a lot more than simply a euphemism for a colony. Which is what he has edit warred into the article. Justin talk 14:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I am the vandal here... Justin, in terms of form of government, there is no such thing as 'the status of BOT' . The Falklands are a BOT, Akrotiri is a BOT, so are Dekelia or the Pitcairn Islands, and governance is exerted differently in each one of them. All current overseas territories are British Overseas Territories as a result of the 2002 British Overseas Territories Act. However, there was no difference concerning the exercise of power in any of them between 2001 and 2003.
Of course there have been changes in most BOTs, but they've come by the means of other legislation, which has been endorsed individually in every distinct territory. I have explained this thrice already, yet you keep dismissing it as 'refuted' (how, by stating "the fact it isn't mentioned in the legislation is utterly immaterial"?) whilst affirming that there are plenty of sources which contradict it. I'm still waiting for something definite.
And you'll excuse me but I intended to include "British Overseas Territories with a permanent civilian population have endorsed further legislation conducive to greater autonomy. Their respective Constitutional Orders define the degree of self-government in each territory. The United Kingdom retains responsibility for defence and international relations in all cases" which isn't "BOT is an euphemism for a colony" by any means. Please, don't put words in my mouth.
Finally, we could explain here the political dissimilarities between the 14 existing BOTs, but I'd leave it for the proper article. My edition simply intended to replace the "Under the Overseas Territories Act 2002 the term, 'colony' became obsolete" unreferenced absurdity previously displayed. And that's all. --Cremallera (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Again the question, do you actually know anything about the subject? Yes or no? Plainly you're not listening and just repeating the same argument, long after sources have shown you to be incorrect.

Your text doesn't reflect the sources, you can stamp your feet all you like, that fact won't change.

You edit warred to reduce it to simply saying it was a renaming job. As it is, the article you've edit warred to keep is inaccurate, misleading and having explained why clearly you know it. Thats the situation, the original comment you've removed was not inaccurate.

I haven't called you a vandal but while you do nothing but repeatedly demand we have your inaccurate and mendacious text you leave the article in a poorer state. Don't pretend you're being reasonable or using the talk page as it was intended, because you're not. You don't listen to the argument and just repeat your own. If this continues I will escalate this to dispute resolution. Its getting ridiculous that every talk page on subjects even tangentially related to Gibraltar are being locked up with circular arguments and by the same editors each time. Justin talk 17:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No Colonies

I've only just become aware of this article as a result of the RFC nominating it for discussion. There is no legislation in place in the United Kingdom to provide for colonies the article needs to be re-written to describe the term in the same way that slavery in the US is referred to in a historical context.

Quote: The new (Gibraltar) Constitution provides for a modern and mature relationship between the UK and Gibraltar. I do not think that this description would apply to any relationship based on colonialism. The Minister for Europe, Geoff Hoon in a statement to the UK Parliament 2006. --Gibnews (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar Topics

There seems to be a trend of tendentious and disruptive editing on Gibraltar based articles. Three editors User:Ecemaml, User:Cremallera and User:Imalbornoz have declared that all Gibraltar articles are biased and do not represent the Spanish POV. The talk pages have become none functional with the pages being filled with reams of tendentious argument. The discussions have become somewhat bad tempered with various editors at varying times making accusation of POV, racism etc.

As an example on Self-governing colony, User:Cremallera has edited the article to imply that the switch from dependent territory to British Overseas territory was a renaming exercise only.

On Disputed status of Gibraltar, User:Ecemaml seeks to have the recent UN declaration that elevated self-determination above sovereignty disputes removed from the article.

I would seek two things from this RFC, an outside opinion on the neutrality of the following articles and whether they conform to WP:NPOV.

History of Gibraltar Disputed status of Gibraltar Self-governing colony Gibraltar

Secondly I would ask for an independent view on the discussions on these talk pages. Justin talk 20:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree its due for a review. --Gibnews (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there does need to be an outside view on where POV is apparant. There are the odd one or two that I can see. I have edited the intro a little bit (Justin can revert that bit if he wants) --Narson ~ Talk • 00:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on timing and racism (Tangentical)
The following text has been collapsed for the readability of the RFC.
Regarding the timing of this RfC: I would rather first get over with the current RfC in the Gibraltar article. Richard Keatinge has been very kind to offer an outside view, and is currently working on specific issues in that article (he has asked for some time until the 21st of December). I am afraid that this RfC will get in the way and, if he's making the effort to help, let's at least wait for him to finish (I think we morally owe it to him). Please? Then we can go on with this RfC. Regarding the approach of this RfC: I have seen some RfCs like this one, talking about articles in general (I thought about starting one myself the first time I came upon the Gibraltar article some 5 months ago): usually commentators say that it is difficult to make commments about articles in general (especially very long ones like the one about Gibraltar). They usually advise that specific issues be listed. I think it is a good advice. I have taken it myself, and have taken the approach of "one step at a time" (in the Gibraltar articles some things are non-NPOV and some things are OK; it's difficult enough to deal with specific issues one at a time, not to talk about articles in general or four articles in general). I hope I have been helpful. --Imalbornoz (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC) PS: BTW, to set things clear, I have not complained about the Gibraltar articles not including the Spanish POV. On the other hand, I have indeed (many times) complained about them not containing (especifically) the POV of historians like Sir William Jackson (British ex-Governor of Gibraltar), George Hills, Allen Andrews, Edward G. Archer...; the United Nations,... Thank you for not putting words in my mouth in the future. The purpose was to ask for outside views, specifically on NPOV. Lets hear that, the other RFC is very specific. Lets have some outside opinions and not put them off with tendentious comments. I'd prefer you to remove your comments here, specifically as they don't reflect what has happened, and leave it for others to decide. Feel free to remove this reply. Justin talk 22:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC) I will politely insist that we wait for Richard Keatinge. I don't think that waiting until the 21st and maybe a couple of days more is a matter of life-or-death for any Gibraltar-related article. It will allow his work to be a bit less difficult. Please. Also, I kindly ask that if you say that accusations of racism have been made, you include some diff (this is usually considered something very serious). I have not seen any accusation of racism on the side of any of the above mentioned editors (so maybe it was someone else, maybe it was you, I don't know: that's why it is very important to include the diffs in case you drop something as serious as "accusations of racism have been made"). --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC) <block quote>Thanks for the pointer concerning the word 'Argentine'. You'll excuse me. I am not really that used to labelling contrary opinions by the alleged nationality of their holders, their assumed bad faith, credibility or 'vandalism' records yet. It is quite naïve to expect me raising the 'red herring of nationality' without extensive evidence available, for you to just dismiss the whole issue by stating "I don't address people by their nationality, nor do I seek confrontation". Both Gibnews and yourself have repeatedly... 'described' the opposing editors. Their 'inferred' nationality, inter alia. Please, refrain from now on. It may be amusing the first time, but it is a bit racist thenceforth. --Cremallera (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)</block quote> Posted on AN/I. Now can we please allow other people to comment, I will be removing these comments shortly. Justin talk 22:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC) I'd not remove, but I'd shrink into a collapsing box. Removing is not entirely kosher. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you for including the comment and its context. Please do not remove my comments. Also, I think that the context of the "racism accusation" is useful (if you can call it "accusation of racism" once you read it ;-) ). Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Could someone please move this to a collapsible box, I tried and failed to do it. Justin talk 23:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion has been collapsed as resolved and tangentical.

I will restore in plain view comments that I think are not tangentical and Justin A. Kuntz has (first) included in the collapsible box and (afterwards) directly removed. I please ask Justin to keep my comments as well as he keeps his own and one other editor's.

• Regarding the timing of this RfC: I would rather first get over with the current RfC in the Gibraltar article. Richard Keatinge has been very kind to offer an outside view, and is currently working on specific issues in that article (he has asked for some time until the 21st of December). I am afraid that this RfC will get in the way and, if he's making the effort to help, let's at least wait for him to finish (I think we morally owe it to him). Please? Then we can go on with this RfC.

• Regarding the approach of this RfC: I have seen some RfCs like this one, talking about articles in general (I thought about starting one myself the first time I came upon the Gibraltar article some 5 months ago): usually commentators say that it is difficult to make commments about articles in general (especially very long ones like the one about Gibraltar). They usually advise that specific issues be listed. I think it is a good advice. I have taken it myself, and have taken the approach of "one step at a time" (in the Gibraltar articles some things are non-NPOV and some things are OK; it's difficult enough to deal with specific issues one at a time, not to talk about articles in general or four articles in general).

• I have not said that "all Gibraltar articles are biased and do not represent the Spanish POV." On the other hand, I have indeed (many times) complained about them not containing (especifically) the POV of historians like Sir William Jackson (British ex-Governor of Gibraltar), George Hills, Allen Andrews, Edward G. Archer...; the United Nations,... Thank you for not putting words in my mouth in the future.

I would also recommend any outside editor to look at the collapsible box to find out what some "accusations" are really about.

Finally, I don't think that making accusations in general (racism, tendentiousness, ...) is any good at all (at least, diffs should be included). I don't think that focusing in behaviour will help the Gibraltar articles (I have many complaints, but have preferred to focus on content, which is hard enough without mixing it with ad hominem attacks). I recommend that this RfC be reviewed with a different approach: with more focus on content and a more specific approach (with links and diffs). --Imalbornoz (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Acctually, that is what I had edited it to do (Focus on the POV and talk issues, rather than the people), but your insistance on having this in active discussion makes it about accusations and people once again. I'd urge you to drop this back into the box and avoid the sarcastic air quotes, it is difficult to take the wounded woodland creature routine seriously when you appear to be punching the fox on the nose. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, tendentious editing and edit warring, my point is proven I believe. Justin talk 00:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine then. You've made your point (whatever it is). Can we proceed with actual editing or should we waste more time with this? --Ecemaml (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a very calm person. But it is a bit difficult to keep cool when I read that someone is trying to avoid focusing on people and at the same time read things like:

• "a trend of tendentious and disruptive editing on Gibraltar based articles" (I guess it's people who are disrupting?)
• "Three editors User:Ecemaml, User:Cremallera and User:Imalbornoz have declared that all Gibraltar articles are biased and do not represent the Spanish POV." (I have never said so, so I guess I will have to make it clear?)
• "various editors at varying times making accusation of POV, racism etc." (again, I suppose that with "editors" Justin means "people", implicitly the ones he accuses of disruption?)
• "edit warring" when it's my comments in the talk page that are repeatedly collapsed or directly deleted?
• "The talk pages have become non-functional" and -when we get someone from outside to help us out- start over again with accusations before he gets over with his task?

Trying not to focus on people? Am I the one who is "punching the fox in the nose"?

I recommend, again, that we wait for the specific issue in the Gibraltar article to get solved (that will be "moving forward"), instead of starting RfCs with accusations like the ones Justin has just made. Please. --Imalbornoz (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin is correct when he says there is a trend to tendentious and disruptive editing. Admin action is urgently needed to stop some of the obvious cheats who use well practiced tactics (of which personal attacks are only the most obvious) to force through their POV. 81.152.36.143 (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT
Agree --Ecemaml (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't but agree with a RFC. However, I'd like to read a neutrally worded introduction to it, as noted in WP:RFC. Admittedly that's my opinion, but stating "There seems to be a trend of tendentious and disruptive editing on Gibraltar based articles. Three editors User:Ecemaml, User:Cremallera and User:Imalbornoz have declared that all Gibraltar articles are biased and do not represent the Spanish POV" isn't neutral at all.

Finally, what exactly is being requested here? Is this RFC relating to 4 articles at once? The only editor engaged in current discussion in all of them is Justin himself. This may be convenient for him, but other than that I can't see a definite purpose here. An outside view adressing whether 'all Gibraltar' (is this very article even tangentially related to Gibraltar?) articles are neutral or not, perhaps? Cremallera (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC) PS: by the way, taking the reference to me as a cue to speak, I've been accused of "editing the article to imply that the switch from dependent territory to British Overseas territory was a renaming exercise only" in the header of the RFC. That's (again) putting words in my mouth. I've duly explained myself in this talk page already. See here, here or here, for instance.

Agree if the RfC is about the neutrality of all Gibraltar related articles and if the introduction is neutrally worded and factual (not at all like the current one). I am not going to be the only one disagreeing, but I think it is not nice with Richard Keatinge to have him work on a summary of a current RfC in the Gibraltar article and start a new RfC just before the date he gave himself as deadline. But, as I said, if all of you agree I am not going to be the one to break consensus (I suppose we can keep working with Richard while this RfC takes off). --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure! Cremallera (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was Agree with Imalbornoz --Ecemaml (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC) PS: I mean, if Justin wishes to provide a list (with diffs) of alleged POV editions or text, he's welcome, and we could discuss them one by one (I've said it above: "Fine then. You've made your point (whatever it is). Can we proceed with actual editing or should we waste more time with this?"). Otherwise, that's just another exercise of petty verbal abuse, something that becomes tiring.

I asked for outside opinions and guess what, the page gets filled with tendentious comment from the very three editors involved. Thats was strangled the last RFC at birth. Justin talk 10:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly surprising. Moreover when taking into account your notices in the talk pages of those "very three editors involved". Now, could you address what's been asked, please? What exactly is this RFC about? Why don't you write a neutral header for it, as explicitly demanded in WP:RFC? Thanks in advance. Cremallera (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Because IMHO I did, seems you have no faith in independent editors commenting otherwise. The problem being the tendentious arguments, something you then demonstrated. The purpose of the RFC is to identify NPOV problems and talk page problems. Justin talk 11:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

1) Neutral header? Please be sure to review step no. 3 for requesting comments: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template." If you still think that this

"There seems to be a trend of tendentious and disruptive editing on Gibraltar based articles. Three editors User:Ecemaml, User:Cremallera and User:Imalbornoz have declared that all Gibraltar articles are biased and do not represent the Spanish POV. The talk pages have become none functional with the pages being filled with reams of tendentious argument. The discussions have become somewhat bad tempered with various editors at varying times making accusation of POV, racism etc."

is neutral, then start again (if you have any doubts, you can see our comments above).

2) Then, about your complaints about other editors' behaviour (tendentious editing, disruptive editing...), I recommend that you read this:

• "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration." (May I remind you that you deleted and collapsed my responses?)

I still think that you need to trust some editors more. It is evident that you are not assuming good faith: you have just opened a RfC where tendentious and disruptive are in the first sentence (unless I have misunderstood you and it is you who is humbly admitting to have fallen into those vices).

Maybe you are right and an outsider should take a look at our behaviour (you included) and make some comments. Maybe it would improve your view of the editors you keep accusing and give you some points to think about regarding your own attitude. What do you think? --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? If my behaviour was at fault, then I would have put my faith in other editors to wind my neck in. But it seems that you don't share that faith and feel the need to justify your behaviour. I'm content to leave it to others, that simple. Justin talk 21:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit lost Hi all, I am neither British neither Spanish and I would like very much to help here, but this RfC is very difficult to deal with. It seems to me it is too general and that the issue should be described in more precise terms, not on a general appreciation about whether these articles are POV or not. Anyway the amount of documentation here is impressive. Congratulations! Voui (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Although I have done a search in google books and found extensive references to the use of the term "self-governing colony" to the dominions and other similar territories, I haven't found references that say that the term is applied to the BOTs (I mean, maybe it was applied to them when they were colonies, but currently it doesn't seem the case). --Ecemaml (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Mind that "self-governing former colonies" is totally different to "self-governing colonies". In fact, unless a proper and reliable secondary source states that the term is widely used to refer to current BOTs, all mention to BOTs should be dropped, as it becomes original research (and not sourced, I must say). --Ecemaml (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As time passes by and nobody provides a reliable reference on the applicability of the term to current BOTs (it would involve that, for example BOTs may be referred to as "colonies", which seems to be sort of anathema) I've removed the unsourced mentions to current usage of the term. --Ecemaml (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, in this case silence was assent, at least from me. I would add that at the bottom there is a bit of a contradiction. It says the best known example is Dominions and then goes on to say that Dominions were not colonies. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, my impression is that this article is sort of primary research. It seems that, during the evolution of British colonies, they've got more and more self-governing institutions, especially if they were mainly comprised by European settlers. Does it require a separate article (possibly British Empire would include relevant information)? I don't think so --Ecemaml (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the edit was the wheat was thrown out with the chaff. Self-governing colonies, as well as a lot of Commonwealth Nations still have the House of Lords and Privy Council. Justin talk 20:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Moratorium

Please see this section for a suggestion. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Restart of Discussion

1. The article can be said to lack any real aim at the moment, very confused in what it is trying to portray.
2. There is a question as to whether a large section of the text, namely the text relating to BOT, was even accurate (whether BOT is an alternative to SGT or a synonym or just unrelated)

--Narson ~ Talk • 14:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

'Realms of the Commonwealth "Historically, the status of self-governing colony has often represented a transitional stage between direct rule from the United Kingdom and full independence as a Dominion or, more recently, a Realm of the Commonwealth "

( No wonder Wikipedia has such a bad reputation ) - The dominions did not have ' full Independance ' they were autonomous Communities within the British Empire ( see Balfour Declaration 1926 ) . Autonomous is not Sovereign . The Imperial Parliament could still pass legislation for the Dominions which would be enforced by the Courts of the Dominion .

' Realm of the Commonwealth ' does not exist as a status ( it's a Wikiconstruct ) . ' Dominion status ' became ' Sovereign Nation ' status - as far as Australia is concerned . That sovereign nation status was formaly declared in australia by the Australia Act 1986 ( Cth ) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lejon (talk • contribs) 21:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence

"A self-governing colony is a colony with an elected in which elected rulers are able to make most decisions without referring to the colonial power with nominal control of the colony"...with an elected what? PurpleChez (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)