Talk:Status of Gibraltar/Archive 5

Bunkering and marine pollution

It seems that the activity of supply of fuel made under the way of "bunkering" its been a source of marine pollution. In my Faculty (of Marine Sciences, in the University of Cádiz) they say to me that its also totally forbidden by the MARPOL, and Barcelona Convention such that practice. Ecologist groups are already complaining oficially to the European Union. I would be grateful if anybody has further information about all this. --Feministo (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The strait is a one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world and ships need to refuel. Their needs are catered for by the port of Algeciras, Gibraltar and Ceuta. No doubt as they develop their new port facilities Morocco will also be significantly involved. There is a certain amount of competition in the bay between Algeciras and Gibraltar, with Spanish groups blaming Gib for any problems usually wrongly.

Notable was Greenpeace boarding a Gibraltar based tanker in protest, and whist they were in court, a fully loaded, Spanish tanker the Spabunker IV sank in the bay.

Although accidents can occur on both sides, its a necessary business and its a pity that reports are dominated by political considerations, and many of the reports of 'oil polution due to Gibraltar' turn out to be unsubstantiated propaganda. I fail to see how bunkering can be made illegal. --Gibnews (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is not only a matter of sovereignity. The health of people and ecosistem is affected and there're some laws and conventions that are probably been ignored. Water framework directive is including coastal waters in its range of protection and stablish the goal of stop polluting towards making economy not to threaten present health nor future. Oil and fuel are having highly toxic substances that are being dropped to the waters unnecesarly when bunkering is made under the 'cheaper the better' approach. The coordination to fight pollution and to recover environmental quallity in the Bay is strongly needed. I'm trying to find out the legal framework. It seems that under the lackness of agreement about territorial waters, in the three milles beside Gibraltar, Gibraltar's Government decides actually. Is it like that? --Feministo (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody deliberately drops valuable oil in the sea, and bunkering is done safely and is rigidly controlled, at least in Gibraltar. However there is an element of 'Gibraltar bashing' from Spain where all sorts of stories are published which have no truth behind them. Currently Spain is blocking transit of scrap metal from the MV New Flame at the frontier - which slows down the removal of the wreck. There is no apparent reason for this. There are discharges of oil from passing ships, although satellite surveillance of the straits and logging all ship movements helps identify ships which do this and they face legal action. It is an area where co-operation would help, however Spain does not care to co-operate with the GoG as admitting it exists is not to its liking.

In terms of environmental pollution, there are other bigger issues too !

http://www.esg-gib.net/bay.htm

--Gibnews (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And in todays news This --Gibnews (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

New Flame

As RedCoat has pointed out, the incident caused a strain between Anglo-Spanish relations and was a subject of discussion in the Tripartite forum. That's absolutely true. However, I don't think any incident between two frontier territories, even if there is a dispute between them, are related to such a dispute. With regard to the New Flame incident, it must be proved that it's somehow related to the sovereignty dispute. There has been other incidents involving Gibraltar, such as that starred by Odyssey, and I can't see a relationship with the dispute. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was discussed at the tripartite forum as its a bilateral matter between Gibraltar and Spain. However, like the Prestige disaster, politicans in Spain seem to like to get hold of any issue to attack Gibraltar.

If its not political, why did Spain refuse to allow the scrap iron cargo from the vessel to pass through the frontier?

Its interesting to compare the coverage given to the Sierra Nava incident to that of the New Flame, search www.europasur.es

a) 46 articles and mentions

b) 231 articles and mentions

The former caused more REAL pollution

http://www.gibnews.net/cgi-bin/gn_view.pl/?ESGX070205_1.xml

And HMS Tireless caused no pollution at all and gets mentioned in detail. --Gibnews (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Gibnews, I'm quoting and commenting your statements:

Gibnews said: "politicans in Spain seem to like to get hold of any issue to attack Gibraltar"

In spite of my poor English, the meaning of "seem" is obviously subjective. What you're stating here is that you (or other guys, which ones?) believe that the New Flame incident was used to attack Gibraltar. However, it's not what the text actually says. Instead, it's in an article named "Disputed status of Gibraltar" and into the section "Recent disputes" without any qualification. Therefore, if Gibraltarians think that the Spanish attitude is related to the sovereignty it must be worded that way, thus respecting the NPOV.

Gibnews said: "If its not political, why did Spain refuse to allow the scrap iron cargo from the vessel to pass through the frontier?"

I don't know, but we're not here to make original research. It's not the deductions you make but simply facts and sources to provide appropriate attribution and therefore comply to the NPOV (BTW, can you provide a link or reference to such a statement? It would be useful in order to find out what really happened?).

Gibnews said: "Its interesting to compare the coverage given to the Sierra Nava incident to that of the New Flame"

Again, your personal research. As you believe this issue is related to the sovereignty dispute, you think wikipedia must account it in such a way. At the end, you're simply confirming that the noneutrality label is right. If you want to include a statement by the Gibraltar government claiming that the New Flame incident is related to the sovereignty issue, please, do it, but don't forget to redact the sentence in a neutral way: "The Government of Gibraltar linked the Spanish protests to the sovereignty dispute".

Gibnews said: "And HMS Tireless caused no pollution at all and gets mentioned in detail"

An edition being wrong does not mean that other editions should be allowed.

I've learned something with you: reversion is easier that editing. Therefore I'll go step-by-step. Once we've solved the New Flame issue we can approach, if you like, the next issue. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC) PD: I think that this reference, provided by you, clearly talks about the Spanish position (and I'm not able to see any reference to a sovereignty dispute).

The incident caused a strain in Anglo-Spanish relations precisely because of the sovereignty dispute. The issue was taken to the EU and was on the agenda of the Tripartite forum[1]. Spain also called on the British ambassador rather than the Gibraltar Government - why? Because of the sovereignty dispute; Spain refuses to recognise the GoG as a "competent authority". In any case, the fact that there are differing views over the status of the waters around Gibraltar[2] (something that was brought up at the EU) should be enough to justify its inclusion. RedCoat10 (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I now understand the key of your position: "Spain also called on the British ambassador rather than the Gibraltar Government - why?"

Possibly because Gibraltar is a sub-state entity and usually a State talks to a State not to a part of a State. Moreover, I remember having read somewhere (would you know where?) that Gibraltar was a "European territory whose external relations the UK government is responsible". As Spain is a "external country" to Gibraltar, what does your statement proves? It seems to me that your statement shows mostly a problem between Gibraltar and the UK (BTW, we have a pending discussion on why wikipedia readers are not able to know which the position of the UK on a possible Gibraltar independence is, but, as said, step-by-step).

On the other hand, the other part of your statement seems rather sensible (and BTW, has nothing to do with the current redaction of the paragraph). What your source states is that the New Flame incident was used by the Spanish opposition (right-wing) to blame on Gibraltar (the funny thing is that what the source says denies your first statement: "Spanish socialist MEPs [I can assume it talked somehow on behalf of the Spanish government] responded by saying that Madrid had been in close contact with Gibraltar and that the wreck was under control, adding that maritime safety was already on the Tripartite Forum's agenda.") and that the EU Commissioner linked the PP MEPs claims to the status of the Gibraltar waters (BTW, it should be interesting to have first-hand sources to know the claims of the PP MEPs... yeah, I know it's a harsh task, but I've done it in the telecom dispute article, so that it would not be so difficult).

To finish, would you like to propose a redaction of the paragraph that focus on real issues (the ones you've mentioned) and not in conclusion-building? Best regards and thank you for providing sources of facts and not sources to build a conclusion --Ecemaml (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, a source like this (hope you can read Spanish) is much more illustrative of the relationship between the sovereignty dispute and the New Flame incident. --Ecemaml (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC) PS: [*http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Exteriores/corrige/Narbona/admite/New/Flame/aguas/espanolas/elpepiesp/20080214elpepinac_9/Tes this one] also is related to the dispute.

Which I've read and can't see any reason to redact as you suggest, the article points out that Gibraltar has put forward a proposal but it's ignored by the Spanish who want a "unitary" authority (and let me guess - a Spanish unitary authority?) as they don't trust the guarantees provided by Gibraltar. Its plain the accident was the result of the sovereignty dispute that has prevented a sensible working solution to control traffic in/out of the two ports. No, I can see any reason to redact that Paragraph - the incident is a result of the sovereignty dispute. Justin talk 13:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Justin, let's me ignore most of your edition (BTW, I wasn't talking to you but to RedCoat). I don't care about what you guess or not. The article says nothing about the Spanish wanting a unitary authority (that is, you're not telling the truth since it's only the proposal of a small opposition left-wing party), so that, please, refrain from sharing your guesses (which by the way are based on false statements) with us.

On the other hand, the paragraph that I wanted to highlight was this:

“ Las relaciones entre los puertos de Gibraltar y Algeciras se han complicado siempre debido a la histórica reclamación de soberanía del Gobierno español sobre la colonia británica. Por esta razón, ambos puertos se han ignorado oficialmente y han regulado sus movimientos de buques sin relaciones directas. ”

That's what the article must state (along with the information I've provided in my second link... that Spain does not recognize the waters where the New Frame sunk and with the European Parliament information that RedCoat has brought here). However, nothing of what currently is in the article is actually related to the disputed status of Gibraltar. --Ecemaml (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You are missinformed, SPAIN has accepted Gibraltar's territorial waters by signing the UN convention, Some Spanish politicians, who are full of wind and nonsense, may not understand that but WE need to distinguish between the state and statements of politicians of the day, or indeed this case, the regional Government which has no aurhority over matters of state. --Gibnews (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The one who seems missinformed is not me:

“ 2. In ratifying the Convention, Spain wishes to make it known that this act cannot be construed as recognition of any rights or status regarding the maritime space of Gibraltar that are not included in article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713 concluded between the Crowns of Spain and Great Britain. Furthermore, Spain does not consider that Resolution III of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is applicable to the colony of Gibraltar, which is subject to a process of decolonization in which only relevant resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly are applicable. ”

On the other hand, take this edition by me as a formal cease and desist. I know that you don't like a lot of Spanish people. However, it's not relevant for the purpose of our dialog. This time it's been "some Spanish politicians, who are full of wind and nonsense", but I can quote, if you want all the pejorative sentences about my government, my country... In the same way as me not inserting in every edition (I don't think so, just as example) how stubborn the Gibraltarian authorities are, or how fedup of the money laundering activities of Gibraltar I formally demand you to cease and desist of such mentions on the ground of your continuous violation of the WP:CIVIL guidelines on the grounds of "Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves" and "Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner". Otherwise, I'll open an incident notice about you and ask for your permanent banning from Gibraltar-related articles, as long as it's pretty obvious that you're not able of behaving in a way according to wikipedia's rules. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, this is a co-operative project and you do not get to decide who does and doesn't contribute to a discussion. Also:

Izquierda Unida, por su parte, anunció ayer una iniciativa para pedir que se cree un organismo "unitario" para regular el tráfico en el Estrecho. "No se puede seguir con este descontrol y Gibraltar no ofrece garantías", dijo el diputado de IU Ignacio García.

Izquierda Unida (United Left a Spanish political party), meanwhile, announced yesterday an initiative to request that an "unitary" agency regulate traffic in the Strait. "We can not continue with this disorder and Gibraltar does not offer guarantees," said UI deputy Ignacio Garcia.

So why should it be suppressed that Spanish political figures are calling for unilateral action by Spain, in an area of a sovereignty dispute? Do not ever call me a liar again. Also the opening article says:

La seguridad marítima también paga un peaje por el histórico conflicto sobre la soberanía de Gibraltar. A pesar de que casi 30.000 barcos atracan o fondean cada año en Algeciras y Gibraltar, ambos puertos no se informan de las entradas y salidas de estas embarcaciones que navegan por la misma bahía. Ésta fue una de las razones que propiciaron el abordaje entre el New Flame y el Torm Gertrud, ocurrido el pasado 12 de agosto frente al Peñón. Por el estrecho de Gibraltar, uno de los pasos marítimos más transitados, circula el 10% del tráfico mundial.

The historic dispute over the sovereignty of Gibraltar also extracts a toll on maritime security. Despite the fact that nearly 30,000 ships berth or anchor every year in Algeciras and Gibraltar, neither port is informed of shipping leaving or entering the other, although the ships are sailing in the same waters. This was one of the reasons that led to the collision between the New Flame and Gertrud Tormo, which occurred last Aug. 12 near the Rock. The Straits of Gibraltar, one of the busiest shipping lanes, circulates 10% of global traffic.

The accident stems from the sovereignty dispute, it should stay. Justin talk 14:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I could agree, but it's pretty obvious that this has nothing to do with the current redaction. The elements currently included are just wishful thinking. No source claims that the New Flame incident is, in itself, a recent dispute on the sovereignty issue. Moreover, the sources that RedCoat and Gibnews have provided clearly states that the government of Spain has no complaints about the way the Government of Gibraltar has faced the crisis. Even if so (that is, any involved party claims that it is related to the disputed status of Gibraltar) it should be properly attributed.

However, during the discussion, some sources have come out that relates some issues of the whole incident to the sovereignty dispute. So, those issues are the one that should be quoted:

• The first El País source. It clearly states that the incident in itself could have been caused by the sovereignty dispute. As long as there is no formal communication between both ports, and such an incommunication is related to the dispute, it must be quoted that way ("The New Flame incident was .... It has been asserted that the crash between both ship is related to the sovereignty dispute since, because of that, there are no proper communication between the ports of Algeciras and Gibraltar.
• The second El País source that states that, according to the Spanish government, the place where both ships crashed is not in the territorial waters of Gibraltar.
• The unknown Gibraltarian source (please, provide if existent) that states that the Government of Gibraltar has complained because the Government of Spain has contacted the UK government before contacting with Gibraltar.
• The RedCoat's source that states that Spanish right-wing MEP have complained against the Government of Gibraltar in the European Parliament and that, according to the Commissioner, such a complain was related to the territorial waters complains.

All the rest is just POV editing. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC) PS: sorry Justin for calling you a liar. In the beginning it was "Spanish [..] want a "unitary" authority (and let me guess - a Spanish unitary authority?)" and now it's "Spanish political figures are calling for unilateral action by Spain" (unfortunatelly, it goes on being wrong; its one political "figure" the one which is calling for a "unitary" agency regulate to traffic in the Strait). However, as long as the Strait involves not only Spain and the United Kingdom but also Morocco, it's yet to be proved that this MAP (Member of the Andalusian Parliament) requires a Spanish agency in charge of it (again, we're not here to speculate...)

The MV New Flame incident itself could not have been prevented by ANY co-operation or authority as the captain decided to break all the rules. However the hysterical reaction from Spain is a direct result of the dispute and is typical of the need to blame Gibraltar for anything, real or imaginary. It is manifested in a lack of regional co-operation where scrap metal from the vessel is banned from crossing the frontier, and all the allegations of pollution which are made and then cannot be backed up by independent analysis of the oil recovered.

The territorial waters may be 'disputed' but no Spanish warships defended them and Spain signed the UN convention which gives Gibraltar 3 miles minimum that way. A cynic would note that Spain signing aggreements does not mean much, as the Portugeese know with Olivenza. --Gibnews (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And a cynic would say also that the UK signing treaties does not mean much, as the Spanish know with the Colony of Gibraltar, which now occupies much more terrain than it should according to the Treaty of Utrecht. In fact, the treaty never ceded jurisdiction to Britain, but the propierty. So shut up.

Postscript: Spain signed the UN convention which DOES NOT give Gibraltar any territorial waters. Eccemaml just quoted this, but I'll repeat it for you to -finally- understand: "In ratifying the Convention, Spain wishes to make it known that this act cannot be construed as recognition of any rights or status regarding the maritime space of Gibraltar that are not included in article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713 concluded between the Crowns of Spain and Great Britain. Furthermore, Spain does not consider that Resolution III of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is applicable to the colony of Gibraltar, which is subject to a process of decolonization in which only relevant resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly are applicable". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.59.120 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The comments referred to above have no legal significance and do not change the treaty. --Gibnews (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The treaty of Utrecht was signed by Spain and Britain, it does not specify the size of Gibraltar, but it does make it clear the whole territory is British forever. Wikipedia is not really the place for ill informed opinions about a 300 year old treaty in Latin. --Gibnews (talk)

Nope, Gibnews. The Treaty of Utrecht was signed between the Crowns of Spain and Britain, whom never took the people into consideration when bartering land. And that's because the notion of nation-state is quite newer than the feudal notion of "propriety" as ownage of land and it's inhabitants.

The Treaty of Utrecht states: "The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever".

As you may know, there is a difference between the terms "propriety" and "sovereignty". To own something does not qualify you to impose a currency or law on it. Besides, and concerning the size of Gibraltar, it states: "the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging" (then, of course). Maps of that time do exist. And the area occupied by Gibraltar is now much larger.

And last, but not least, just because you do not share a position, it does not make it "ill-informed". While indeed "wikipedia is not really the place for ill informed opinions about a 300 year old treaty in Latin", you should not be surprised if someone responds to your own biased opinions. Or is it fair to say "Spain signing aggreements does not mean much" (because it is OBVIOUSLY a fact, a neutral statement, and it is absolutely necessary in this talk page), but it is inappropriate to answer such a fascist insular oversimplification? So you can dish it out but you can't take it?

With that said, keep nuclear submarines offshore and take care, man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.59.120 (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to interpret the wording of 300 year old treaties, however I'm pleased you consider the importance of what PEOPLE want. In the 2002 referendum the PEOPLE of Gibraltar made their position in relation to union with Spain well known when 99.3% voted against the idea.

American nuclear submarines regularly visit and are serviced at Rota in Spain, there seems to be no problem with that. And the only nuclear incident in the bay of Gibraltar area has been from Acerinox in Spain.

This is not a debating forum and please do not edit talk archives. --Gibnews (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Spanish POV edits

Instead of adding tags, why not spend some time collecting sources and being productive? Rewriting the article to show Spain in a good light is uphill work. --Gibnews (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Conquered by England!

Although the formal Act of Union was later, its generally claimed that Gibraltar was conquered by the British rather than the English. The history books, or at least the one at hand here, refer to raising the UNION flag and not the English flag. British to me signifies people from the British isles, and not necessarily those acting under the 1707 act or having 'British Citizen' in their passports.

Its a narrow point, but one that needs discussion rather than heavy handed threats. --Gibnews (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:LAME. What history books? When does it date from? Who was the author? Why does your interpretation of who the British are trump everyone elses? Was Scotland an ally of England in 1704? What Ireland an ally of England in 1704? What Irish troops helped conquer Gibraltar? What Scottish troops helped conquer Gibraltar? Does the raising of the Union flag mean that the Kingdom of Great Britain existed in 1704? --Jza84 |  Talk  09:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What does the Treaty of Utrecht say? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically it did not become British till the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 (which of course refers to the state formed by the Union of Scotland and England), the initial occupation included Dutch and British forces. Do you have a source for the edit you wish to make? And on a personal note the confrontational attitude you're adopting is counter productive, as is threatening admin action on a content dispute in which you are involved. Justin talk 09:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, Queen Anne was Queen of of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1704. "Conquered by Britain" therefore seems appropriate. RedCoat10 • talk 17:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Then as it was (quickly) occupied in the name of Queen Anne, preceding the ToU, then I assume the long standing intro was in fact correct.

Jackson specifically refers to UNION flags being raised after the capture. Wikipedia says When the first flag was introduced in 1606, it became known simply as "the British flag" or "the flag of Britain". I am not using Wikipedia as a source, however it needs to be consistent and using a British flag suggests British activities. --Gibnews (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Jackson also refers to "The British units in the landing forces [...]" (page 96). - RedCoat10 • talk 19:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove my compromise edit in favour of the previous consensus text. Justin talk 20:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I note that the editor involved, who is apparently an admin, has initiated a discussion elsewhere see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#No Scotland in 1704. I thought it would be polite to inform other editors. Justin talk 13:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Jza84 does have a point. The previous version says that Gib was conquered "by Britain". The notion that it was conquered by the British three years before there was any such country is misleading. If a source asserts that Britain conquered Gibraltar in 1704, then that surely reflects poorly on that source's attention to detail.

The notion that Britain is meant in a geographical sense is bizarre. One wonders what role Glen Coe, or the White Cliffs of Dover, or the Lleyn peninsula played in these events. In any case, that's certainly not what's implied by the sentence. Conquest is a political act. It is not something that geography does. If somewhere is conquered by Britain, it is well implied that it was the state, not the island, that did the conquering. Regardless of what flag was raised, Gibraltar could not have been conquered by Britain in 1704 any more than it could have been conquered by the USA in 1704.

So, Gibraltar was conquered by England, by Scotland, or by both England and Scotland. England seems most likely because Scotland didn't join the War of the Spanish Succession until the Union. Best option, it seems to me, is to either leave it as is, or sidestep the question by saying it was conquered in the name of Queen Anne. Pfainuk talk 17:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You could be right. Though he went about it the wrong way in edit warring. Would my compromise wording suffice? Justin talk 17:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. Pfainuk talk 17:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Gibraltar was conquered in the name of Charles III of Spain, but Rooke realising the advantages ordered the raising of the Union Flag Rather than being occupied in the name of a state, it was done in the name of Queen Anne, who became Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland on 8 March 1702. Under the ToU it was given to the Crown of Great Britain. So the issue is arguable. In 2004 we celebrated the tercentenary of British Gibraltar.

• Description of the tercentenary

The Siege of Gibraltar was a military action during the War of the Spanish Succession during which the fortress of Gibraltar was captured by allied British and Dutch forces after a three days’ siege, on August 4th, 1704. The attack was carried out by a brigade of Dutch and British Marines.

• The Official Royal Navy site says this

During the war with France and Spain, the British attacked the Rock of Gibraltar: 1,900 British and 400 Dutch marines prevented Spanish reinforcements reaching the fortress. Later, British ships bombarded the city while marines and seamen stormed the defences. These later withstood nine months of siege. Today the Royal Marines display only the battle honour "Gibraltar", and their close relationship with the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps continues.

The only thing we can be sure of is it ceased to be Spanish in 1704. --Gibnews (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By the looks of things, I would suggest that it is not uncommon for the authors of sources either to forget that 1704 was before the Union or to ignore what they perceive to be a relatively minor inaccuracy in order to make their points. But it is still inaccurate to suggest that there was a British state before 1707 and it would be better for us to be as accurate as is reasonably possible.

Justin's compromise - which is what is currently in the article - does not specifically name "Britain" as the captor, and as such I have no problem with it. It is clear from this compromise that Spanish control of Gibraltar ceased in 1704. Pfainuk talk 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Conquered by the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland would be most appropriate IJA (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The UK did not come around until 1707. Gibralta was conquered by ENGLAND. The Unionist fanatics will just have to live with that!--English Bobby (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just two things, Wikipedia relies on what others say and they say 'the British' as cited. Secondly Queen Anne was the monarch for England, Scotland and Wales. Apart from that, whats the problem ? --Gibnews (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No your wrong. Queen anne was Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland all differant nations at the time. Also some sources say British others English. The British ones were most likly written after the union happened some years later, mistaking English for British happens alot particulary on wikipedia where the unionists are trying to brush out England and Scotlands exsistance. Your beloved Union will be dead soon so give up.--English Bobby (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

'British' refers to the people rather than a state, there are references to support that. As for the Union, I believe the next Conservative Government plans to abolish regional assemblies as a waste of money so its not dead yet. I have yet to see a reference saying conquered by England. Turning to allegations of agenda - I'm English AND understand the language including advanced features like the use of apostrophes. --Gibnews (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

British refers to people from the United Kingdom or the British ilses, though thats like calling the spanish 'Iberians'. The fact is Britain was not a political nation at the time, most people grasp this unlike you. As for the your little Union the conservatives are generally more simpathetic to the Anglo-Saxon cause than liberal parties and understand the feeling among English people. If you were a proper Englishman then you would understand this and would stop trying to rewrite history. But whatever makes you happy i guess!--English Bobby (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither a forum nor a soapbox, so please stop treating it as such. This talk page is here only to discuss changes to the article, not to discuss UK politics. If you do not have any changes to suggest, please end this discussion. Pfainuk talk 19:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All i was trying to do was stop people changing English history. As for the politics i was hardly saying anymore than gibnews.--English Bobby (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care about the whys and wherefores. This discussion is not about improving the article, so it doesn't belong here. Pfainuk talk 21:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well frankly i do care about this. The whole union thing maybe was of the track a little but the English/british point is relevant. Certain people are trying to airbrush Englands history out of existance which is very insulting to the growing number of us who are proud to be English! I can see your attemting to defend your chum. English Bobby (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The "English/British point", as you put it, is relevant, and I'm not objecting to further discussion on it, if you or others feel that the article as it is now requires further change (bearing in mind that it does not claim that Britain captured Gibraltar in 1704). What I object to is the argument on the future of the union, which is totally irrelevant to any changes proposed to this article and took up most of your discussion. I made this clear in my original comment.

It is also inappropriate to make accusations such as that of "trying to airbrush Englands history out of existance" [sic] or of being "Unionist fanatics" and such like - which are likely to cause unnecessary division. There's no evidence that any editors here have any intention other than to improve the encyclopædia. Pfainuk talk 11:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly Gibnews was trying to change history by saying it was the BRITISH who captured Gibralta and secondly i spend half my time on this site correcting pages on events before 1707 where people have put British instead of the rightful ENGLISH. All you have to do is look because its everywhere. So there's the evidence! English Bobby (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And this discussion is going exactly the same way as the last one. We are not discussing the article, we are discussing who said what. So, I'll simply suggest you reread WP:AGF and note that unless you are actually proposing to make any change, I consider this discussion over. Pfainuk talk 13:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Good for you. I suggest you read WP:BITE. I did not ask to argue with you in the first place! English Bobby (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Gibraltar, its not spelt Gibralta - secondly Wikipedia relies on references and as far as I can see all the references refer to 'the British' I took a photo of the statue of Admiral Rook which refers to the tercentenary of British Gibraltar. I've given two references that support that point. I have no idea how the troops were referred to at the time, although can guess what the Spanish called them, however as wikipedia relies on references and not nationalist opinions, I maintain it was captured by the British - with Dutch assistance. --Gibnews (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite right on all counts - except for the conclusion. Wikipedia relies on references, and the only state that the references we've seen so far ascribe these soldiers to (aside the Netherlands) is the Kingdom of Great Britain. But the whole point in sources is to prove, to a reasonable standard, the facts. Where a source says something that is demonstrably inaccurate - such as when they ascribe a military action to a state three years before that state was created - it is surely within the spirit of the rule to ignore it.

At the same time, we can't say they were English without sources to that effect (as that is original research by editors). So the current compromise - where we don't say who it was - is a good option. We can also, if you like, source "Anglo-Dutch" to The Fortifications of Gibraltar 1068-1945 by Clive Finlayson, page 24. Pfainuk talk 16:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain did not exist at the time so you are wrong. Everyone (well allmost) knows that the UK was formed in 1707 so your unionist opinion is wrong! English Bobby (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not proposing the words 'Great Britain' or the 'UK' - however before getting steamed up please read union flag which itself predates the capture. Jackson in "The Rock of the Gibraltarians" refers to the flag on P99 and the territory having been transformed into 'British Gibraltar' by 1706. Again predating events in Queen Anne's Kingdom(s). --Gibnews (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I was simply saying that the Union did not exist at the time and saying otherwise is wrong and fairly offensive English Bobby (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to read This. --Gibnews (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denying that he may have raised the old union flag (not the modern one) all i was complaining about was you saying Gibraltar was captured by the British rather than the English. That is wrong. Also bare in mind that at the time the scots had their own version of the flag (the st Andrews superinposed on the St George) so in many ways at the time it was an English flag. English Bobby (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the point Gibnews was trying to make with that link is that the Monarch already referred to the Kingdoms of England and Scotland as the Britains 100 years prior to the union. In that case, there is nothing wrong with saying that Gibraltar was conquered by the British. --Gibmetal 77^talk 11:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the flag Gibraltar was captured by an ENGLISH army acting on the orders of an sovereign ENGLISH government (not including allies). Scotland was not even in the war until the act of union. English Bobby (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be your opinion but its not what the references say. --Gibnews (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the references scotland was not in the war at the time so it can not have been a British conquest. Your just sticking your unionist opinion here! English Bobby (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Come on now, this is getting silly. It doesn't say "captured by the British", nor does it say "captured by the English" - so what's the problem? Mind you, it doesn't make much of a difference... Gibraltar was ceded to the Crown of Great Britain, is British, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. RedCoat10 • talk 19:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your right this is silly. Wikipedia is the only website i've ever been on where the English people have to compromise their existance and history because of certain peoples political views be they labours PC selfloathing unionist brigade (see above), celtic supremacists or general Anglophobes!--English Bobby (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We have no evidence beyond our own assumptions that it was the English armed forces, as opposed to the Scottish armed forces or a combination of the two, who took Gibraltar. It's true that it's much more likely it was England (given that Scotland did not fight the War of the Spanish Succession until the Union), but without a source to back it up that's original research. The closest our sources come is "Anglo-Dutch" - and that's hardly authoritative since the "Anglo-" prefix is also commonly used to denote the UK. Pfainuk talk 20:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it makes a change from being attacked by Spanish and Irish Nationalists, I think English Bobby needs to tone his abuse down and out. User:RedCoat10 is, I believe, a Gibraltarian and anyone accusing me of being PC a labour supporter or a unionist is out of order.

The principle as I understand it of Wikipedia is that if reliable references say Smurfs invaded Gib, then thats what we put. In this case they say 'The British'. A historian tells me that the act of Union merely rubber stamped the status quo, and Wikipedia itself shows that the inhabitants of the British Isles were commonly called 'British' before that date. --Gibnews (talk)

If a source - or many sources - say something that is demonstrably inaccurate then it would be strange to accept that as fact. We are not required to do this as it is plainly bad for the encyclopædia.

You suggest that the union did nothing but rubber stamp the status quo. It's arguable. Scotland and England acted independently until at least 1706, when the Treaty of Union was signed. See, for example, the Scottish Act of Security 1704, which provided Queen Anne would be the last monarch of both England and Scotland. Obviously that act was voided by the Act of Union - but not until the Act of Union. In 1705, England passed the Alien Act, which launched a trade embargo against Scotland and declared Scots to be aliens. In this context, I don't think we can reasonably imply that these were both parts of the same state.

The fact that is indisputable is that, formally speaking, England and Scotland did not unite to become a single state until 1707. That the troops capturing Gibraltar were English, Scottish, or a mix of English and Scottish. It is inaccurate to describe them as "British". Pfainuk talk 20:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If your going to say it was captured by the British purely on geographical grounds then you should say it was captured from the IBERIANS. The fact that the Union did not even exist at the time makes that unlikly. As for the smurf comment that just shows the serious flaw with wikipedia. Also your tone is no better than mine, though i'm not the one trying to rewrite history to satisfy your obvious political beliefs. English Bobby (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The references say it was captured by the British, with assistance from the Dutch. It was most certainly NOT captured in the name of England. --Gibnews (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well as everyone above agrees, that would be unlikly since there were no british or UK. If its so hard for you to grasp then why don't you find a reference that tell you when the union came about. Here's a clue (1st May 1707)--English Bobby (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no point in continuing the discussion when you have no understanding of British history, and cannot even use the language correctly.

But in 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Sir George Rooke captured Gibraltar for the British. ... Encyclopedia Britanica

--Gibnews (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Good get lost then! My understanding of British history is alot better than yours.--English Bobby (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So you say. I expect you were taught it in school more recently. --Gibnews (talk)

Mabye you should stop watching american TV, since their the only people i've ever met (other than you) who can't tell the difference between British and English. Then again your not English so i understand that you know nothing of our history.--English Bobby (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read wp:npa and also learn to write English properly, its regrettable that kids today cannot capitalised correctly. --Gibnews (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You tell me not to make personal attacks and then attack my spelling. For all you know i could have writing and spelling problems. Its regrettable old people can go senile.--English Bobby (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Personal attacks calling other editors "senile" cross a line, as you've reverted, I've raised it at the admin noticeboard here. Justin talk 17:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Original research

The introduction of this material by 81.33.53.43 (talk · contribs) violates Wikipedia's policy on original research. The source in question is being used to defend Spain's position, not cite it. RedCoat10 • talk 14:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

reasons to vote no for spain

I think it should be included the main reasons why gibraltarians want to remain british: they are almost tax free, including some unfair taxations (I think the unfair taxations will be removed soon), they receive almost 6 million tourists, mostly from spain, most due to this special taxation in alcohol and tobacco (spanish citizens in Linea de la Concepcion are very happy with this). Lots of businesses are settled each year in gibraltar, due to important tax reductions (the unfair taxation that will be removed). In conclusion, I think that the economical privileges of being british territory have a major influence in gibraltarians decision, even though culturaly, they feel like 50% andalusian and 50% british, and almost everyone speaks andalusian spanish. Spanish territories surrounding gibraltar feel very comfortable with this status too. If I don't receive a denial, I will try to state this facts in the article in the most neutral way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enriquegoni (talk • contribs) 23:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That is your original research, so no, because it would violate a fundamental policy of wikipedia. Justin talk 23:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah I agree that is original research that their main reasons are economical. Even though, it would be an improvement of the article trying to explain to an uninformed reader their reason for the overwhelming 99% that vote no for Spain. Gibraltarians state that Franco policies of blocking Gibraltar were counterproductive, this was said by Gibraltars' prime minister. To talk about their cultural proximity to andalusia is not original research, 99% of them are bilingual spanish-english. An uninformed reader who sees a 99% victory of "no" can be lead to think that Gibraltarians are as british as the people in London. It is more complex than that and the article doesnt make an attemp to explain gibraltarian feelings about britain and about spain, and about their own identity, which could just be defined as "gibraltarian" Enriquegoni (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The first referendum occurred before Franco closed the border, the result was equally emphatic. If you wish to discuss the reason for such an emphatic vote, then as the Spanish minister recently acknowledged the policy of overt pressure has been counter productive; particularly denying their identity. Gibraltarians expressed the desire to maintain the status quo long before there was any economic incentive to do so. Anyway, as I said this is OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

Also you fall into the common trap of equating British and English, to be British is to have a duality of identity, because being British includes Gibraltarians, Falklanders, St Helenans, Bermudans, Scots, Welsh, Irish and lastly the Sassenachs to name but a few. As I don't see the need for yet another nationalist argument so I'll draw this to a conclusion with the note that I am both half-Spanish and Catholic. I happen to be descended from the Spanish refugees who fled Franco's Spain. So now we can offset the accusations of anti-Spanish bias. Justin talk 11:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not really the place for this discussion, however, lets just make some points:

• Taxation in Gibraltar is quite high, The perception of 'tax free' is used as marketing by the shops as there is no VAT/IVA but PERSONAL taxation is another thing - but we feel we get value for money, with daily rubbish collections rather than every two weeks in the UK and a good health service.
• Gibraltarians are more British than most people in London, having just been there very few speak English correctly. As many as 80% of Londoners are foreign
• Enriquegoni as a Spaniard has no clue what Gibraltarians think.

But the real question is why would anyone in Gibraltar want to be Spanish?, particularly when we look across the frontier and see 10,000 workers unemployed, and the mayor in jail and the council workers protesting they have not been paid. What surprises me is that the Spanish there don't want to be annexed by Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews mate, assume good faith, we haven't seen what this guy is proposing yet. He may well be speaking from an ignorance of the views of Gibraltarians but that could be down to what he has been fed in the media. Lets give him a chance eh? Justin talk 16:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Justin. I want to put this phrase, maybe in the section about the point of view of gibraltarians. "People like Dominique Searle (director of Gibraltar Chronicle) or Peter Montegriffo (former Gibraltar minister) have the opinion that spanish policies in Gibraltar during the last 30 years have contributed to weaken the gibraltarian mediterranean identity and to create a very strong british identity" please note that mediterranean identity is not the same as spanish identity, and that stronger british identity does not mean that Gibraltar had'nt got an own british identity before, only that they were more mediterranean. I don't know if any of you speak spanish, but this two gibraltarians state it on this video (in spanish though) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VydLsrJg1I the quote is almost exact. What I have to say about the economic claims. I think that if you write about spanish unbased claims about legality, you'll have to put also the spanish claims which were found correct by EU. The EU considered that some of Gibraltar taxes were unfair and has stated that Gibraltar has to abolish the reduced taxation to business that are not stablished directly inside Gibraltar by 2010. You can find the complete article here (BBC news): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4195531.stm Its ok to say that Gibraltar taxes and economy is legal, which is correct. But some spanish claims about this subject were indeed found correct by EU (that doesnt mean you are not legal or not ethically correct). On the recent tensions part, there have been new and sometimes big tensions between spanish guardia civil and british royal navy, which have almost broken apart the talks that 3 governments had about the issue. I think they would be 3 nice contributions. Gibnews, only 1 point, i'm sure that if Linea de la concepcion received 6 million tourists instead of 6 million illegal inmigrants there would be no unemployement there :) Enriquegoni (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any real issue with your first point.

The second point I think you're confusing two issues.

First of all the Spanish Government made a series of unfounded allegations that Gibraltar was a centre for money laundering. That was investigated by an independent body and found to be false.

Secondly, the taxes were considered against competition rules not illegal. Its an old article and we'd probably need to clarify the current situation.

I sense that we may be struggling with a language issue here.

Your final point, the current problems should be mentioned I believe. However, it will need to be carefully crafted given the sensitivities on both sides. Justin talk 00:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Although its an interesting discussion, its not really appropriate here; I note the riot in Spain as predicted happened. Gibraltarians have an identity, and its not for sale or transfer. The suggestion its only about money is unflattering. I know the people in the video. --Gibnews (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny POV

With regard to this, I have no more to say what I said in my edit summary: "Wow, the reference explicitly mentions 11 out of 16 non self-governing territories, lists them (Gibraltar is not in the list), and there's a text on it in the Gibraltar article ??".

And I add, in fact, such a mention, if necessary, should be in the section "Spanish position" since it explicitly excludes "self-determination" in the Gibraltar case :-) --Ecemaml (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Except the amendment passed, which removed 'And where there is no dispute over sovereignty' so the amendment meant it applied to 16 of 16. The original proposal only would have given it to 11 of 16. UK tabled an amendment to remove the condition, this passed 61 to 40. I think it would be best if we could get a clearer secondary report on it, as it is easy to make the mistake and read it as Ecemaml has (That is, read the introduction of the bill at the top as the result) --Narson ~ Talk • 17:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the issue is that the text only applies to 11 territories. --Ecemaml (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC) PS: furthermore, such a mention should be in an inexistent paragraph on the conflict in the UN

No, it originally only applied to 11. Then the ammendment passed. However, this was a motion of re-affirmation (re-affirming a pre-existing ideal) that applied to all Non-Self-Governing Territories. The committee put forward the motion to re-affirm the right of self-detirmination for all NSGT for which there is not a dispute over sovereignty, this would have affected the 11 listed. They put this to the general assembly, however the UK tabled an amendment which passed removing that phrase, meaning the UN re-affirmed the right of all non-self-governing territories to self-detirmination. It is all there in the source. Also, if you are going to tag things, please use the correct tag. That is the article POV tag, not the section. Also if you could please stop marking your edits a minor, that would be good, thanks. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Narson, I see your point (I haven't read carefully the link and missed the ammendment passed by the UK). However, it does not change the fact that the sentence, as it's phrased, is a clear POV edition. I'll explain:

• You mention that "this was a motion of re-affirmation [..] that applied to all Non-Self-Governing Territories". That's an interpretation (valid in this talk page, but arguable when it comes to the article). Moreover, throughout the whole reference, it's crystal clear that it refers to specific 11 territories (American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands). That is, the text does not refer to Gibraltar.
• Of course that I agree with you (it couldn't be otherwise) that the fourth committee text (even explicitly not referring to Gibraltar) highlights the "self-determination" as paramount principle. Also that there was an ammendment by the UK in the sense you mention (also that it was opposed by Spain).
• However, as you know, "A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth" (see WP:NPOV). You're presenting your oppinion abouth this fourth committee text as it applied to Gibraltar when it does not apply. However, if the Goverment of Gibraltar (or any other significant Gibraltarian or British group) has greeted this text as applicable to Gibraltar, it must be included, but always attributed.

To sum up, considering your remark, I understand that, although explicitly not related to Gibraltar (not because I say it, but because the text says so), it would be relevant if considered relevant by involved parties (Spain, Gibraltar, UK). If you have a source on that from, for instance, the GoG, it would be fair to include it, provided that a factual phrasing is provided.

For instance, something like:

The Government of Gibraltar greeted the text approved by the 4C UN on [date here][reference already existin]. Although it applied to non self-governing territories other that Gibraltar, the fact that it reaffirmed that, in the process of decolonization, "there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination"; and that the UK passed an ammendment that removed the mention to "dispute[s] over sovereignty", was considered as a support for the Gibraltarian stance [put a reference here].

Such a phrasing would be factually right and perfectly NPOV. However, if there is no reaction to the text by any involved party, and given that the text is not referred to Gibraltar, it's inclusion is just cherry-picking. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you will excuse me, I will answer your bullet points one by one (It may seem blunt but I think clarity is important at the moment, as there seems to be a degree of confusion)

1: It is not an interpretation. It is taken from the text. I do not say that this will have an effect or that it matters or that it is good or bad or see anything into it,simply that is what it is.

2: Good, glad to see that we are in agreement as to what is in the text (namely a press release on the proposal, amending and voting of a motion before a Committee of the UN General Assembly)

3: Quoting policy can be a little aggressive when presented like that, you should make sure you are utilising it correctly (You arn't).

All this being said, I believe this is in the wrong place. I'd move it down into the spanish view personally, as it then provides context for spain's comment on self-detirmination. The whole section badly needs a re-write, as it looks more like notes jotted down at the moment. It is also worth saying that, as it isn't clear, when it says Fourth Committee, that committee is formed by every single member state, so all 192 member states are party of every main committee. The point being that it isn't an unelected quango. Not that I would suggest we remove mention of it being the fourth committee (it is a relevent fact, as differing committees are going to get differing participation due to certain countries not having an interest or having more of an interest in certain areas). I merely add that point to aid understanding. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Narson, I wouldn't mean to be aggresive. Really.

Focusing on the issue, the key point seems to be (as far as I understand) in your statement "It is not an interpretation. It is taken from the text". However, I'm not able to find it. I read the following:

The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) would have the General Assembly reaffirm the inalienable right of the peoples of 11 of the 16 remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories to self-determination by an “omnibus” draft resolution it approved today.

It's explicitly said that the draft was approved and that it applied to the 11 NSGT that are mentioned in the text. Moreover:

The omnibus text -- on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands and included as the sixth draft resolution in the report of the Special Committee on Decolonization (document A/63/23) -- achieved consensus only after an amendment to its second operative paragraph was adopted by a recorded vote of 61 in favour to 40 against, with 47 abstentions.

Again, the resolution approved (with amendment) talks about those 11 territories. And more:

The amendment, which struck the qualifying phrase “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty” from that operative paragraph, had been tabled by the United Kingdom, which argued today, as it had last week, that, not only was the new language inapplicable to the 11 Territories targeted in the resolution, but that it introduced conditions that could have unexplored ramifications.

Again, the same 11 territories "targeted in the resolution". I think it's pretty clear. On the other hand, regardless of that, is there any official reaction in Gibraltar? --Ecemaml (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the name of the motion that you quoted. The name very rarely defines the scope of a bill, usually just the problem the drafters intended to address. Yes, there were 11 explicitly targetted by the submitted draft proposal. This was altered. What the UK chap was saying (And you quote him there out of context) was that the resolution was acctually targetting the NSGT not mentioned rather than the ones done so, so the ammendment was to have the amendment return the situation to status quo. As I said, we need a better source for this. However, it is not a POV issue. It is a sourcing issue. We are using a UN press release rather than a piece written using that press release. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's go on:

The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met this afternoon to take action on the draft resolution on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands, which is contained in report of the Special Committee on Decolonization (document A/63/23, p. 64) (underscored in the text)

The Committee then took up the omnibus draft resolution VI on the questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands', which is contained in the report of the Special Committee on Decolonization (document A/63/23, p. 64), along with the amendment to part A of operative paragraph 2 of that text (document A/C.4/63/L.6). Mind "that text".

So the question remains. As told previously, I think the UK amendment is important, but again, the text it does not include the Question of Gibraltar. The press release talks about 11 territories (Gibraltar not being among them). The Gibraltar Government hasn't reacted to this, but we wikipedists feel it's important (and that's primary research). I mention again my proposal:

The Government of Gibraltar greeted the text approved by the 4C UN on 20 October 2008[already existing reference]. Although it applied to non self-governing territories other than Gibraltar, the fact that it reaffirmed that, in the process of decolonization, "there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination"; and that the UK passed an ammendment that removed the mention to "dispute[s] over sovereignty" in the decolonization process, was considered as a support for the Gibraltarian stance [put a reference here].

Anyway, if you want to raise an RfC on this issue, I wouldn't object to it. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC) BTW: being dated in 2008, where the hell is the text in itself? It would save a lot of time.

Here it is: UN General Assembly, Questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 18 December 2008, A/RES/63/108 A–B --Ecemaml (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The item you refer to is This one news of it may not been publicised in Spain. I listened to a debate in the Spanish Parliament in September where Senator Jose Ignacio Landaluce (Cadiz) stated the previous position to be the case.

However

"By the terms of the amended resolution, the Assembly would further reaffirm that, in the process of decolonization, there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which was also a fundamental human right." ... "The Committee then approved the draft resolution by consensus." --Gibnews (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it further, the link is in place on the page, the significance of this in relation to The Falklands and Gibraltar is that the usual suspects tried to change the policy of the UN to exclude territories where there was a sovereignty dispute from the universal right to self-determination. The initial success in voting that in has been reversed. As regards the comment the fact remains that the text is not related to Gibraltar oh yes it is. I still do not understand the reason for a POV tag.--Gibnews (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, the POV tag is explained above (on the other hand the UN does have a explicit policy on Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands... of course that no reader could be able to know it by reading this awful article). On the other hand, provided that you've a specialist in finding references, did the Government of Gibraltar make any statement on the UN text? It would justify the insertion of your sentence in the article. Otherwise, no way. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you might share what you think is the UN policy on Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands on this talk page? If its right, we can include it otherwise the POV tag goes.

The point of including that reference is that the UN affirms that ALL territories have the right to self determination, which is the keystone to the Gibraltar position rejecting the Spanish irredentist claim. --Gibnews (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So, if that's the case, why Gibraltar is not mentioned? Why anybody has noticed that the Question of Gibraltar is over in the United Nations? Other issue is that Gibraltar considers that the approved draft, although not being targetted to Gibraltar, supports its possition. If so, that's the way it must be worded. On the other hand, the last decision on Gibraltar by the United Nations is here. BTW 27 November 1984 is the date when the Brussels Process was signed. BTW also, some people thinks that the UN consensus is bad for Gibraltar. --Ecemaml (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you fail to realise the sheer malice we perceive that the Government of Spain has towards Gibraltar, and those sneaky things it gets up to to try and disadvantage Gibraltrians. The scale of the enterprise and cost (to you) is significant. For instance Spain attempted to change the ITU rules so that only sovereign states had a right to licence geostationary satellites. This was spotted and stopped. Creating a business which now provides employment for highly trained Gibraltarian satellite controllers. The UEFA fiasco, where Gibraltar has a court ruling that we MUST be admitted, but the Spanish sporting association on instructions from its Government has stopped this happening by screaming and stamping its feet - is another example. In the UN, Argentina and Spain lobbied to change the wording so that territories 'where there was a sovereignty dispute' the people involved were excluded from having the right of self-determination. Of course, Gibraltar was not named, its just an underhand way of attempting to disadvantage us. It was revoked. Why is Gibraltar not a member of the ISSF - the International Shooting Sport Federation Monaco and San Marino, with similar populations are. Its an individual sport where we have world class competitors. I am told our membership was again blocked by Spain. Indeed the Spanish Government does not like referring to Gibraltar, we are "La provincia de Cádiz, al territorio no autónomo de Gibraltar, cuyas relaciones exteriores asume el Reino Unido."

The Question of Gibraltar will not be over until Spain stops asking for its return. What you refer to is the UN consensus resolution, which derives from resolution 2231 (1966). The Brussels Agreement was an attempt to comply with this, however it contained the caveat that The British Government will fully maintain its commitment to honour the wishes of the people of Gibraltar as set out in the preamble of the 1969 constitution. And you know what those wishes are from the 2002 referendum. The 'Brussels Process' which derives from the agreement is dead because the British Government have extended their commitment to the people of Gibraltar not to enter into bilateral talks, even though Sovereignty itself is a bilateral matter. So every year we have the fiasco of the consensus resolution which has become empty of any promise. I hope that makes the nonsense clearer. --Gibnews (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting speech. However, which is its purpose? --Ecemaml (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, soapboxing about the situation is not helpful. It is important to put aside the view that you are in somewhere embodied by the article, as a Gibraltarian (I seem to recall that is the correct term). Making it an 'us' or a 'we' versus a 'you' or 'them' situation is not going to ratchet down tensions. Arguments should appeal to reason, even if it is course, rather than being emotive. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless its institutional malice. --Gibnews (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, this is becoming to seem group therapy. But that's not the place. Really. If your WP:COI is so big than prevents you from engaging in constructive discussions, maybe you'd better have a rest. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml, I hope you will not take this the wrong way, but there is an old saying about glass houses and throwing stones. And ganders and geese. To assume that anyone's behaviour here is perfect is to make a very bad assumption. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CITEHOW breach

Well, I won't revert this anymore. It simply stress the POV wording of the sentence. However, it's interesting to note that Wikipedia policies are suspended when it comes to Gibraltar articles (or better to Gibnews editions) and that, for instance, WP:CITEHOW does not apply any more. Instead of the title of the reference, it must be replaced by the text Gibnews picks. Interesting. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I've started on RFC on these articles here [3]. Justin talk 20:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

PACVEL'S OPINION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.145.103.224 (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, just let me express my opinion on this very interesting discussion on the actual scope of the declaration of the UNGA's Fourth Committee. What I think is that it doesn't refer to the question of the decolonization of Gibraltar, and let me tell you why: The UN have already established a legal framework in which negotiations between Spain and the UK have to proceed. Thus, UNGA Resolution 2231, and subsequently Resolution 2353 did implicitly recognize the right to self-determination, of course, but not as a right to gain independence, since it said that this decolonization was to be fulfilled through the negotiation between Spain and the UK (implicitly respecting the Article X of Utrecht). SO if the UN is going to change the effects of Resolutions 2353 and 2231, it has to do so clearly and explicitly. Of course the wording of this Declaration of the 4th Committee can be understood as applying to Gibraltar, but for it to be of any effect to the dispute of Gibraltar, it should do so explicitly, in order to revoke its past doctrine on the issue.

Another Edit War

Ecemaml will you just quit with the edit warring, removing cites is not acceptable - even by your own standards. Justin talk 11:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the text again I really can see no reason for its removal, the arguments on the talk page certainly do not justify it. Justin talk 11:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And just to keep it on the right track, I've notified Atama here [4]. Justin talk 11:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml changed the title of the ref in the last edit, which has been reverted by Gibnews. I don't see the harm in Ecemaml's edit, I don't see the point either, but I see no reason for the effort and bad feeling of a revert to be necessary. Really chaps, come on. Ecemaml has been gracious enough to admit the point, I believe, there is little reason to rub it in with the revert of the rename. Also, it is rather clear we will have to look for a better source anyway. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC) (EC)

Ah I see, I guess I misunderstood, in which case I'll remove my comment from Atama's page. Justin talk 11:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, it would also be helpful if he ceased the badger baiting of Gibnews as well [5]. Justin talk 11:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the title and added a quote, which will hopefully satisfy everyone. If its accepted, the POV tag can go as well. Justin talk 12:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see that gesture was not appreciated, oh well. Justin talk 21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is he first tried to remove the reference claiming it has nothing to do with Gibraltar and then tried to obscure what the reference says, which is a motion to cancel a sneaky attempt made to deny The Gibraltarians (and Falkland Islanders) the right to self-determination; The title I prefer is an actual extract from the long winded document which describes what it says concisely and is in no way misleading. Its what the motion affirms. some may not like it but that is what its about.

• No alternative to the principle of self-determination

The alternative substituted is:

• Following intense debate, Fourth Committee approves amended omnibus text on Non-Self-Governing Territories | publisher=United Nations General Assembly. Department of Public Information | date=20 October 2008

Leaving people to guess where the 'amended omnibus' is headed.

The Spanish claim to Gibraltar depends on four things;

• 1. Asserting that the real Gibraltarians live in San Roque and the present inhabitants are 'mere colonial riff-raff without rights.
• 2. Claiming that Gibraltar is unsustainable and engages in criminality
• 3. Its people do not have the inalienable right to self-determination
• 4. Being nice to try and win their trust.

The first three have failed at an international level, and I look forward to the last untried method. --Gibnews (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify:

1. "The point is he first tried to remove the reference claiming it has nothing to do with Gibraltar". I don't know what the complaint is about. The point is that the reference has nothing to do with Gibraltar, as I've explained many times. But don't worry, I'll do it again. The reference you duly provide is a press note about this UN General Assembly resolution: UN General Assembly, Questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 18 December 2008, A/RES/63/108 A–B. As you can easily verify, it does not talk about Gibraltar. As you also know, since you've already mentioned it above, the "Question of Gibraltar" follows a different path, as many other territories (see here to see the different resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2009; Gibraltar was not even treated; the last decision, 63/526, may be seen here). So, at the end, we have a primary source introduced by Gibnews. Let's see what wikipedia policies have to do about this issue: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Here we are. A primary source has been introduced. Such a primary source does not refers to Gibraltar, but to other territories. No secondary source is provided to sustain that such a primary source (the UN resolution) is significant to the "Gibraltarian stance". I've ask for them and they haven't been provided. Moreover, in this specific issue, even a statement by any involved party noting this resolution is relevant for them would have been enough. Again, it has been requested. Again, it hasn't been provided.
2. "is a motion to cancel a sneaky attempt made to deny The Gibraltarians (and Falkland Islanders) the right to self-determination". Unfortunately, such a motion explicitly applies to territories other than Gibraltar or the Malvinas.
3. "The title I prefer' is an actual extract from the long winded document which describes what it says concisely and is in no way misleading" (bold is mine). Well, this is wikipedia. It has rules, it has policies, and it has specific ways to reference a source (WP:CITEHOW). The titles must be the ones the reference has (which happens to be Following intense debate, Fourth Committee approves amended omnibus text on Non-Self-Governing Territories ; better if we refer to the actual resolution: UN General Assembly, Questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 18 December 2008, A/RES/63/108 A–B) and not the one that the editor "prefer", usually doing some personal cherry-picking from the actual source.

So, at the end, we have a personal research by a user aiming to give an undue weight to something that, simply because does not refer to Gibraltar, has been not given any weight by any secondary source or involved party. However, Wikipedia must give it weight just because an editor feels so. I can't see any reason to follow this discussion. Really. It's pretty clear.

Obviously I won't comment on the rest of soapboxing. The interpretation by a Gibraltarian of what the Spain's stance on the issue is would possibly interesting to be done in front of some beers, but not for wikipedia. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

People do seem to like to assume the worst and misrepresent (I'm thinking there of the use of the term 'Gibnews' mates', when I'm fairly sure I have had very little to do with Gibnews and have criticised his style of contribution on various occasions, as well as removal when what was urged by at least me was transfer to a more appropriate page. Ah well). I do wish some editors wouldn't make things about sides. Us vs Them. I don't see Justin or myself as holding identical views, though perhaps our views and interests intersect more often than mine and Gibnews'. I have told Justin to calm down on various occasions over the years and argued for him and against him. I also note that I often agree with Imalbornoz on many of his sentiments and ideals, there are some times I disagree with execution but I can usually understand where he comes from, and I view his approach differently to say Ecemaml or Cremella. We are all individuals with differing viewpoints and thought processes and I really do wish everything didn't have to be a points scoring game. Politics is for the real world, not for wikipedia. A little more understanding and a little less arguing would be divine. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Moratorium to clear the air

Guys, it is rather clear that the atmosphere here is not condusive to editing at the moment, with various editors feeling attacked or frustrated. It is also coming up to Christmas (or whatever other holiday one likes to celebrate that involves family and good food). I propose that (And this is in no order) Justin, Cremallera, Ecemaml, Gibnews, Imalbornoz, myself and anyone else who feels they are involved sign up to a moratorium on these pages to last until 00:01 GMT on the 27th of December (so after Boxing Day). This will give everyone a chance to simmer down. On the 27th, I will try to post up a neutral summation of the issues brought forward and we can then move on from there, with the understanding that the entirity of ones comments must be about the proposed editions and not the edits.

This moratorium on editing would cover both the article and the talk page of: Gibraltar, Disputed Status of Gibraltar, Self-governing colony and History of Gibraltar. It would also cover any other article directly related to Gibraltar. This may freeze the articles (barring new editors) on what any editor might view as a 'wrong version', this is perfectly fine. For a few days the universe can take this. The long term interests of these artiles will be served. So, there would be no editing on those pages or talk pages during that time. If there is blatant and obvious vandalism, obviously that would be acceptable to revert.

After the moratorium, I am proposing a tabula rasa approach. That is, we approach the issues as if from new. We also try to forget any past perceptions or views on other editors. For those Babylon 5 fans out there, this will be our last, best hope for peace. I hope you will all join me in signing below, so that we can work together to build a better encyclopedia tomorrow by agreeing to step away for today, at least from this area of the wiki. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreement

1. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
2. --Cremallera (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
3. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
4. --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
5. --Gibnews (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
6. --Justin talk 23:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (If only so that Narson can enjoy Christmas without a headache)

Restart

Right, I am going to put out a summation of the issues as I see them, remember to approach this as new. If you think anything has been missed please use my talk page and I'll add it in.

Self-governing colony

The issues on Self-governing colony, as the most distantly related, should come first.

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)

History of Gibraltar

The issues on History of Gibraltar are slightly confusing at the moment, as we have a whole re-worked article being proposed. It is certainly a better starting point than what we have, might I propose we agree, as a group, that we have no objection to ChrisO's reworking in principle? After all, I am sure we all agree the history article has become a little stale. If that is not the case, then I will list some discussion points for that article as well.

Disputed status of Gibraltar

On this talk page there is only one main issue that is continuing:

1. Does the UN 4th Committee statement say anything? If it does, is it relevent to include it? Do we have responses from involved parties about the resolution? Or better secondary sources?

Gibraltar

The mother article. So what troubles the Gibraltar page?

1. Scope of the term Gibraltarian; Does it include pre-conquest persons? What guidelines should we use to decide who is notable in either cas?
2. What level of statistics are acceptable for this page?
3. Perhaps attached to the above, do we need to create a subarticle for the Economy of Gibraltar?
4. The article in genera has become very large, do the above ideas help?
5. Should San Roque, the spanish town on the other side of the border, be included due to its links with Gibraltar?
6. The border closures: Are they important? To what are we attributing them? Is this sourced?

I will be creating discussion sections on each article with their section copied in. For this page, use the below section. All of the above: --Narson ~ Talk • 14:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

La Linea

I think we need to include La_Línea_de_la_Concepción too, as I note the evil English have been eating the Spanish isthmus for Christmas. Although in practice the Chinese are more active on the former neutral ground with eating areas. I don't know how many articles actually need the story of the Gibraltar capture repeated. Perhaps we should have ONE article about it referenced from the others. --Gibnews (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't have an article on the siege/capture of gibraltar? It would save us some space on this page. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed we do, see Capture of Gibraltar. --Gibmetal 77^talk 19:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, is that possible to avoid pointless statements to the "evil English"? We're not here to discuss about the morality of imperialist powers of the past. England was as evil/good as the Spanish before them and the Americans right now. It's not our aim to discuss about it, so please, stick to the point.

When it comes to the actual point, I can't see the reason to your template. The isthmus was "eaten" by the British as it was not ceded in the Treaty of Utrecht. UK claims that they did it without Spanish complaint (and therefore prescription applies) and Spain claims that it complaimed everytime the British went North (and therefore prescription does not apply). The sources of each stance are, if noboby has deleted them, in the article that you possibly know (Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain), so I can't see any valid reason to include such a template. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I can, because you are pushing a Spanish POV. The Isthmus was declared a neutral territory because Spain failed to keep its treaties and attacked Gibraltar. Its still shown as a 'Neutral territory' on the CIA map which is totally out of date. Half the territory went to Spain and half Gibraltar of which it is an indivisible part. However we really do not need to spawn and repeat the 'we was robbed' argument about this to articles like La Linea. 'Eaten' is bad English usage. --Gibnews (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's really boring to show sources and receive absolutely nothing. Your fantasies are interesting, but mostly irrelevant for Wikipedia. Can you play by the rules? --Ecemaml (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Disputed Status of Gibraltar points

I'm happy to leave the history article for now. Justin talk 15:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Self-Governing Colony

The issue with this article is that its been edited to say that the British Dependent Territories and British Overseas Territories were a change of name only. The argument stagnated because the talk page discussion went round in circles with numerous strawmen proposed and a completely unsatisfactory text proposal. Justin talk 15:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Narson. I would add that the article is pretty much unsourced (it didn't have a single cite until 14 days ago, which I guess is pretty recent for an article which has been around for 5 years).Imalbornoz (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

One minor point, the things listed above are not necessarily my views or viewpoints, merely attempts to distil the crux of arguments that were going on and present them in a fashion to try to promote concise answers and in a way which was as neutral as possible. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that Justin is wrong. Let's see, for instance Stephen Constantine (2009). Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704. Manchester University Press. p. 405. ISBN 978-0-7190-8054-8.:

It required for the UK not just the accelerated decolonization of most of its colonial 'properties' but a shift in linguistic gears and a renaming of the survivors of British Dependent Territories in 1981 and as British Overseas Territories in 2002

The problem is simply that the article lacks references and, generally speaking, is quite deficient. For instance, especially when talking about "self-governing" entities, fails to mention that most of current BOTs are listed as Non-self-governing territories by the UN. Moreover, it speaks about "Self-Governing Colony" and it does a argument somersault since it talks about BOTs. Some of them have self-governing institutions, while others haven't, so why they are referred in the article as a whole? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit I am not wrong - is your "source" really a football manager or perhaps this guy [6]?. We're just going to ignore the reams of sources that contradict that to select the one that confirms your own prejudice. It is not just a renaming exercise, it is much more than that. The British Government is publicly committed to granting independence on request, it is devolving greater self-government, it is consulting the inhabitants of those territories and the Government of those territories frequently act at odds with the wishes of the British Government. The only territories that are not self-governing are those without a permanent population. We've been through the C24 crap before, it has no relevance with the degree of self-government in those places. Justin talk 22:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again Ecemaml, please don't make this about editors. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, you can be wrong, just as any of us. As Cremallera tried to explain to you it's not the change of name but the additional legislation enacted by the UK Gov what makes a former colony less or more self-governing. The Cyprus bases are a BOT but has no self-government. On the other hand, the "C24 crap" is something that is hidden again and again and I wonder how. Its relevance is obvious (possibly this is the only area where the UN statements are persistently hidden), but as usual, it seems as if it is not wished that the reader makes his/her own judgment, but simply to guide him/her. Curious. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC) PS: on the other hand, here we don't have any contradiction between sources. I provide one and you provide no one, so where is the discrepancy?

Except that I'm not wrong and as usual you're misrepresenting what I said. I'm quite content to allow readers to make up their mind, what I'm not prepared to accept is using that to deny that the BOT are self-governing and to have that removed from the articles - as has been tried previously. And the Cypruse bases? i.e. territory with no settled population only a transient military population, so noone to "self-govern". And the "C24 crap" is not hidden, its in the Gibraltar article, just not given the undue prominence that you would like. Curious isn't it, that you always have to distort what people say to try and get a cheap rise. Curious, very curious.

And no Cremallera has not tried to explain its not the change of name, he has persistently pushed a text that doesn't describe the situation. The legislation is just part of a bigger picture. 1 source against many sources, the discrepancy is you only pick the one you like. Justin talk 23:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia: population: 7,000 Cypriots ("who either work in the bases themselves, or on farmland within the boundaries of the bases"). So, again, is BOT status relevant in itself for self-government or it the UK Gov policy you mention? On the other hand, the "C24 crap" should be mentioned in an article dealing with "self-government", since they are included in a UN list on non-self-government territories. Why should such information be in an article dealing with Gibraltar is something beyond my understanding (and of course totally beyond the WP:NPOV policies) --Ecemaml (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So what, they're military bases, not a true territory and funnily enough they were excluded from the British Overseas Territories Act 2002. That doesn't change the fact that the BOT with permanent populations are self-governing and that is a demonstrable fact. The fact that Gibraltar is self-governing does not in any way violate WP:NPOV and the fact that the C24 applies some arcane definition of "self-government" doesn't mean we should expunge the truth from the article.

What is an interesting omission from the article is the interesting parallels with the situation in Ceuta, [[Melilla], Plazas de soberanía and Olivenza and how they are "different". But then talking about certain hypocricies in the Spanish position would be drawing things down to the gutter level. Justin talk 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Interesting"? For whom? If you provide reliable sources on the relevance of those places with regard to "self-governing colonies", it would be interesting? Otherwise, your usual offenses to Spain are simply out of scope. We're not here to discuss about your problems with the country. Please, stick to the point. --Ecemaml (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Disputed status of Gibraltar

The statement is very significant because the Spanish and Argentine Governments used their proxies on the UN C24 to propose a text modifying the right to self-determination. It was unceremoniously rejected for a statement underlining the right to self-determination. Justin talk 15:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll explain again what we're discussing about. I'll use questions and answers to make it more clear:

1. Has the UN C24 a doctrine on Gibraltar? Yes, it has. Just to provide a source, you can see here the resolutions of the committed in 2008. It has different resolutions on each territory (or groups of territories). It has a doctrine on Western Sahara, other on New Caledonia, other on Tokelau, other on Gibraltar (it refers to Decision 63/526, can be seen here), and other on American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands (the last one of the Falklands is from 2006).
2. Does the resolution we're refering to relates to Gibraltar? No, it relates to American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands. Gibraltar has its own resolution (decision in this case).
3. Has any secondary source given any relevance to the resolution we're refering to with regard to Gibraltar? No. It has been requested.
4. Has any involved party given any relevance to the resolution we're refering to with regard to Gibraltar? No. It has been requested.

So, is there any reason, according to the Wikipedia policies, to give any weight to something that a) does not refer to Gibraltar; b) is not considered relevant by any reliable secondary source; c) is not considered relevant by any involved party.

Of course that an extensive information about the UN statements on Gibraltar should be included in the article, but that's other issue.

Gibraltar

1. Scope of the term Gibraltarian; Does it include pre-conquest persons? What guidelines should we use to decide who is notable in either case?

As far as I'm aware the term in English is a modern one relating to the people of the BOT of Gibraltar. As I've explained previously the term applied to the Spanish can be a somewhat sensitive issue, since the Spanish Government have argued that the people of San Roque are the real Gibraltarians and the people living in Gibraltar mere colonists.

Justin is right to say that it is difficult to find written sources for the demonym "Gibraltarian" before the 18th century. That's not surprising, because the same thing happens to most non-English demonyms, even those related to towns much bigger than Gibraltar. Of course, that does not mean that people did not use those words verbally when dealing with people from those towns.

On the other hand, to be precise, I am afraid that Justin is not totally correct: the term "Gibraltarian" has been used much earlier than the modern BOT existed, or even before Gibraltar's status was changed from "The town and garrison of Gibraltar in the Kingdom of Spain" to "Crown colony" [7].

To put things in perspective:

• There is evidence that the term was used in English decades before the term "Madrilenian"[8]. But, unsurprisingly, nobody would say that pre-1800 inhabitants of Madrid not be called "Madrilenians" in WP just because there is no text with that term before that date.
• There is no written evidence for the term "Gibraltareño" in Spanish before 1880 [9], but we would not have a doubt about what to call a person born in Gibraltar in 1600.
• We talk about "Italians" before there was a country called "Italy", or about "Germans"... Why? Because that's the way the English language (a very practical language, I must say) works with demonyms: you don't have to have a given political status to be called by your place of residence. We say, for example, that "the Roman emperor Trajan was born in the Spanish town of Seville"[10], even though "Rome" is nowadays a very specific town ruled by a major (not an emperor), "Seville" was not called Seville but "Hispalis" at the time of Trajan and he never ruled a political entity called "Spain" or even "Hispania", but four different provinces (one of the corresponding to "Lusitania" or "Portugal", which is a different country nowadays).
• Can anybody think of an alternative demonym in English for inhabitants of Gibraltar pre-1704?

Spanish. Gibraltar was a small town in Spain. --Gibnews (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the dictionary[11], you can find definitions including all "inhabitants of Gibraltar" independent of the political status or time period.

Regarding sensitiveness, I think we all agree that we should not take it into account in order to deal with content on either side (maybe it's also very sensitive for the descendants of people who lived in Gibraltar for generations not to be called "Gibraltarians", but that's irrelevant to the definition of the term in WP). Do we all agree here?

No we certainly do not, Its not up to Wikipedia to define what a Gibraltarian is, it is defined by law. There are people in the UK whose ancestors were Romans and Normans but they are British because they were born there. --Gibnews (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

We are starting anew. I don't think that any of this WP discussion is going to give or take reason to any side in the diplomatic dispute. I think we should avoid thinking about the sensitiveness of issues and take a more practical approach. In this case, I would propose to follow the dictionary definition of "Gibraltarian" and leave the territorial dispute to politicians. Let's be practical. --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The dictionary you cite is rubbish anyway, of or relating to Gibraltar or its inhabitants; "Gibraltarian customs office" Oh no its not. Its Gibraltar Customs or HM Customs Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK so I'm not 100% correct but the rest of your post says that there are no sources to support what you're proposing but we should use it anyway? I would also suggest that we don't forget there are sensitivities attached to terms or to try and dismiss those sensitivities. Yes there are many definitions of Gibraltarian but respecting the sensitivities on the use of a particular term is not taking sides in a sovereignty dispute. Justin talk 21:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that there are no contemporary sources for the use of almost any Spanish demonym (much less that of a very small town) before 1700-and-something (and it should not stop us from calling the pre-1800 inhabitants of Madrid "Madrilenians", if we are not insane), but that -on the other hand- we have more than enough sources to prove that:

1. Gibraltar has been called "Gibraltar" since centuries before the British rule.
2. There is a standard procedure for creating demonyms: "The most common is to add a suffix to the end of the location's name, slightly modified in some instances." (see for example here)
3. Many dictionaries define "Gibraltarian" as any inhabitant or native of the Rock, not linked to any time or political status (unsurprinsingly, as it is just the standard model for demonyms in English): wiktionary.org, worldnetweb.princeton.edu, TheFreeDictionary.com, Synonym.com...
4. "Gibraltarian" has been used for inhabitants of the Rock independently of its political status (as a "Garrison in the Kingdom of Spain", as a "Crown Colony", as a "Dependent Territory" and as a BOT).

Regarding sensitivities, I repeat that they can go either way (like always in these cases). Should one sensitivity prevail against another, or just use the standard English procedure for demonyms? Furthermore, I don't think that anyone should feel attacked if we use that term for the villagers who lived in Gibraltar for centuries before the British arrived. On the other hand, I can understand that someone can feel attacked if we use it for non-Gibraltar natives or inhabitants, especially if they are Spanish (but that's a totally different story from the thing we are talking about now).

Should we really keep discussing this totally evident issue for weeks, ask for a mediator, RfC...? Or should we just assume that when one editor uses the term Gibraltarian for inhabitants of Gibraltar pre-1713 it is done without the intention to defend some particular sovereignity? --Imalbornoz (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Its only ever used to undermine the claim of Gibraltarians to be the people of Gibraltar and its use in this context is no more acceptable to me as a Gibraltarian than using the N word in an article about black people today. --Gibnews (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)ç

I can understand and accept that someone wishes not to be called some offensive word. What sounds somehow strange is when someone requests that someone else not be called some demonym (especially if that word represents the place he or she had to leave after some atrocities were performed). I don't think that the N-word sensitivity issue applies here... Anyhow, you can be sure that the standard English procedure for demonyms was as simple in 1704 as it is today, so natives of a town called Gibraltar on December the 31st of 1703 were supposed to be... what? wanna take a guess? Is there an exception to the standard rule for demonym creation in English regarding the natives from Gibraltar pre-1704? Does anybody have any source for that? --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The thrust of your argument appears to be there is no source to support the use of an English demonym for the Spanish population prior to the British occupation but we should just ignore that and do it anyway. A perfectly acceptable suggestion has been made to refer to them as Spanish, why is that not enough? I would also suggest that you speak to some of the people from Gibraltar because in my experience the N word analogy is rather apt. Dismissing certain sensitivities is not conducive to working together, perhaps you should listen more. Justin talk 13:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should use something like 'Notable residents of Spanish Gibraltar'? Or 'Notable People from pre-1707' if we want to seperate them. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings minion, you take my point that there is any number of suggestions that could be made that allows us to avoid causing offence. Justin talk 14:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi friends, here there's something interesting (and funny) for this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar,_Zulia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duringtheweekend (talk • contribs) 10:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

2. What level of statistics are acceptable for this page?

The issue is not the level but to utilise relevant statistics and not to artificially select only statistics that give such a misleading picture that they require extensive explanation.

The issue is that statistics must be provided according to its relevance and not according to what wikipedists think. Giving a "bad image" of Gibraltar is not an argument to hide statistics. "Not having statistics of goats in Gibraltar" is not an argument to avoid including information about the CO2 emissions in Gibraltar. Moreover if the only person not being one of the "usual suspects" in Gibraltar-related articles (BTW, I'm one of them) was in favor to include such information, however in other article (which of course has been also carefully removed)

Funny enough, people wonder about such information but instead of leaving the reader to make their own judgment, information is simply not provided. Funny, as I said. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Perhaps attached to the above, do we need to create a subarticle for the Economy of Gibraltar?

Possibly but that should be carefully considered and not written to portray Gibraltar as a den of thieves, smugglers and money launderers as the Spanish Government has alleged.

Possibly, but only if it provides complete information. It's really interesting to see that the article duly notices that Gibraltar was not in the OECD list of jurisdictions implementing the internationally agreed Tax Standard issued in October, but was in the April report. I'll include the information (although it's hardly expected that it will remain) --Ecemaml (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources are so precious, that apparently we have to use exactly the same words. That we've heard time and time again. But then you edit to present a somewhat distorted picture, when the article reflected the source. Close enough to be verbatim, almost a copyright violation. Yet you chose to change it, to reflect something very different. Curious. Justin talk 23:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It has lasted half an hour And the reason is copyvio :-DDDDDD --Ecemaml (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

4. The article in genera has become very large, do the above ideas help?

The article needs to be reduced in size that much is certain.

I agree. The problem is that if we don't set an objective (and -if possible- quantitative) "standard" or "benchmark" for notability inside the article, the current procedure of spending months and months just to decide whether a sentence should or should not be included is completely insane. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll never get a "benchmark" or a metric, not one that will ever be useful. See Goodhart's law for example. Wishing to avoid re-opening old wounds, you have months to decide anything because of the tendentious arguments, continuously repeating the same argument and not listening to the other side. Using a talk page properly will achieve much better results. Justin talk 21:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Justin, but I didn't understand this last post, could you explain a little bit more for me (sorry for the inconvenience)? Regarding Goodhart's law, I understand that it kind of applies if the target measure affects the behaviour of precisely the same set of individuals it is trying to measure. But I doubt that our discussion will affect enough reputed authors to see a change in the number of sources about Gibraltar... ;-) Anyway, I think that with a bit of good will we can come up with some measure that can be used as an overall guide in order to reduce the months of discussions for each sentence... --Imalbornoz (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK what metric would you choose? Let me guess, how many sources mention a particular incident? Is that an actually objective measure? I genuinely do not think that is a useful suggestion. You'll pick an objective measure that you can use to argue your case, it won't be accepted by another side who will pick their own and then we'll have months of discussion about which metric to use. How about changing behaviour and actually listening, instead of constantly pushing the same line. Justin talk 13:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder who's not listening here. The enhancement of the article has been hindered for months. If you want, you can have a look at here to see how it works.

On the other hand, I've already done a proposal on the removal of irrelevant information that is included in the article, while the addition of relevant information is constantly prevented. I'll quote myself again: the interesting but irrelevant anecdote related to the "Conversos" in Gibraltar (simply because it's omitted by most of the historians of Gibraltar), mentions to Minorca, the mention to the "British neutral ground" in the history section (it would belong to the articles on disputes and, at most, as a mention in the communications section, since it affects the airport), the whole section "Spanish Civil War" (as it focuses in irrelevant military incidents), the mention to 1981 honeymoon of Charles and Diana, the excessive detail on the Cordoba agreements, the incidents in the "British waters" (which besides going into too much detail, omits, as usual the fact that such waters are claimed by Spain, another POV in the text), the details on the 2007 election (recentism), the section on the Eastside Development, the details on the National Day (recentism), the whole "tercentenary" section (recentism), the whole section on the Falkland Islands and a severe reduction in the Attempted IRA Bombing issue (recentism). It would reduce the size of the article in about a 15% (however, we're arguing for 2 lines of text). --Ecemaml (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh will you just quit trying to get a rise all the time, it is getting boring. [12] you keep bringing this up all the time yet it was resolved with the addition of some of the people you wanted to be added. Which would have been achieved a lot easier if you didn't approach everything with such a confrontational attitude. And newsflash, this is the English wikipedia, many of those things are very relevant to British people. Justin talk 23:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, not the British Wikipedia. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC) PS: Wikipedia:Systemic bias?

Justin? Lets focus on the content not on editors, comment on their edits and not on them. Though Ecemaml? Those comments are most unwelcome and cheap, dragging us back to nationalist arguments. Really, at this point I think we declare the restart a failure, and we can post up for admin involvement and sort this out the topic ban way. It has fallen back into ad hominem attacks and daft comments focusing on nationalism. I'd like to thank Imalbornoz for trying, and sadly note that where people were focusing on issues and not on people (as in the above section on people from Gibraltar pre-British occupation) we were achieving something. I for one will be delighted when we all get topic banned, gives me some free time. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

5. Should San Roque, the spanish town on the other side of the border, be included due to its links with Gibraltar?

Sorry but this is not the issue, no body has ever said that San Roque should never be mentioned. Rather we have said it is not of crucial importance to Gibraltar and so in an article that is already too long there is no need to mention it. There is no problem in mentioning it in History of Gibraltar. No offence but the argument has been misrepresented so many times it is perhaps understandable.

I agree with Justin. The San Roque episode should only be mentioned if it is relevant enough in the History of Gibraltar (the problem is: what does enough mean?). It has already been shown (here and here, for example) that it is much more relevant for Historians writing books about the History of Gibraltar than many other issues mentioned in the History section. Therefore, I think it is difficult to argue that the San Roque episode is not relevant enough for the History of Gibraltar. If finally we all agreed that it isn't important enough, then we would have found a very good solution for the excessive length of the article: lots and lots of episodes in the History section would be "not of crucial importance" to the History of Gibraltar and could be not mentioned ;-). --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

But they're relevant to Gibraltar, which is the subject of this article. That is the point. Justin talk 21:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as they are in the "History of Gibraltar" section, they should be relevant to the History of Gibraltar, shouldn't they? (Anyway, in this case, we're talking about the History of Gibraltar so I guess that everything in it is related to Gibraltar by definition...) I don't discuss their relevance for the History of Gibraltar, I am only saying that the San Roque incident is relatively much more relevant, according to secondary sources. --Imalbornoz (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The important thing was that they left. Where they went is totally immaterial to Gibraltar post 1704. Its reasonable enough to mention it in the history of Gibraltar article, but not in the main article. San Roque has no particular significance to Gibraltar any more and indeed less than Estapona which used to be the nearest sea location one could land in a yacht, which does not merit a mention. --Gibnews (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about the History section of the Gibraltar article. Should we take into account the opinion of some tens of historians writing about Gibraltar, besides your own -very respectable- opinion? --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but there is some paint drying that needs to be watched, it will be more interesting than continuing with the same tired argument that has been played out ad nauseum. Justin talk 13:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT Let's show some sources (even if they dislike some editors, for some untold reason):

It was the Gibraltar city council which on 1 August 1704 (NS) rejected the Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt's call to surrender; it was the city council which on 4 August accepted the inevitable; it was the city council with almost all the civilian population, and a small garriton, which on 7 August filed out, taking with it the city's standard and records; and it was the city council which in 1706, with royal authority, re-established itself in San Roque in what had once been part of Gibralta's domain as, according to King Philip, 'My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo'.

— Stephen Constantine (2009). Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-8054-8.

So, again, yet another source establishing the relevance. At the same time that excessive length of the article is mention as argument to block the mention, irrelevant details are introduced. While it's said that it gives undue weight, a further clarification about relevance if provided above (this seems to be British Wikipedia, and therefore, Lady Di's stay in Gibraltar is more relevant that the destiny of the Gibraltar population). Interesting. --Ecemaml (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

6. The border closures: Are they important? To what are we attributing them? Is this sourced?

Yes, they're relevant but personally I see them as largely historic and more relevant to the Disputed Status of Gibraltar. I really am still bemused by the vehement objections to mention of the traffic restrictions at the border; yes they're sourced. Justin talk 15:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin, it's interesting how you intentionally misrepresent the issue we're dealing with. I don't object to the mention to the traffic delays. I simply object to its linkage to the border closure. --Ecemaml (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Being largely in agreement with Justin, I won't repeat the above, except to note that there is an article on the Economy of Gibraltar It might benefit from splitting out the tax information. Its useful to have it available as there is a perception that Gibraltar is 'tax free' as that is a marketing tactic by the shops as there is no VAT. The alleged money laundering and drug smuggling are not what they used to be so we do have to pay income tax.

The term Gibraltarian is a modern one and there are no references to the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar being called that at the time of their departure. It is also a legally defined status. --Gibnews (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)