Talk:Status of Gibraltar/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

On recent disputes

Is necessary to be honest and exactly on 2009 about Guardia Civil incident add that happened in Gibraltar waters of the Port ceded in Utrecht.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.101.46 (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Although some Spanish sources claim that the only waters Gibraltar has a legal right to are those mentioned in the treaty, it does not, in practice cede any waters, port or otherwise. The reason being that in 1704 the concept of territorial waters had not been developed, and therefore like television broadcasting channels, or the Internet there was no reference to them.

In practice there is no legal distinction within the 3 mile limit, excepting that the MoD have made it clear that any speedboats entering the harbour past the line of warning buoys will be met with lethal force as potential terrorists.

Hello and welcome, you might find it useful to register a username and sign posts to distinguish yourself from the infamous banned user. --Gibnews (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

At the end of 2008, Spain convinced the European Commission to include most of the territorial waters that surround Gibraltar claimed by Britain under a new marine conservation area known as the "Estrecho Oriental" -- and that will be maintained by Madrid. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091230/wl_uk_afp/spainbritaingibraltarpolice_20091230060132 Maybe that is useful regarding territorial water disputes, regards Fireinthegol (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Before the Spain "convinced" the European Commission. The british goverment proposed to convinced European commision The LIC named Southern Waters of Gibraltar about 5.480 has., which was erroneous in its coordinates. Directiva 92/43/CEE of European Council.

In 1703 is established the sovereignty of territorial waters to a width of a cannon shot which amounted to about 3 miles offshore. As you can see the Treaty of Utrecht 1713 no mentioned anything about sovereignty waters only gave the "properly waters" of the Port.

And by the Treaty of Utrecht Spain only ceded "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 without territorial jurisdiction" is you do not considering the Utrecht in this case you legitimize the occupation by force and war of any territory in the XXI century as same in 1704. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.101.46 (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum, its a place to discuss things, in English, that might reasonably go in the article. Things which need to have references supporting them. Territorial waters are agreed internationally by UN treaties and these supersede anything which happened in the past. Although the EU might declare a zone of particular interest, that is subject to the sovereignty of waters, which in this case is British under the UN convention and not Spanish as miss-represented to the EU. I expect it will be sorted out in the European Court in due course. Not by wikipedia editors. I guess that the EU did not check the waters very well as Britain claimed some Algerian waters, which are not part of the EU at all. --Gibnews (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Isthmus

One thing: "(talking about the istmus)...As well as the airport, there are two substantial housing estates, a sports stadium, a secondary school, a marina and a beach on this land, which is an integral part of the territory of Gibraltar." Is the istmus an integral part of Gibraltar? was'nt it disputed? That is why I removed. Fireinthegol (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Spain does dispute it, but nevertheless the territory is an integral part of Gibraltar where successive generations of Gibraltarians live, work, play and are burried. At one stage in history the area was an uninhabited DMZ, but that changed long ago and today everything is part of the territory of Gibraltar and subject to the laws of Gibraltar up to the frontier. That is the reality and that is what Wikipedia needs to describe. --Gibnews (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi friends, I think I have the solution for this discussion: to distinguish between the de facto status and the de iure status of the isthmus. DE FACTO Gibnews is right, and the isthmus is an integral part of Gibraltar, since it is evident that "successive generations of Gibraltarians live, work, play"... DE IURE, it can't be said that the isthmus is "an integral part of Gibraltar", since the sovereignty over it is disputed, and the UK lacks what lawyers call a valid title of acquisition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duringtheweekend (talk • contribs) 18:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not what lawyers tell me, and HMG state they have no doubt about the sovereignty of Gibraltar. There are references available that say that. --Gibnews (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure there are, but His Catholic Majesty's Government says the contrary, and there are also have references available. That's why the de iure status remains unclear... Regards. --Duringtheweekend (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)(And that's also why you are doing POV pushing... Helas)--Duringtheweekend (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In 1713 the cession of the town of Gibraltar, fortifications and port is the same as the maps of that time but actually somebody change the fisionomy of the Isthmus without any legal title. There a report talks about it named Kershaw.[1] Maps[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.101.46 (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not accurate to say that the civil guard landing in Gibraltar

Is necessary to say exactly where the events happened to be serious. In this case Guardia Civil incursion on GIBRALTAR PORT. (ceded in Utrecht)[3]

The Convention of the Sea depend of the UN. The UN have Gibraltar on the list of descolonization pending and the new Lisboa European Treaty do not reconigzes the british sovereignty of gibraltar. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.101.46 (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi friends, I've seen that the changes made by this unsigned user have been deleted, however, I think that the idea behind his changes, specifying that the waters were those of the port, is not baloney: there's a difference between internal waters, territorial waters, Contiguous Zone and then International Waters. Here the article is basically correct: the incursion was on what the UK considers territorial waters, but then the incursion continued into internal waters (those of the port). Clarify the article with this legal distinction would enhance the quality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duringtheweekend (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no legal distinction in relation to waters. --Gibnews (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, it seems that here you miss the point. Indeed there are many legal distinctions: for instance, in the case of territorial waters foreign ships have the righ of innocent passage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_passage), which is not the case with internal waters. --Duringtheweekend (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe nor there in Gibraltar legal distinction about Criminals and Police as the waters but exist the "hot pursuit" [4]and Schengen [5]. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.101.46 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar is not included in the Schengen agreement, yes ships have the right of 'innocent passage' BUT landing in Gibraltar and running around with guns without a firearms certificate is illegal and will not be tolerated. At least the British soldiers who landed on the La Linea beach by accident had the sense to leave quickly. Anyway the Spanish minister apologised so lets leave it there. --Gibnews (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just clarifying, the Guardias civiles could not leave quickly because they were arrested. The british soldiers in the beach of La linea were not arrested, so they could leave quickly. Also, Britain did not apologise for that. On the other side, the entrance in other territorial waters while in hot pursuit is legal under the internation law. What Gibraltar should have done is help the Guardias civiles to arrest the criminals and to return to Spain, and never arrest them. Keep it accurate. Fireinthegol (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the two incidents, but in both cases suitable apologies were made. The Gibraltar police arrested the criminals who went to court were fined and had their boat confiscated as importing it was illegal. They were not in possession of any contraband. Foreign police landing in Gibraltar with guns is NOT legal here, although they were let off, as were another lot who were arrested on Eastern beach some years ago. In both cases their boats were returned. I think the article describes the events well enough. --Gibnews (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar is not included in the Schengen agreement but is included as (only police and judicial cooperation rules)[6] so lets leave it there. Regards.212.145.101.46 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, Britain never apologised for that incident, and the british marines were not arrested. The british marines apologised, of course, the same as the guardias civiles. But not the british government. In the other case, the Spanish minister apologised. Just for you to know. Fireinthegol (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference says it was discussed by diplomats, the two incidents were quite different and the respective governments are all happy with the outcome of both. Nobody got shot, and everyone learnt a lesson. The RGP got the chance to put their anti-terrorist plan which they have exercised into action and arrested everyone safely. The GSP plan is less friendly, as they protect warships in port and don't want a repeat of the USS Cole bombing. But the article has enough detail. --Gibnews (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not accurate to say reference to the capture of Gibraltar and the Treaty of Utrecht

The text : In that treaty, Spain ceded to Great Britain:

"the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging […] for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever."

In that paragraph is ignored by Wikipedia the Territorial Jurisdiction as Treaty of Utrecht literally said.

The UK should not authorise such activities as England is not in possession of complete sovereignty over Gibraltar: As agreed in Utrecht, Spain would not concede any Territorial Jurisdiction. This means when you talk about the Utrecht literally that England cannot dictate laws in Gibraltar, and is therefore, not in a governing position. Although in practice is ignored by UK the Territorial Jurisdiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.101.46 (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read wp:or You also need to read the treaty and ask a lawyer what 'territorial jurisdiction' means. And the territory was ceded to the Crown not a state. However, as Gibraltar is self-governing 'England' does not make laws, the elected parliament of Gibraltar has that competence. You might find This article explaining the ToU useful. --Gibnews (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Independently that you or Gibnet interpreted The article X is all one you can not take paragraphs separately for your misinterpreted.[7] The treaty of Utrecht said literally "that the above-named propierty be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction" and Wikipedia ignored that fundamental words distorted completely its meaning. About Gibraltar parlament it is a true farce. Ask to the British Crown governor. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.101.46 (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 212.145.101.46 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The article referred to is by an eminent lawyer, Guy Stagnetto QC. If you wish to discuss its contents, please write to him as interpreting treaties is outside the scope of Wikipedia. see also WP:NOT#FORUM The discussion is over. --Gibnews (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don´t know is an eminent lawyer or eminent pirate. I don´t care. Only Wikipedia should be correct the sentences "between quotes" when talk about Article X of Utrecht to be more successful and impartial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.101.46 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Political harassment

Gibnews please don't add this type of phrases, "Spanish Government continues with political harassment and restrictions despite improved relations", because the article is already quite biased towards spain. You add references said in Gibraltar press, not necesarily true references, like the phrase seems to indicate. Political harassement is an opinion. The restrictions, there is a whole section talking about restrictions. Fireinthegol (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish Government does indeed continue with its harassment, and there is a reference saying exactly that. The section describes the Gibraltar view of the sovereignty dispute. Censoring the article with offensive comments like The reference that support this is an opinion column by a Gibraltarian is racism and your comments about the Gibraltar press are demeaning. If you continue along these lines, a complaint will follow. --Gibnews (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews you can complain what you want. Firstly, Gibraltarian is not a race. Secondly, that reference is an opinion by a Gibraltarian, meaning that Spanish have multiple opinions about Gibraltar issues, and that does not mean that are valid references, because they are the interested and obviously biased factions. With the wording that you put now, it can be deduced that Spain blocks Gibraltar quite seriously, but the only block/restriction that exist is the football team, which cannot be considered political harassement. If you continue pushing POV, a complaint will follow. Fireinthegol (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC) If you want to put this phrase "political harassement" you need something more serious than denying UEFA membership. All your phrase is based on that, because I cannot find more restriction than that in your references. That is a restriction, not a harassement which is a serious word. And obviously I can find references about Gibraltar on Spanish media that talk about Gibraltarian harassement towards Spain. Fireinthegol (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite how little Gibraltar 'harasses' Spain, as we do not have the budget or resources that are deployed destructively against us. In the case of UEFA, the reference makes it clear Spanish football association has been instructed by the Government of Spain, so it is political in origin. The same is true in for example Gibraltar's membership of the IOC and the ISSF. If however, you can find any references, please insert them in the section about Spain's case and do not seek to censor the referenced and Gibraltarian opinion in the section dealing with that. You might read the article on Racism which explains how it applies to any group including Gibraltarians, and wikipedia is not a place for it. --Gibnews (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I will put in Spanish postion only facts. If you want to put facts, and opinions, put them in "Giraltar position" section, and not in the introduction. The UEFA issue is already pointed out in "Spanish restrictions", so its obviously POV pushing puting so much emphasis in it, and in the introduction. Btw calling someone racist for saying that Gibraltarian may have biased opinions can be considered a personal attack. Fireinthegol (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary if you continue with that sort of racist comment it can get you blocked, don't do it. It would be nice to see some facts in relation to the Spanish claim to Gibraltar as most of it is based on fairy tales. As regards what Gibraltarians think, the local newspapers reflect that well. Please do not remove references simply because you do not like what they say. --Gibnews (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I will not remove, I will put it in Gibraltar position, which is the section that must have Gibraltarians opinion, regards 81.39.209.75 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC) [IP=Telefonica de Espana]

Gibnews, whether the IP belongs to Telefonica de Espana or not is irrelevant. You've been asked repeatedly to stop qualifying other editors. You can't edit/modify other's comments without their consent either. That is *enough*. I've filed a complaint in the ANI. --Cremallera (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like harassment to me. Perhaps you should make a complaint about signbot too --Gibnews (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Spanish opinions

This seems to contain some contradictions, in relation to a tax information exchange agreement, I believe Gibraltar offered this, but it was declined, which is explained by your reference which says Spain does not recognize the sovereignty of Gibraltar and therefore can not sign an international agreement. Sources of Economic delMinisterio explained that any agreement should take place with the permission of the British Government and not with political representatives of the Rock..

In relation to Sr Moratinos at the press conference, I sat in front of him and have a recording. He was far to polite to shout 'Gibraltar espanol' and your reference does not say that he did. Keep it real. I've improved the English. --Gibnews (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting. I failed to read that he did not literally said that. He said "the claim for sovereignty cannot be given up" during the press conference. This was interpreted as he had said gibraltar español by that journalist. A better reference for this is http://www.elmundo.es/papel/2009/07/23/espana/17531307.html

On the taxes, the other reference, http://www.apreblanc.com/noticias/gibraltar-el-agujero-negro-de-la-hacienda-espa-ola.html, says that Spain and Gibraltar cannot sign an international agreement directly, they have to do it through UK and Spain, but it doesnt say that they cannot reach agreements or cooperation (they indeed cooperate in various other subjects). It says that Gibraltar have not contacted Spain to be removed from the Spanish listing of tax havens: "El Peñón forma parte de la lista de paraísos fiscales que elaboró el España en 1991 y, a diferencia de otros territorios como Andorra o Luxemburgo, Gibraltar no ha realizado gesto alguno para salir de ella. De los 48 países que forman parte de la lista negra que el Gobierno español elaboró en 1991, 24 ya se han puesto en contacto en los últimos meses con la administración española para firmar convenios de doble imposición que incluyan un intercambio efectivo de información." So it says that 24 territories have contacted Spain to reach agreement, but not Gibraltar.

I also have a reference of an spanish politician saying that Gibraltar government harasses Spain, http://www.diariocritico.com/2009/Julio/nacional/162873/arenas-visita-gibraltar-moratinos.html

but I dont know if it would be useful to put that. Fireinthegol (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, nobody expected him to say Spain had abandoned the claim, and it would have been really hot news if he had! He was very relaxed and seemed to be having a good time.

On the issue of tax agreements, Gibraltar has entered into agreements with anyone interested in order to make the OECD happy. They did propose one with Spain but this falls into the trap that the Government of Spain does not recognise that the GoG is competent to make agreements. HMG considers that the GoG is and that HMG is not, so nothing happens. This is a similar situation to judicial co-operation where Spain does not recognise the Gibraltar court, makes requests to the UK who cannot answer them and then Spain then shouts 'no co-operation'.

Similarly if Gibraltar contacted a Spanish organisation to be removed from their list of money laundering centres, would they take any notice - and in any event the International organisations are what matters. They do take notice and have delisted Gibraltar from their concerns.

As regards (all) politicians, they sometimes say the strangest things, but its worthwhile adding them to Wikipedia for reference, or a good laugh at their stupidity. Your reference is rather vague, you might want to check out Jose Ignacio Landaluce who seems to be the most vocal at the moment. --Gibnews (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

POV statement

I've been some time out in order to contribute instead of simply discussing. However, I see that my absence has been used to remove some NPOV tags that were not refuted in any case.

The section is this one:

Finally, it is pointed out that there is in fact no principle in International Law or UN doctrine that can displace the inalienable right to self-determination. In this regard, in 2008, the UN 4th Committee rejected the claim that a dispute over sovereignty affected self-determination, affirming it to be a basic human right.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd406.doc.htm | title=Following intense debate, Fourth Committedd approves amended omnibus text on Non-Self-Governing Territories | publisher=United Nations General Assembly. Department of Public Information | date=20 October 2008}}: {{quote|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}}</ref>

I remember the rationale above:

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 Committe in 2008. It has different resolutions on each territory (or groups of territories) included in the list of non-self-governing 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 referring 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 referring to with regard to Gibraltar? No. It has been requested.
4. Has any involved party given any relevance to the resolution we're referring 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.

It's really boring to explain again that without a source "pointing out" what is being asserted in the sentence (item 3 above), such a mention is simply both original research and POV edition. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly does refer to the dispute as there was an attempt at the C24 meetings to change UN policy on the universal application of the right to self determination to exclude those cases where there is a 'sovereignty dispute' - he two cases are Gibraltar and the Falklands. As Gibraltar was clearly involved, it was mentioned in depth in the local media so there should be some references. I will provide them. The objection to inclusion seems hard to understand. --Gibnews (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, you've been asked for references for almost a month. It was your responsibility to provide them, as you were the one who included the POV statement. Instead, you removed the NPOV template. I wouldn't say it's surprising. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC) PS: and no, it does not refer to "an attempt at the C24 meetings to change UN policy on the universal application of the right to self determination" but to the specific cases 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, as the source clearly states.

If article 2 had included the sovereignty dispute wording it would have been applicable to Gibraltar and the Falklands:

2. Also reaffirms that, in the process of decolonization, and where there is no dispute over sovereignty, there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which is also a fundamental human right, as recognized under the relevant human rights conventions;

But as it doesn't, article 2 is not applicable to the Gibraltar and the Falklands:

2. Also reaffirms that, in the process of decolonization, there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which is also a fundamental human right, as recognized under the relevant human rights conventions;

That makes perfect sense :-) Dab14763 (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The other POV dispute

In the economy section it is stated: "Similarly positive assessments have been made by international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF).[33][34][35][36]" But none o the 4 references work. I also remove some supposed claims by the Spanish "government" without reference. I can admit that they have been claimed by some spaniards, not by the government. Fireinthegol (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no one answers, I'll remove unreferecend facts. If you want to revert, please provide sources. I also remove the phrases that include "political harassement" as it is false, POV, and misleading. Fireinthegol (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding contributions

I'm interested in adding some information in summary are:

1. Rejecting British personalities on the British occupation of Gibraltar. Source: FAES PAPERS

2. Gibraltarians leave their city. Reasons. Settlement in San Roque by Gibraltarians. Legal significance. Source: Sepulveda. (History prof UNED). (This is already present in the article)

3. Criticism from Guy Stagnetto Spain's Supreme Court on the interpretation of the phrase "without any territorial jurisdiction" in the Treaty of Utrecht. Source: Supreme Court ruling and opinion in press of Stagnetto.

4. Waters around Gibraltar: disputed status. Source: News "EL MUNDO", Max Planck Encyclopedia Public International Law (MPEPIL) and EU study. Inclusion of Article 15 and 298 of the UN Convention of the sea.

5. Dismissal of the appeal by the government of UK and Gibraltar in the TEU on environmental protection claiming Spain on the waters around Gibraltar. Reason: unfounded appeal. Source: Europa Press Agency

I request to other editors report any discrepancy (with specification and justification).

--Juanmatorres75 10:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

1. The reference at FAES is a) a WP:SPS and not acceptable as a source. b) an opinion piece, we present facts not opinions. This is an encyclopedia not a debating forum.

2. Why they left? Your edit was completely misleading. The British and their allies most certainly did not wish the inhabitants to leave, the purpose of seizing Gibraltar was to provide a base for gaining support of the local people for the monarch favoured by the allies. The violence that did happen was contrary to the instructions given (ie officers lost control of the men); the claim that they violence was deliberate to force them to leave is demonstrably false.

3. See 1. facts not opinions. This is your WP:OR.

4. We already cover UNCLOS, the information you wished to add was your WP:OR and not relevant content.

5. We already cover this in a neutral fashion, your edit was misleading claiming it recognised Spanish sovereignty. It didn't.

As Gibmetal77 has pointed out, a lot of work went into dealing with this topic in a neutral manner, with removal of POV material introduced by nationalists of all persuasions. People will not stand by and allow the clock to be turned back by the introduction of partisan material. NPOV requires that we cover the debate in a neutral manner, based on preferrably neutral academic sources not the partisan material produce by political organisations. We don't achieve NPOV by presenting individually the British, Spanish or Gibraltarian POV. You've already been blocked for edit warring and you've been hit with a huge clue stick that your POV edits are not acceptable. Drop the WP:STICK. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

1. OK. Then, if I manage to find the statements made by these people (Bright and Gardiner) in a history book or journal, the source would be valid and therefore I can add to the article. Is that so?

2. At no point saying that violence was deliberate with the intention of expelling the population. I just reproduce what the source says: that violence by the British was the reason why the Gibraltarians left there, although that was not a deliberate intention of the British. In any case, I suppose if I delete the causal link between violence and the left of the population and instead of saying "by Admiral Sir George Rooke and his troops", I say "by the troops of Admiral Sir George Rooke" then is okay. Is that so? And with San Roque I suppose no problem.

3. The fact is that the Supreme Court issued a order with an interpretation of the phrase "without any territorial jurisdiction" and Stagnetto criticized this interpretation and gave another. The fact this controversy illustrates the differences in the interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht. The fact is the existence of opposing positions on an issue.

4. The articles of the convention I want to add are important to note that there are disputes between countries (especially of sovereignty) that, if prior to the convention itself, they are excluded from the jurisdiction thereof (art. 298), and to identify the importance that the Convention itself confers to historical reasons in some cases excluding the general rules of the Convention (art. 15). On the following claim (WP: OR) is so general and vague that I cannot answer, but, if you consider that the” Max Plank Ecyclopedia of Public International Law”, or the study of the EU are not valid sources, say so explicitly, like you did with FAES. Please, do it. Also, remember that in the beginning the article said "British-claimed territorial waters" and was changed by Gibmetal77 to "British Gibraltar Territorial Waters" without justification or source, then add an absurd allegedly provocative link. But I suppose that don’t matter but I will have to justify every comma.

5. I disagree with the attribution of intentions you ascribe me. In any case, I suppose if I find the text of the resolution and it actually says that the appeal is "unfounded", I can include it, and well, plus we got a source for the "neutral fashion" cover. It’s very neutral, sure, but without source.

Ultimately, I think we can consider that there is provisionally "consensus" in paragraphs 1, 2 and 5, with the conditions set. Regarding points 3 and 4 I await your response to my allegations, before resorting to a third opinion. --Juanmatorres75 08:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

3. Regarding the fact controversy over the interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht and specifically the phrase "without any territorial jurisdiction" and the scope of "propriety", propose to use as source the article "The Legal Status of Gibraltar: Whose Rock is it Anyway? "J. Simon Lincoln, from the Fordham International Law Journal, if this source is considered better than the order of the Court and the Stagnetto article. --Juanmatorres75 09:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

I suppose I'm entitled to expect the same diligence in this debate to find consensus that the diligence demonstrated by the editors erasing my contributions. That is why I think I can consider is definitive consensus on items 1, 2 and 5, with the conditions stipulated, also because there is no refutation of the sources proposed in sections 3 and 4, I think it can also be considered that consensus has been reached on this point.--Juanmatorres75 10:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

Additionally, in paragraph 4 referred to the disputed waters, I propose as a source article "The Anglo-Spanish Dispute over the Waters of Gibraltar and the Tripartite Forum of Dialogue" by Inmaculada González, Law Faculty, University of Cádiz, published in "The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law"--Juanmatorres75 12:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

                   I ask other editors: both editorial suggestions and sources to review the following topics:

A. Left of the Spanish population of Gibraltar after his capture and his establishment in neighboring lands, founding the town of San Roque.

B. Legal controversy about interpretation Utrecht Treaty between Spain and Britain over whether the cession of Gibraltar implies transfer of sovereignty or property without jurisdiction only.

C. Existence of a dispute over the waters around Gibraltar and its reasons.

D. Existence of certain exceptions in UNCLOS relating to the determination of territorial waters in adjacent areas (article 15) and the existence of certain types of disputes (sovereignty) excluded from UNCLOS (article 298)--Juanmatorres75 18:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Greetings! I am responding to a request for a third opinion at WP:3O. Looking over the history, I see a significant edit war over the last week or so. This should be stopped immediately. Per WP:BRD, a consensus should be formed on this page before the material under discussion is re-inserted into the article. Looking at the talk page, it is readily apparent that that consensus has not yet been established.

I suggest breaking these proposed additions into sections or even individual paragraphs to help evaluate the positive and negative aspects of each proposed change.

Several of the lines of discussion put forward border on original synthesis. To be applied to this article, for example, you would need a source that not only explains a historic international law but also explicitly states that it is/was applicable to the Gibraltar case. As for the reliability of specific sources, I suggest using WP:RSN to discuss individual sources if they are borderline enough that their status cannot be determined on this talk page. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get consensus following the steps recommended by the third opinion

Following the suggestions of the third opinion: "I suggest breaking Proposed These additions into sections or even single Paragraphs to help Evaluate the positive and negative aspects of each Proposed change." I will proceed to propose to include a new paragraph below in the middle of the first paragraph, after of "War of the Spanish succession"in the section entitled "The capture of Gibraltar and the Treaty of Utrecht". The wording of this paragraph would be:

"After the capture of the town of Gibraltar, its civil population moved to neighboring lands and founded the town of San Roque, Cádiz, with its official motto "Very Noble and Very Loyal City of San Roque, Gibraltar where lives on". Gibraltarians established in San Roque, took with them all the documents of the municipal archive and its flag, to guarantee legal and administrative continuity of the town left by them (Sepúlveda, 2004, pp. 89-92)."

As you can see, I've removed some things regarding earlier wordings and I think I'm getting close enough to what the author of the source indicated. Is there any editor that can tell me if I can get consensus with this wording or propose alternative another one?

Thanks.--Juanmatorres75 16:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the relevance to this article? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The relevance of this article is to show that population movements have existed in this case, movements that in the long term, alter the population composition of Gibraltar. It is an important point to understand that after this verifiable fact, there was a settlement of British population in a town almost empty. As this last point (settlement of British population) is already covered in the section "Spanish position", I considered interesting to note that historical fact (which is an objective fact, not a position) in the first section, in which the facts relevant accompanying the capture of Gibraltar, as the Treaty of Utrecht, are marked ("The capture of Gibraltar and the Treaty of Utrecht"). Normally in this type of issues (territorial disputes), noting the movements of population is important, and they are historical facts that must treat them as such, not as part of a particular position.--Juanmatorres75 17:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

The Spanish population did not move out to be replace by British settlers. Some of those who left drifted back, as to the rest the ethnogenesis of Gibraltar is diverse but there was no resettlement from Britain. Your claim is not sustainable, your edit is actually WP:OR and WP:SYN. That the population left is only of tangential relevance to this aticle. In addition, we don't include such material just because you find it interesting, it has to be relevant. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, change "interesting" to "relevant".

In no time I have established a causal link between the left of Spanish and British settlement, I have established only a temporal succession, you do not twist my words, please. Then, are you referring to editing my justification of the contribution I want to do as if it were the same edition I want to add to the article, which is not real, that is, you're attributing WP: OR and WP: SYN my edition on the talk page! Nor have I said anything about adding questions about the ethnogenesis of Gibraltar. I just want to say that the people of Gibraltar left his village and founded another beside of this retaining the symbols of the former. Is this relevant?, I think so, in the Gibraltar context at least, it is a significant population movement to a people who moved its identity as such elsewhere, conserving it.--Juanmatorres75 19:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

Additionally, I note that I am not by emphasizing the ethnic issue, (I do not argue if some of those who left returned later) but rather on the legal issue, ie, it's relevant to note the existing institutional continuity between the Spanish Gibraltar and the town of San Roque.--Juanmatorres75 19:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

No you just stated above that was the purpose of your edit. Whilst it may be relevant to the history of Gibraltar and is included there, its relevance here is at best tangential. If you don't address the point again, I won't reply further, but this doesn't mean you have consensus. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Last attempt. We can not agree on the degree of relevance of my contribution (if totally relevant or only tangentially is). But what if you seem to agree on is that my contribution would not be totally irrelevant. This is why I propose to add briefly (as much as possible without distorting it) the fact that you say you have a tangential relevance, since in any case has some relevance, even tangentially, and therefore deserves to be reviewed in the article, even briefly. The proposal is this:

"After the capture of the town of Gibraltar, its civil population moved to neighboring lands and founded the town of San Roque, Cádiz. The Gibraltarians, when they left, took with them all the documents of the municipal archive and its flag, to guarantee legal and administrative continuity of the town left by them (Sepúlveda, 2004, pp. 89-92)."

I think with this I propose is possible to reach a consensus, the wording can not be shorter, consistent with its possible relevance only tangential.Juanmatorres75 09:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

As an alternative to this last proposal, I think it would also be possible to shorten further the reference to historical fact, in this way:

"After the capture of the town of Gibraltar, its civil population moved to neighboring lands and founded the town of San Roque, Cádiz, moving with them all municipal symbols" (Sepúlveda, 2004, pp. 89-92) .

booking this case the explanation of the legal and administrative consequences of the fact for "Spanish position" section.Juanmatorres75 14:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

Something similar is asserted in the history section of the San Roque article. The wording is "In 1649 a quarter of the Gibraltar population perished from epidemic disease. A number of residents retreated to the area of San Roque, and survived the outbreak, believed to be typhoid. The modern settlement of San Roque [i.e, a pre-existing ancient small town] was established by the former Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar, after the majority fled following the takeover by Anglo-Dutch forces and their Spanish allies during the War of the Spanish Succession in 1704." This is sourced to Jackson, William (1990): The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar; and Gold, Peter (2005). Gibraltar: British or Spanish?. Such sources are preferable to Spanish texts which can't be understood or assessed by most English Wikipedia readers. What is your purpose? You appear to be arguing Spain's irredentist claims to territory which are fully covered in an appropriate section of the article. But the various moves to San Roque took place over many years before Spain formally handed Gibraltar over to Great Britain "for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever." So how can it be it relevant, please? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no preference to the source, I had chosen to Sepulveda because they are available directly in the article. I accept the proposed source by you.

Indeed, Gibraltarians moved to San Roque and founded the current municipality (although already existed a small population center, not municipality), in 1706. The people of Gibraltar moved there because of the violent capture of the city by the British in 1704 (they were not on vacation). The British remained all the time occupying the city (captured at first on behalf of Charles III of Spain, the Archduke Charles) some years until the property of the town of Gibraltar was formally ceded to Britain in 1713. Trying to untie the facts related (capture of Gibraltar, left its population and definitive transfer of property) due to the existence of a time lag between them is inconsistent. The left of the population of Gibraltar is produced before the cession to Britain, yes, but after the capture of Gibraltar by the British and due such capture. Really, it seems like you're wielding absurd arguments, with the intention to seem that there is a discussion. The relationship of this movement of population to the matter in dispute is quite clear, and their relevance (either directly or tangentially only), too, as this historic fact will be argued later by Spain as justification to support the position that the current population of Gibraltar is a settled population only and not original.I am proposing outline a proven historical fact only briefly, not argue anything, thus writing my last proposal testifies. Therefore, I am proposing that historical fact is outlined with a length of less than one line of text, enough length to review a historical fact supposedly tangential relevance. Really do you think this addition of less than one line of text in the article is absolutely unjustified? Juanmatorres75 17:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

Not for your reasons, that is WP:OR and WP:SYN, so no I don't think it is justified. It has already been pointed out to you, the war aims of the allies were frustrated by the departure, since the purpose of seizing Gibraltar was to win a base of support in Spain for their favoured Monarch. They did not wish to force the people out, it was a disaster for them. Specific orders were issued to protect the populace but it was an ill-disciplined force and commanders lost control of the men. The punishments handed out were severe including hangings and floggings. It seems to me that you're ignoring the past discussion to continue with the same line of argument when it has already been rejected as inappropriate - you won't achieve consensus that way. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm not proposing anything that contradicts what you're saying (I am not now proposing to add anything in the article about the violence on the population, I removed it from my proposal; nor on whether the left of this population benefited allies). I repeat: I do not intend to make any assessment of fact, just review it. I think it is increasingly clear that this is a false debate, you're editing with the sole intention of appearing a discussion, and I can not say that you do not answer to my proposals. You do not offer any alternative, just say "NO", which shows no willingness to reach consensus. Not getting consensus for the reason you really did not even trying get this consensus. Okay, I resign from my purpose to edit that part referred to the left of the civilian population of Gibraltar. When I can, I will continue with proposals regarding contributions review about the controversy the over the meaning of term "propierty" in the Treaty and the phrase "without any territorial jurisdiction", which I believe have relevance beyond doubt in this matter.--Juanmatorres75 12:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

Treaty of Utrecht

The following is the treaty text, pertaining to Gibraltar, according to http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/utrecht.htm I suggest this text could, in one way or another, be included in one of the articles about Gibraltar.

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.

But that abuses and frauds may be avoided by importing any kind of goods, the Catholic King wills, and takes it to be understood, that the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication by land with the country round about.

Yet whereas the communication by sea with the coast of Spain may not at all times be safe or open, and thereby it may happen that the garrison and other inhabitants of Gibraltar may be brought to great straits; and as it is the intention of the Catholic King, only that fraudulent importations of goods should, as is above said, be hindered by an inland communications. it is therefore provided that in such cases it may be lawful to purchase, for ready money, in the neighbouring territories of Spain, provisions and other things necessary for the use of the garrison, the inhabitants, and the ships which lie in the harbour.

But if any goods be found imported by Gibraltar, either by way of barter for purchasing provisions, or under any other pretence, the same shall be confiscated, and complaint being made thereof, those persons who have acted contrary to the faith of this treaty, shall be severely punished.

And Her Britannic Majesty, at the request of the Catholic King, does consent and agree, that no leave shall be given under any pretence whatsoever, either to Jews or Moors, to reside or have their dwellings in the said town of Gibraltar; and that no refuge or shelter shall be allowed to any Moorish ships of war in the harbour of the said town, whereby the communication between Spain and Ceuta may be obstructed, or the coasts of Spain be infested by the excursions of the Moors.

But whereas treaties of friendship and a liberty and intercourse of commerce are between the British and certain territories situated on the coast of Africa, it is always to be understood, that the British subjects cannot refuse the Moors and their ships entry into the port of Gibraltar purely upon the account of merchandising. Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain does further promise, that the free exercise of their religion shall be indulged to the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the aforesaid town.

And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.71.21 (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Relevant excerpts are already quoted in this article. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 11:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

The current (August 2013) edit war is not being discussed here. I have just made a request for semi-protection. Come on, interested editors! Make a start!  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 14:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• The article is now protected  –
   – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 14:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I thank you for your timely intervention, its quite simple really. The guidance for content should be WP:NPOV and ensuring all relevant opinions are represented. The article was tag bombed some time ago, not for reasons of improving the article but WP:POINT see [8] as the relevant points are indeed referenced. It was then eviscerated to remove all references to the opinions of the people who live in Gibraltar. Again a matter of WP:POINT. Without wishing to make an outright allegation of editing along a nationalist line, it is the Spanish position that the opinion of the Gibraltarians does not matter. Hence, as the edit was clearing favouring a national agenda in the dispute, it failed WP:NPOV by removing relevant opinion and so I reverted it. Per WP:BRD the onus is then upon the original editor to initiate a talk page discussion - [9],[10] I indicated I was willing to discuss. 192.35.35.40 (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

And I thank you for beginning a discussion. I trust that other interested editors, who have been more than happy to revert, will soon join us here. Cheers!  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 15:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

2014

As the author of much of the content and a couple of images in this article, I'm pleased to see it is largely intact and has been sensibly updated and maintained. I am however pained to read the constant reference on these talk pages to 'Gibraltarians' leaving when the territory was captured - the term did not come into being until the 1800's and the residents of 1704 considered themselves Spanish, and so they went to live in Spain. --Gibnews (talk)

The people in favour of Britain relinquishing Gibraltar and handing it over to Spain appear to me missing a fairly important factor. If Britain were to hand over a territory that was obtained in perpetuity through proper legal agreement - the Treaty of Utrecht - then that would set a legal precedent that would potentially nullify every international boundary treaty made before or since.

One of the principles of legal ownership is that you cannot give by mutual agreement something away legally and then later demand it back simply because you - or your successors - have changed your mind.

If Britain were to 'give Gibraltar back to Spain' it would open a legal can-of-worms that will have repercussions world-wide.

... still, I suppose it will at least have the perceived benefit by some of annoying the French if some future British government suddenly decides it wants its former Norman Territories back. And no doubt Mexico will be delighted to have a potentially valid legal claim to the return of places such as California and New Mexico.

Spain is entitled to request that Gibraltar be handed back to them but they certainly aren't entitled to demand it. And as for the Gibraltarians, they have long memories and many won't forget Franco and Spain's support for Hitler when they and the rest of the British were at war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

Some of the language in the lead is clearly not neutral. Furthermore the lead is not consistent, claiming first that the Spanish government is currently involved only in bilateral talks (excluding Gibraltans) then claiming it is now involved in trilateral talks. My changes seems quite clear and necessary to me and I'm confused as to why someone feels an edit war is appropriate.Ezrado (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, WP:BRD, Bold, Revert, Discuss. You appear to be following WP:BRRRWD ie Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert, Warned and then Discuss. There was only one editor edit warring here, and that was the editor who chose to revert war and that you would be you Ezrado.

Second, the relevant sentence in the lead:

“ The territorial claim was formally reasserted by the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco in the 1960s and has been continued by successive Spanish governments. They have insisted that the Gibraltar dispute is a purely bilateral matter between the United Kingdom and Spain, and that the current Gibraltarians are mere settlers whose role and will are irrelevant. ”

Have, is used, meaning the past tense and successive Spanish governments have insisted its bilateral. The previous Spanish Government signed an agreement and engaged in Tripartite talks. The current Spanish Government insists it is a bilateral manner, so your reference to the Tripartite agreement is no longer relevant.

I did explain this in my edit summary, which you've chosen to ignore. As you're now engaging in talk I will be reverting to the previous stable consensus until a new consensus text emerges.

You assert the language is not neutral but your explanation for your revert warring doesn't stand scrutiny. I await your elucidation of what the neutrality problem is. Regards, WCM_email 17:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I "discussed" the edits in each edit summary which you systematically ignored, which I naively thought would be sufficient due to how minor the original edit was. Whatever, lets just reach a consensus.

"They have insisted that the Gibraltar dispute is a purely bilateral matter" implies this was and has since been the case up until the present day (eg; "You have been extremely frustrating" vs. "You were very frustrating"). If you read through the lead before reverting my edits you would find a cited statement referencing trilateral talks since 2005. I don't see the source of conflict here.

What is a bit less clear is whether the use of the term "mere settlers" is neutral. It is my opinion that it doesn't add anything and sounds biased.Ezrado (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You discuss edits in the talk page, you do not discuss edits through edit summaries. You're not a newbie, you know this and, no, your edit summary was not sufficient. Spain continues to insist the dispute is bilateral, even whilst the trilateral forum was extant Spain insisted the sovereignty issue was bilateral, and the current Spanish Government has refused to engage in that. Its also Spain's position that as mere settlers and not a native population Gibraltarians do not enjoy the right to self-determination. It's Spain's position, WP:NPOV doesn't imply we tone it down or censor it as we don't like it or consider it biased. WCM_email 22:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Spanish Government will not go to the UN for impartial arbitration because the Spanish know they will lose. The Treaty of Utrecht was, and still is, perfectly valid and any international court of arbitration will have to uphold it in the Gibraltarian's and Britain's favour. i.e, preserve the status quo.

This is why Spain is trying to get an agreement solely from Gibraltar, or the UK, and avoiding asking for outside help from the international community. If they do this they know they (Spain) will lose.

... and that is why Spain is asking for 'bilateral' or 'tripartite' talks, see.

"Its also Spain's position that as mere settlers and not a native population Gibraltarians do not enjoy the right to self-determination" - Spain is not the sovereign power over Gibraltar and so it is none of their damn-business.

... and if I were part of the Spanish negotiating team wishing to win over the Gibraltarians to my position I wouldn't have been so stupid as to have said such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Disputed status of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090916061942/http://www.fsc.gi:80/press/article20112004.htm to http://www.fsc.gi/press/article20112004.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151015230752/http://www.oecd.org/document/59/0,2340,en_2649_201185_2074555_1_1_1_1,00.html to http://www.oecd.org/document/59/0,2340,en_2649_201185_2074555_1_1_1_1,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091001100240/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/14/42497950.pdf to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/14/42497950.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The middle of the three archive links is bad, maybe the bot was confused by the redirect? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Disputed status of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071124172535/http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/press_releases/2006/291-2006.pdf to http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/press_releases/2006/291-2006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325220954/http://www.maec.es/subwebs/embajadas/londres/es/menuppal/gibraltar/Paginas/LacuestiondeGibraltar.aspx to http://www.maec.es/subwebs/embajadas/londres/es/menuppal/gibraltar/Paginas/LacuestiondeGibraltar.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071124145022/http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/topical_speeches/un_fourth_committee.htm to http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/topical_speeches/un_fourth_committee.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091113143033/http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/topical-speeches/162-chief-ministers-un-speech to http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/topical-speeches/162-chief-ministers-un-speech
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090225214804/http://www.lukor.com:80/not-esp/internacional/portada/06040333.htm to http://www.lukor.com/not-esp/internacional/portada/06040333.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071001003630/http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/031117/yukos.html to http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/031117/yukos.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121010220104/http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_35558.shtml to http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_35558.shtml

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927193925/http://www.electionguide.org/resultsum/gibraltar_sovereigntyref_02.htm to http://www.electionguide.org/resultsum/gibraltar_sovereigntyref_02.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081118192126/http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/press_releases/2007/282-2007-EN.pdf to http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/press_releases/2007/282-2007-EN.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110723135802/http://www.gibnews.net/cgi-bin/gn_print.pl/?RGPX091207_1.xml to http://www.gibnews.net/cgi-bin/gn_print.pl/?RGPX091207_1.xml

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Disputed status of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060207064755/http://www.chronicle.gi:80/Features/Gib%20Day/Gib%20Day.htm to http://www.chronicle.gi/Features/Gib%20Day/Gib%20Day.htm

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Disputed status of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601030058/https://www.chronicle.gi:80/headlines_details.php?id=16173 to http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=16173
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=17495
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/50/0/43606256.pdf

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning Menorca in the lead

Since the Treaty of Utrecht simultaneously ceded two Spanish territories in perpetuity to the UK, and one of them was decolonized and one was not, I felt it was highly relevant to the actual topic this article engages in: its just 4 extra words in the lead. Its not POV or attempting to cast the UK in a bad light, as would be to mention that the treaty of Utrecht also gave the UK a monopoly over the transatlantic slave trade - a monopoly over which it later declared and lost a war to Spain over. That would indeed be irrelevant. Its just simply worth mentioning the other (larger) territory which was simultaneously lost to the UK in the same treaty, which had a totally different historical result - it was eventually returned to Spain. That is my opinion, although I have been reverted because apparently it is "irrelevant", although I have to say the editor in question who reverted me has never NOT reverted a single edit I have made to this or related articles. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Minorca was not simply returned as the British happened to be feeling generous, it was captured by France and went through a number of events before becoming Spanish as a result of a peace treaty. Your edit was made for POV reasons, as indicated by your comments referencing "decolonization" and you're definitely making a POV point by adding it in this context. Putting aside the motivation of the editor, which is really irrelevant to content, I oppose the suggestion to add reference to Minorca as completely irrelevant to the subject of the modern sovereignty dispute, its only of (extremely) tangential relevance and policy would not encourage the inclusion of tangential information; particularly where it is effectively a WP:COATRACK for a POV comment. WCM_email 17:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Minorca was returned to Spain by the British under the Treaty of Amiens in 1802. The reason given was "as a hope for lasting peace in Europe". In Spain multiple sources refer to it as Spain's "second Gibraltar", lost simultaneously under exactly the same terms yet returned at Amiens were the British ceded on Menorca but refused to hand over the Rock. It is directly relevant to the topic of DISPUTED' status of Gibraltar because it sets a precedent and a situation where the UK accepted Spanish sovereignty in an exactly equal scenario.

By the way, disputed is the cue-word for points of view, i.e. there are two points of view which are to be represented both in the lead and in the body. So yes my edit allows the reader to understand one of the two points of view - that Gibraltar was one of two territories taken simultaneously from Spain and the other one was directly returned to Spain under the treaty of Amiens as a just settlement, even though it was bitterly opposed by Nelson et al.. Does me adding a POV that you don't want here disqualify me from editing this article? If you like we can just have the POV which is pro-British empire? We can just change the article and say that Gibraltar has always been British since the time King Arthur pulled his sword out of the rock and that the Spaniards are just stupid usurping monkeys. Would that be ok? I'm sure you would find that quite balanced. Asilah1981 (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This follows a depressingly familiar pattern.

The claim that Minorca and Gibraltar were an "exactly equivalent scenario" is not just wrong, it's absurd. As illustrated by the fact that in 1802, Britain had had control of Minorca for a mere four years (since 1798). As well you know.

The principle of status quo ante bellum is not that unusual in peace treaties, and that is - explicitly or not - the rule that was applied at Amiens in handing over Minorca.

The fact that you claim that Minorca was "decolonised" by Amiens suggests that you are coming at this from a clear POV viewpoint. In 1802 there was no such thing as decolonisation and it is difficult to believe that the Treaty of Amiens intended to invent the concept. The territory was captured in war and handed back at the conclusion of that war.

Meanwhile, the substance-less polemic in your second paragraph - the personal attacks and clear and direct accusations of bad faith - are no more convincing this time than last time. If you persist down that line we can probably safely close the discussion as no consensus possible for change, and save everyone the faff of continuing it. But remember that last time this was precisely the sort of conduct that got you blocked. Kahastok talk 20:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok accusations of bad faith have been imposed by you two as the norm here. Note you are accusing me of bad faith for using the word "decolonised". It was a British COLONY. It was DECOLONISED i.e. it stopped being a colony. I'm not suggesting Mahatma Ghandi or Jomo Kenyatta were involved in the process. What on earth are you talking about using that word being proof of me POV? I have an opinion on the relevance of Minorca to the dispute, yes. I have stated it, yes. I can source it, yes. Is that a crime that disqualifies me from editing this article?

By the way, you also know full well that British presence in Minorca extends to nearly a century, not four years. It was taken by force in the same way, possessed by Britain on the same Treaty and would probably still be in British hands had history played out in a different way. So yeah, irrelevant... But anyways, whatever... Do as you wish, as always. Asilah1981 (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about the lead, but what about mentioning the island into somewhere at the very least? It's not like academic secondary sources dealing explicitly with the disputed status of Gibraltar do not mention that goddamn island.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You may wish to look up Confirmation bias when you construct a search to find sources to back up an a priori position e.g. [11]. It is far better to read a range of literature and form an opinion based on the coverage in the literature. Even the examples you mention above, mention it as tangential information. WCM_email 13:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I also just checked my confirmation bias with the already cited bibliography (what a mean editor I am) (Y mentioned too). PS: I say goodbye here as I value my time, cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

And the point remains, with respect to this article its still tangential to the topic of the modern sovereignty dispute. You didn't even try to address that. WCM_email 13:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

WAsqueladd It may be tangential to an editor here who starts from the premise and openly states in the Talk Page that Spaniards are lying hypocrites (sic) while simultaneously accusing other editors of being POV... but it is extremely relevant to an article which aims to present a modicum of neutrality on this dispute, which it currently does not. WCM I don't think you should be editing this article while holding such an activist view on the matter, this article is seriously deteriorated as a result. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to persuade anyone of your position, may I suggest that you stop insulting them? Your edits above contain a number of very serious personal attacks and if you persist you are likely to be blocked from editing. In substance - well I find little substance in points like the above. Ultimately, if you want to persuade me of something, you need to make arguments. That you resort to polemic instead (e.g. saying "but it is extremely relevant to an article which aims to present a modicum of neutrality on this dispute" without explaining why you believe this to be the case) rather implies that you don't have any.

It is far from clear to me that a neutral discussion of the modern dispute needs to make any reference at all to a different situation from hundreds of years ago, when international laws and norms were very different from what they are today. Utrecht gave out large amounts of previously French and Spanish territory to members of the Alliance, many of which developed completely independently and without reference to any other. Should we also mention what happened to the Spanish Netherlands, to Sicily, to St Kitts, in the 300 years since Utrecht was signed? Going on about Minorca is no different.

I have long taken the view that this article has some fairly major issues. It is not IMO a good article. But not going on tangent about a completely different part of the world is not one of those issues. Kahastok talk 18:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok Let's see. I take your points one by one.

• Regarding personal attacks. I do not see myself making personal attacks, I have indeed pointed out an obvious fact: That User:Wee Curry Monster is currently editing an article which directly tackles a conflict between Party A and Party B on the premise that one side is a liar and is hypocritical, as he himself has stated in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar&diff=750126956&oldid=750124909 (one example of express hostility to one side, out of many) Any edit that even tangentially or indirectly shows balance between these two positions is considered "biased", "irrelevant" or "POV". Me using the term "decolonisation" in the talk page resulted in both of you accusing me of bias, whereas the above statement seems totally fine. No bias at all saying one side are hypocritial liars. Do you see why it is evident that this and related articles are hijacked by activist users. Such activism I only witness in articles related to Israel/Palestine.
• I personally think both sides in the Anglo-Spanish Gibraltar dispute have reasonable arguments and both arguments and positions should be expressed as fully and in the most balanced way possible. Wee Curry Monster even spent an entire month refusing to accept removing patent historical errors (that Muslims were expelled from Spain in 1492/that Conversos were expelled from Spain), in the face of dozens of sources, because he liked the fact that it made Spain look intolerant or aggressive as a country. It was like trench warfare. I'm sorry to say that is pathological Israel/Palestine-style wikipedia activism. Its from the book.
• Regarding the Treaty of Utrecht and Minorca. Why is it relevant? Its relevance is so obvious that is why no one has bothered even to explain it. The UK took two territories from Spain proper with an indigenous Spanish population (not some far flung territory) with the Treaty of Utrecht in perpetuity. The return of one of them evidently sets the precedent for the other to be returned. That's it. I find it hard to believe that if Germany had conquered Brighton and Norfolk in the 18th century, the UK ceding them both in a post-war treaty, and Norfolk was returned 80 years later, you would be arguing that the return of Norfolk was "not relevant" on a Anglo-German territorial dispute over Brighton. In fact, I know you would make damn well sure this was included in the lead. It is clear to everyone that the issue with mentioning Menorca is not that "it is not relevant" but that is "relevant in an undesired way".
• Articles which are hostage to activist wikipedians tend to be evened out as two sides are forced to compromise. In this case, we have a couple of die-hard pro-British activists who are distorting this article and absolutely no pro-Spain editors willing or capable of engaging them. Indeed, most Spaniards don't give a damn about Gibraltar and much less so those who are fluent in English. My involvement in this and other related Gibraltar articles have not even delved into the core conflict but have just focused on correcting small yet blatant historical or linguistic errors. Marginal stuff... However, this has been met with warrior-like opposition as if I were General Franco himself coming to plant a Spanish flag on Gibraltar with a Mongol horde at my back. Its fricking ridiculous. I have wasted hours of my time trying to make tiny corrections of this and connected articles, without even bothering to delve into deeper central issues, which don't even interest me that much.
• Mentioning Menorca? Yes it can be understood to bolster the Spanish position, not necessarily but it can. That is how activist editors have interpreted it and that is why they forbid it from being mentioned in the entire body of the article. Were they activists on the other side, they might decide to forbid any reference to the Gibraltarian government's position which is actually not even considered a party to the dispute according to international law. For example, mentioning in the lead the two treaties which ratified British sovereignty over Gibraltar in the lead bolsters the British position. That's absolutely fine! In fact I have actually improved that section referencing the exact treaties where this occurred. That's the whole point. Having a quality balanced fricking article! Eventually, someone will have to attract attention to how this entire group of Gibraltar-related articles have been taken hostage. For now, that's all I have to say. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm pinging Tide_rolls, Kudpung and EdJohnston with a request for an intervention to stop these personal attacks. I'm also walking away from this article and removing it from my watchlist for a time. WCM_email 14:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

As discussed in the Gibraltar article, I would like to remind specifically admins Tide_rolls,Kudpung and EdJohnston, CambridgeBayWeather, HJ Mitchell, Bencherlite, Anthony_Appleyard, DrKay of the following, something I dont see those of you guys involved factoring into your actions or lack thereof in Gibraltar related articles.

I suggest you all examine thoroughly both the talk pages and edit histories of Gibraltar, History of Gibraltar, Disputed Status of Gibraltar, Llanito and tell me honestly whether you consider that there is not a consistent and planned long-term strategy of methodically using ALL stonewalling tactics by the same two users. If you all agree there isn't and I'm in the wrong, I will not bother with an ANI.

Citing WP:STONEWALL as a refresher:

Status quo stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change, or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo), and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes. Such behavior creates the appearance of a real substantive dispute about the change when none (or little) exists.

Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior that is characterized by the use of tactics which obstruct, delay, prolong, or distract discussion from reaching consensus, usually when those opposing a proposal have few if any substantive arguments with which to support their position, and often when it appears that consensus supports, or is close to supporting, the change. While it's very difficult for one editor acting alone to succeed with stonewalling, if only 2 or 3 are involved, who don't even have to be coordinating their efforts, their ability to successfully build and maintain a stonewall retaining the status quo can be distressingly effective. With a few more editors it becomes even easier.

True consensus in a given situation is ideally measured and determined by the strength of the arguments presented, but often formal or informal polling is used as a substitute to determine consensus. So if enough people express objection to a change, that can be easily interpreted to be evidence of a lack of consensus in favor of the change. While that's probably usually an accurate assessment, if those opposed don't actually have substantive arguments supporting their objection, but those in favor of the objection do, there can actually be consensus in favor of the change when it appears that there isn't. Status quo stonewalling is about taking advantage of such a situation in order to prevent a change.

Tactics include:

• Reverting with "discuss first" without discussing
• Arguing more discussion is needed, without discussing more
• Arguing against discussion by alleging time wasting
• Avoiding substantive discussion because of who is involved
• Defending a revert because it's related to an ongoing dispute
• Arguing the status quo "does no harm"
• Accusing change proponents of disruptive, tendentious, or TLDR editing
• Filibustering
• Starting a new diverting discussion when existing discussion is favoring change
• Finding excuses to ignore discussion results
• Suggest a third option without actually proposing one
• Edit war lockdown
• Manipulating an admin into helping
• Arguing a policy or guideline needs to change first when opposing a proposal that is based on ignoring that policy/guideline per IAR
• Opposing a proposal based only on asserting that it's not supported by consensus
• Claiming consensus supports the status quo when it doesn't
• Unreasonable sourcing demands

Asilah1981 (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning Menorca in the lead (part 2)

• I and others had similar when trying to mediate in the recent "expulsion of Cham Albanians" case.
  • The link WO:STONEWALL above points to the page STONEWALL on the Wolof language wikipedia. Do you mean WP:STONEWALL? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Anthony Appleyard it was a typo. Fixed.14:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Asilah1981 (talk)

FTR I have stopped engaging here because I see no prospect of anything of benefit to Wikipedia coming from continuing this discussion in its current terms. If Asilah's attitude were different (e.g. if he were to adhere to WP:AGF and WP:NPA), it might be a different matter, but this isn't the first time we've had this problem. Kahastok talk 22:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)