This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Hi all, I don't want to be deeply involved in the edition of this article, as we've just left a quite traumatic arbitration case.
However, I'd like to get your comments about the second paragraph of the article. It starts by extensively quoting a report by a private organization focused on defense, geopolitics, transport and police issues (see its web site). I personally think we're giving undue height to it by mentioning it in the second paragraph of the article. However, regardless of that, don't you think that the last sentence of such a paragraph ("Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service.") should be in fact the first one? I mean, a neutral description on the degree of self government of the territory must be given more prominence that a report by a private organization with unknown impact and relevance. That way, the second paragraph would be that way:
Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service. According to the Jane's Country Risk Ratings 2008, which measures the stability of 235 countries, territories and political entities in the world, Gibraltar is the 5th most stable territory worldwide, and the highest ranked British territory. The ratings are based on five fundamental categories: political, social, economic, external and military and security.
Opinions? -- Ecemaml ( talk) 09:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not in the business of discussing where the mention to the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories must be. Although not topic banned, I'd been admonished by the Arbitration Committee on the grounds of tendentious editting and therefore I don't want to be in a position that might lead to a similar situation (even if I don't think my editions are biased). Sorry -- Ecemaml ( talk) 11:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC) PS: anyway, there is plenty of people in this talk page that might handle your suggestion
I don't think so, either. Most of the people involved in this discussion are quite balanced and neutral guys. Please, don't forget WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL -- Ecemaml ( talk) 11:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC) It´s a way to express my disagree ,it´s not real, but i always crashed against the royal guards and knights of british empire . It´s a very pro british article and all things i try to improve, always appear someone and say "you are difunding spanish propaganda, troll etc". Gibraltar was a crow colony and this was silenciate. Gibraltar is in the UN list and no talk about this in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.9.249 ( talk) 11:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ecemaml. I appreciate that feelings are still sore here. That makes it all the more important for all of us to assume good faith, and keep all discussions tightly focused on improving the article.
The suggested rearrangement makes sense to me. However, I also find the lead too long in general and I would suggest a second paragraph that reads:
Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service. According to Jane's Country Risk Ratings 2008, which estimates political, social, economic, external/military and security risks, Gibraltar is the 5th most stable territory worldwide, and the highest ranked British territory.
Personally I'd be quite happy to have the first sentence only, I think that the second is lead bias though it may deserve mention later, but removing it from the lead may be a step too far for some editors.
I incline to think that the claim of ongoing colonial status should not be in the lead, although I realize that it is a notable claim (a truism to one group, a deep insult to another, but all the more notable for that) with many reliable sources that needs mention in the article. Perhaps we could have comments on the wording:
Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories and is still widely regarded as a colony by Spanish commentators.(refs here)
and then discuss where in the article the result should go? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with putting in statements about Spanish commentators' views that Gibraltar is a colony. State the facts of the matter - where Gib has self government, where it does not, state the UN list, state the governments' views, then let the reader make up their own mind. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories and is still regarded as a colony by the Spanish Government.(refs here)
There is no good reason whatsoever to go into vast amounts of detail about the different POVs on the dispute in the intro or indeed in this particular article. This is supposed to be an article about Gibraltar, not a coatrack article for the dispute. In this article, we should state the facts as neutrally as we can without descending into the epithets used by one side or the other. If in doubt, we should stick to official usage within the territory. The detail of the different positions on the dispute should go on Disputed status of Gibraltar, an article that could do with significant improvement.
There is, in my view, very little benefit in citing Jane's Country Risk in the lead. The lead is supposed to introduce the topic, but this information is not provided later on in the article. It is also not provided on equivalent articles on countries and territories. I would thus suggest we change the first two paragraphs to:
Gibraltar (pronounced /dʒɨˈbrɔːltər/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. The territory covers 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) and shares a land border with Spain to the north.
Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service. [1] The territory has historically been an important base for the British Armed Forces and is the site of a Royal Navy base.
Pfainuk talk 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Pfainuk, the problem is that if you say "Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government....", you should say that UN say "gibraltar is a non self governing territory" and spain support the version UN. The other way you can induce an erroneous idea in an uninformed person.I think Richard´s idea is correct. 85.136.157.123 ( talk) 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories and is still regarded as a colony by the Spanish Government.(refs here)
In the main article,the reference number 6, it´s a failled document "informe sobre la cuestion de gibraltar" of spanish foreign ministery. The correct direction is the pdf document that i said and appear with number 20 in this section.I dont sure the way to correct this. could someone to repare the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.157.123 ( talk) 19:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think that many things are being mixed. Thus, we'd better settle them down one by one.
With regard to the movement of the mention of the Jane Group report, there seems to be a consensus on its removal from the beginning of the second paragraph. Pfainuk even suggests that it should be removed from such a paragraph (I agree with him). Where should it be included?
With regard to the mention to the "colony", my personal opinion is that the status of Gibraltar as Crown colony should be mentioned either in the history or the politics section. With regard to the Spanish POV with regard to this, I don't consider it being necessary in the introduction at all (although Richard's suggestion seems sensible anyway). After all, such an issue belongs to the dispute on sovereignty and that is already mentioned in the introduction. If a description on how the Spanish media and government mention Gibraltar is wished, its place is Disputed status of Gibraltar.
Finally, with regard to the mention to the UN list, I didn't want to enter in this discussion, but after all... I think that a mention to its permanence in the list might be added after the description of the self-government. It may be complemented with the POV of the Gibraltar and UK governements (of the like "Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories. However, both the governments of Gibraltar and the United Kingdom has requested to the C24 that Gibraltar should be pulled out of the list"
My €0.02. Best regards -- Ecemaml ( talk) 22:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Red Hat. The lead section currently has a threefold structure. I'd just get rid of the second paragraph which deals both with the "almost complete internal self-government" status of Gibraltar, "the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" which is awkward and not-really-vital information to stay in the lede (moreover when the same wording can be found below in the 'politics section'); and the Jane's Country Risk Ratings, which just looks like fanservice to me. From my perspective, this wording is likely to be more encyclopaedic:
With WP:lede in mind (that is few paragraphs, not a teaser, defining the topic and context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarizing the most important points—including any notable controversies), this locates the place broadly, briefly explains the international situation, recent history and mentions relevant data (in my opinion) such as population, main economic activities, landmarks... What do you think? Cremallera ( talk) 08:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts
Best regards 150.214.9.254 ( talk) 09:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
To the anonymous editor, dos cosas: first of all, please register. It is helpful! Secondly: let's try to follow a structured discussion. The purpose of this talk page section is to discuss the lead section. In order to an analyse UN resolutions and/or the 'colonial status of Gibraltar', we should create another because they are different issues and deserve distinct attentions (or none at all).
To Pfainuk: I've been reading the
Hong Kong article lately and it does mention the former colonial situation of the territories in the lead section. The information is not really groundbreaking, but of course that's just my perception of the issue and you are very entitled to think otherwise. Personally I do think that Gibraltar being a former Crown Colony is really notable data, the kind lead-ins are usually made of; however I have no strong opinion on whether this should be mentioned in the lead or in the part devoted to history.
Finally, concerning the Offshore Finance Centre: you are right. The source provided is not actualised, but its no secret that gibraltarian officials
pursue "the development of Gibraltar as an offshore finance centre" and that this represents a significant portion of the BOT's economy. More references
here (some of them fairly recent).
With all that said, I am perfectly content with the current draft in Richard's userpage.
Cheers! Cremallera ( talk) 19:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Cremallera, i have commented my thougs about the lead and history of gibraltar. I only was describing the position of UN and Spain becouse other editor say that the positions was differents.And i agree with you in other point... i´m going to have to register. 85.136.157.123 ( talk) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello,i´m the anonymous editor and i used the link of cremallera . It was easier than i though.
Verboom (
talk)
19:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) General comments here:
To Verboom, if Spain says that the UN agrees with them, that does not mean that the UN shares that view. As per TFD above, the UN position is not, in fact, that Gibraltar should be handed over to Spain.
To Cremallera: your cite to a Gibraltar website does not back up the claim that offshore financial services form a large and increasing part of the Gibraltar economy. I haven't looked through all the IMF documents because they're quite long - but from their titles it seems unlikely that they will back it up either. I note in particular that they all predate the Financial Crisis, an event likely to have had a significant impact on the Gibraltar finance industry. A source from 2009 or 2010 would be far better IMO. If people want this, could they please give a recent and reliable source for it.
To Richard: I appreciate that offensiveness is not, in and of itself, a reason not to include things. But at the same time I do feel that we ought to be careful with potentially offensive language, only using it where it is actually necessary. Since it has been removed, it's no longer an issue. I do not have a strong issue with using the words "Crown Colony" in reference to Gibraltar pre-1981 in the article, beyond a general feeling that this article is already far too long and making it even more bloated would seem to be a bad idea.
Finally a general point. I agree with Red Hat in his post of 00:17, 14 May. There are plenty of ways this article could be improved without going over and over with the dispute. It may be a good idea to do that: following recent events I think it would be a good idea to build up some good faith by working together on other parts of this article. Pfainuk talk 20:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough:
Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories. The British and Gibraltarian governments reject this view.[11]" It´s better becouse it remark the "oficially" POV, What dou you think?
best regards Verboom ( talk) 07:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I have boldly made some fairly major changes to the article, per discussions above. The lead is shorter and, I think, now rather good. The words "self-government" and "colony" do not appear in the lead although the dispute is prominently mentioned. Both are treated briefly in the Politics section, which I have put into approximate chronological and thematic order, with a few edits for clarity and brevity. I really, really hope that this is a stepping stone on the way to a more stable account that will enable all editors to concentrate on improving the article to Good or even Featured status. I don't think that we will make any progress in that direction while reasonable editors feel strongly that important points of view are not fairly represented. But maybe I'm wrong, in which case I've just wasted another couple of hours. Even if I'm right there are doubtless improvements to be made. Anyway, comments are welcome! Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not keen on this sentence at all - "Gibraltar was ruled directly by the British Governor from 1704, and was described formally as a Crown colony from 1830 until 1983." This is the politics section. Politics sections describe the politics of the country as they are now. For example, see Angola or Belize, two countries that were until relatively recently also European colonies. This information should be in the history section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
It's now in the British period section of history. Pfainuk, you might want to put in a brief remark about later BDT and BOT status? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 20:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The following are areas where I think we can immediately improve the article.
Would there be any objections if I went ahead and tackled these? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
“ | The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return.[4] Gibraltarians resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referenda held in 1967 and 2002. The UK has negotiated proposals of shared sovereignty with Spain but has committed itself to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes. [13] The UN invited in 1968 the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom to undertake negotiations in order to put an end to what it considered a colonial situation in Gibraltar, safeguarding the interests of its population. [14] | ” |
“ | The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return.[4] Gibraltarians have resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referenda. The UK has negotiated proposals of shared sovereignty with Spain but has committed itself to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes. [15] The UN has approved several resolutions inviting the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom to negotiate a solution. | ” |
I agree about the article needing a trim in order for it to perform its purpose as an overview article. However, can I kindly ask all editors to check if the information they're removing from this article is available in another? If it isn't, I believe it should be added to a relevant article rather than losing it altogether. -- Gibmetal 77 talk 01:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The history section is disproportionately large and needs a bit of a hacksaw job on it. Are people OK if I get my hedge trimmers out, ensuring that History of Gibraltar contains all the excised info? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm impressed, Red Hat. I have corrected a minor typo and with extreme boldness - over six months after I first thought I'd make a brief but considered comment, at the request of a stranger, on a town and an issue I'd never heard of - re-inserted mention of San Roque as the destination of most of the previous inhabitants of Gibraltar. To reiterate for the umpteenth time, it's true, and it's mentioned by historians ahead of facts which are uncontentiously in the article. I will also add my personal comment, which is that the fact is also important to people who want to understand what the arguments on either side actually are. Let's see what everyone else thinks. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Having a section on the dispute is sensible. It's not only a notable issue (you can see the large amount of books devoted to the issue) but, in a purely empiric way, you may simply verify the number of readers of Disputed status of Gibraltar. You'll see that it's one of the most visited articles in the "Gibraltar space". -- Ecemaml ( talk) 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see much need for a new section for the dispute. I don't see significant benefit over simply noting the relevant parts of the dispute in relevant parts of this article as and when the need arises (as we do now). This article is already too long, and I feel that we should be thinking of cutting it down, not adding new sections. Our time would be better spent improving Disputed status of Gibraltar, to give it some actual structure and make it into a usable article. Pfainuk talk 20:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the less I'm inclined to see this as being important enough to include in a potted history of Gibraltar. It's an extra paragraph in a subsection that is already disproportionately long (50% of the history section is devoted to the last 60 years) in a section that is disproportionately long in the article as a whole. I suggest we remove it entirely - it still gets coverage in History of Gibraltar. What are people's thoughts? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
One sentence would be perfect in my opinion. There's no need to write a thesis here, its just that the 1964 UN resolutions, the 1967 referendum and the 1969 Constitution Order are very closely related. As for the verbs used in the sources, here's a recollection made some time ago by Ecemaml (thanks!) where we can read:
I think that 'sacking' sums it up quite well whilst being concise and aseptic enough (at least more than the current "drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating most Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings"). Any thoughts? Cremallera ( talk) 23:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Pfainuk on this one; the (very) slightly longer sentence here is more faithful to the sources, giving similar implications as well, and it gives a better description of a very unpleasant few days. I think it's a particularly good example of encyclopedic prose: "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating most Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]." Richard Keatinge ( talk) 05:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems everyone is OK with the radical overhaul and we just need to iron out the final details, so I went ahead and put up the preliminary version from my workshop page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Response to Pfainuk: the wording has been reverted in favor of a description of the sacking. I have no problem at all with that.
But let's be clear about my intentions and the sources, because I don't really enjoy implications like the one you left in the edit summary stating that I "assert the Spanish POV as fact while ignoring the British". I based my edition purely on the sources, which are authored mainly by British historians, and tried to write it down pretty dispassionately. The result being:
Nowhere in these 3 phrases the townspeople are qualified as poor and innocent, but as villagers. Equally, the British and Dutch troops aren't qualified as evil nor their commanders are accused of promoting the plunder. How on Earth did you manage to think that villagers weren't "entirely innocent" because they defended themselves against the uncontrolled soldiery which after the surrender started beating them, desecrating the churches, looting their houses and raping their women and daughters, is beyond my grasp. However, neither your opinion nor mine made it to the published draft, what's written above are the plain facts as all the reliable sources tell us it happened. As for the intention of the British, whilst William Jackson wrote that "Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline" in "The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar" (Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101); George Hills in his book "Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar" (London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174) states that "Such was the behaviour not only of the men but their officers that the worst fears of the population were confirmed". So, probably, George Rooke was sincere when he offered the Terms of Surrender, and most certainly he wasn't competent enough to impose them to his own officers and troops. Presumably, the villagers were as innocent as any other civilian could've been; and in all probability no reliable source states that the fear of reprisals was part of the motivation for the "departure" (sic.) of the townsfolk. Nevertheless, when devoid of any emotive language and putative intentions attributed by people who assuredly wasn't there at that time, what's supported by the references is the aforementioned text. I understand that this was not the most brilliant episode in the Royal Marines' history, but that's no reason to accuse me of bias. Especially without providing a single reliable source to back up your diatribe.
With all that said, if y'all think that the current wording is preferable and more encyclopaedic, you've got my blessing. I don't like it, but I won't oppose to it. Cremallera ( talk) 11:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
A good question. I've just re-read the above and I don't see any substantial disagreements remaining. Perhaps I should be a bit clearer; please, everyone, avoid making guesses about other people's motives, or at least avoid writing them down. Is anyone disagreeing with the current text? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The latin motto is incorrectly translated. Expugnabilis does not mean conquered.-- 190.22.140.13 ( talk) 20:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Replying to Cremallera's post on my page [22], the reason I removed Minorca is because we need to stick to the topic at hand - the history of Gibraltar. I don't believe we need to add the fact that Minorca was also ceded in 1713 to the history section purely in order to give background to mention of Minorcans in the demography section. The right place for this information is at Demographics of Gibraltar. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is what it says at Wikipedia:Good article criteria:
A good article is—
-- Gibmetal 77 talk 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's time to turn the History of Gibraltar article into prose instead of the chronological timeline it currently is. I'm happy to make the first stab at this, but given that it is going to be very time consuming and hard work, I don't want to do this if it's just going to get reverted. So can everyone give their support or opposition to this move? Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: WTF? ( talk) 22:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
After over a month being on hold, many issues still remain, and I'm not really seeing evidence of a coordinated effort to improve the article (the article's edit history, in fact, shows a lot of reverting, which goes against the stability criterion). So, this article does not meet the GA criteria at this time, and will be removed from the nominations list. It can be renominated once the issues mentioned above have been dealt with. In the meantime, it may help to review the guidelines under WP:COUNTRIES, as well as some of the other nation and/or city articles currently listed at WP:GA. WTF? ( talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
This was raised in the GA review as needing work, because it's basically a list in disguise. I moved out the media part of this to "culture", but the remainder strikes me as far too technical for this article and would be better served just by getting rid of this section entirely and simply doing a See Also to the Communications in Gibraltar article. Thoughts? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I've added some changes in the History section (deduplicating references and adding some new ones and some slight detail according to previous talks) and the Geography section (leaving only one picture of the Rock -of the 3 preexisting ones- if someone has a different preference, please feel free to choose another one).
I still think that the dispute over Gibraltar should be explained in one subsection as in the Israel featured article (the dispute even has one full paragraph in the lead of the Gib article, even though there's no proportional development in the body of the article). Any comments? -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 09:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I reverted a large addition about parallels with other territories. I'm mindful of past disputes and don't want to provoke another, but I politely suggest to Justin that an overview article on Gibraltar is not the right place to go into this kind of thing. Gibraltar is so much more than the subject of territorial disputes involving Spain. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
“ | Of course, Spain argues this while happily sitting on a dozen separate enclaves on another continent, Africa, including two cities, in the territory of what would otherwise naturally be the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco.
Spain passionately believes these to be Spanish by virtue of history, the passage of time (around 500 years) and the fact that the Kingdom of Morocco did not exist at that time in the same legal form as it exists now. With respect, those distinctions seem wholly insufficient to justify Spain holding and advocating diametrically opposed positions in the cases of Gibraltar and her own enclaves in North Africa just 15 kilometres away from Gibraltar across the Strait of Gibraltar. |
” |
“ | In this respect, the Spanish have a convincing argument that the British occupation of Gibraltar is anomalous given its location compared to Britain. However, such an argument is undermined by Spain’s similar occupation of Ceuta and Melilla in Northern Africa. | ” |
I feel that this is a good moment to call for further opinions. I insert here Justin's edit that is the subject of this section:
"Parallels with Spanish territories
The strategic position of the Strait of Gibraltar has left a legacy of a number of sovereignty disputes. Spain maintains sovereignty over Ceuta, Melilla, Penon de Velez de la Gomera, Alhucemas and the Chafarinas Islands (captured following the christian reconquest of Spain) based upon historical grounds, security reasons and on the basis of the UN principle of territorial integrity. Spain also maintains that the majority of residents are Spanish. Morocco claims these territories on the basis of the UN principles of decolonisation, territorial integrity and that Spanish arguments for the recovery of Gibraltar substantiate Morocco’s claim.
Olivenza (Spanish) or Olivença (Portuguese) is a town and seat of a municipality, on a disputed section of the border between Portugal and Spain, which is claimed de jure by both countries and administered de facto as part of the Spanish autonomous community of Extremadura. The population is 80% ethnic portuguese and 30% of portuguese language. Olivenza had been under continuous Portuguese sovereignty since 1297 when it was occupied by the Spanish in 1801 and formally ceded by Portugal later that year by the Treaty of Badajoz. Spain claims the de jure sovereignty over Olivenza on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz still stands and has never been revoked. Thus, the border between the two countries in the region of Olivenza should be as demarcated by that treaty. Portugal claims the de jure sovereignty over Olivenza on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz was revoked by its own terms (the breach of any of its articles would lead to its cancellation) when Spain invaded Portugal in the Peninsular War of 1807.
Portugal further bases its case on Article 105 of the Treaty of Vienna of 1815, which Spain signed in 1817, that states that the winning countries are to "endeavour with the mightiest conciliatory effort to return Olivenza to Portuguese authority". Thus, the border between the two countries in the region of Olivenza should be as demarcated by the Treaty of Alcanizes of 1297. Spain interprets Article 105 as not being mandatory on demanding Spain to return Olivenza to Portugal, thus not revoking the Treaty of Badajoz. Portugal has never made a formal claim to the territory after the Treaty of Vienna, but has equally never directly acknowledged the Spanish sovereignty over Olivenza.
Spanish public opinion is not generally aware of the Portuguese claim on Olivenza (in contrast to the Spanish claim on Gibraltar or the Moroccan claims on Ceuta, Melilla and the Plazas de soberanía). On the other hand, awareness in Portugal has been increasing under the efforts of pressure groups to have the question raised and debated in public."
And I would really appreciate the advice of anyone who can take the time to read through this section and advise on whether this text should be in the article, in the above or any form. A more formal request for comments may be appropriate if this doesn't get us anywhere. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm unhappy with the Government and politics section. It is misleading and inaccurate and I wish to see it corrected. Gibraltar is self-governing with the exception of defence and foreign relations. The constitution gives the GoG powers over everything except the judiciary and internal security. As with the UK, the judiciary is independent of Government, the selection of judges is not a GoG resposibity but equally they are not appointed by the UK Government as the article implies. Equally internal security is the responsibility of the Gibraltar Police authority. Effectively these two functions remain under Gibraltar control but this article does not make that clear; effectively POV by ommission. This needs to be corrected. Justin talk 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT
Richard, it is actually unhelpful to make comments like alleging I am overstating the position. I have made a suggestion for a proposed edit, do you accept the basis or do you want to pontificate further? The present text is not accurate, it does not conform to NPOV - omitting details like the figurehead status of the governor is tantamount to misrepresenting the GoG by omission.
Only in extremis is the Governor able to intervene and in that case it would actually be the UK Government that does so, in the normal course of events it is a purely symbolic position and Gibraltar is governed by the people and for the people. And in many case the GoG has demonstrated it will act independently and in blatant opposition to the British Government, such as recent events when the Blair Government proposed to share sovereignty with Spain. So again my proposal is to explain the symbolic status of the Governor and that power is vested in local institutions such as the GPA and the local independent judiciary. As an aside I don't find the comments about the Spanish king of relevance since the Queen would never intervene in that manner.
Could we discuss my content proposal please, then move ahead to discussing text? Justin talk 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the archiving of this talk page after Justin's reversion. The page is extremely long - any threads that are pertinent to a discussion can be linked to on the archive page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a overview article, rather than a full account of historical events, and it now seems to me that we would need to put in an excessive number of details to achieve consensus text that treats certain events in a neutral manner. A NPOV blow-by-blow account of the whole thing, including the who did what to whom, who went where, towns that were founded in SPAIN not GIBRALTAR, and so on, just seems too much for an incident in a overview. Personally I'd go for slimming down the text as I edited tonight, which no doubt will satisfy no one but treat the incident in a neutral manner. Much as I suggested months ago before we had an outbreak of atrocity tennis. Seems to me that there is certain inconsistenty in the standards on deciding on content. Justin talk 23:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted back to the last stable version. Sort it out here before engaging in another edit war please mark nutley ( talk) 00:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a review and possibly more opinions. Here is the longish-consensus text that we have at present, minus references: "On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain."
and here is Justin's slimmed down version: "On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to nearby areas of Spain."
Justin's edit removes details of the disturbances after the conquest of Gibraltar, which Red Hat agrees might well go as too detailed for an overview article, and it also removes mention of San Roque as the destination for most of the refugees.
The consensus text on the disturbances was carefully and painfully crafted as balanced (and I think it is). However I agree that it's also too detailed and personally I'd be happy to see it go. Justin's text here also strikes me as acceptably balanced.
San Roque is an ongoing hot button because the modern town (about 7km from Gibraltar) maintains historical continuity (or identity) with Spanish Gibraltar. It is mentioned in many references as the main destination, ahead of many other details, and the ongoing claim may also be thought to give its foundation some degree of notability. The inclusion of the name "San Roque" had already been the subject of a very long argument - if I remember rightly, starting about archive 15. I haven't changed my opinion here; it should be in. It's true and highly notable in the context.
Could we have some comments on:
Whether to include the fuller version of the disturbances?
Whether to mention the name "San Roque"? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
(Justin, I purposely didn't mention names when I made that comment, and I don't even think that I had you in mind. There had been earlier nationalist insults by other parties. I don't propose to repeat them. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 19:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC))
Opinions please
OK, could we ask for opinions on whether to remove the present sentence: "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings." Richard Keatinge ( talk) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
And, on whether to remove the mention of San Roque as the main destination: Richard Keatinge ( talk) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. :
“ | Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives. | ” |
I presume you're familiar with it. Wait. Theres more. Justin talk 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
“ | When the garrison marched out on 7 August almost all of the inhabitants, some 4,000 people in total, joined them. They had reason to believe that their exile would not last long; fortresses changed hands frequently at the time. Many thus resettled nearby in the ruins of Algeciras or around the old hermitage at San Roque at the head of the bay. They took with them the records of the city council including Gibraltar's banner and royal warrant. The newly founded town of San Roque thus became, as Philip V put it in 1706, "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo". A small population of neutral Genoese numbering some seventy people stayed behind in Gibraltar.[60] | ” |
Chris's prose, which everyone agreed was an excellent summary. Justin talk 21:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT
Part of the reason for keeping the talk page record intact was for the ability to refer to the discussion that took place that you claim establishes consensus. I note that Pfainuk had this to say:
“ | You propose we do exactly that. It is biased to present the townspeople as complete innocents driven out by evil British soldiers and marines, as you propose - especially when we have it sourced that the townspeople killed soldiers and desecrated their bodies. And no matter how much you insist that my concerns about the clear bias in your text and the serious inaccuracy implied by it are unimportant, I will not accept that. | ” |
I agree the text is clearly biased and the serious inaccuracies implied by it are important. I too can't accept it as conforming to a policy of NPOV. I note that despite these reservations is was nontheless imposed. I have therefore opted to make the text more agreeable with our policy of NPOV. Justin talk 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This is getting out of order, changes I did last night gave due coverage of a political issue, they expanded a section to cover an important event and added information that was sourced, from reliable sources and changed POV text to more neutral prose. Any change I make or propose to this article is reverted. This isn't about consensus building it is ownership and it must stop or I will take the issue to WP:AE. Final warning. Justin talk 07:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the lede to the previous consensus text. I hope we can see new reasonable arguments in the discussion and are able to reach a new consensus or keep the old one. Please let us all be reasonable and follow BRD. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 11:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT
No, I said no such thing. I have explained the position of the UN so many times now, yet you repeatedly misrepresent my comments. I say the UN opinion is not relevant for the lede as it is not based on criteria judging governance but statehood and the two are not co-incident. To use the UN position to comment on governance is mendacious and misleading. Stop it, now please. Secondly, no that is not my opinion, it describes how the sources I quoted derived their opinion based on objectively evaluating the facts of the situation. Sources that derive their opinion from dogmatic reasons that deny verifiable facts are not the suitable basis for NPOV. I make no comment whatsoever on their national or ethnic origin, merely that they assert black is white. The only person to raise concerns on a nationalist basis is yourself. No matter the origin on the source, it is the basis of their argument that is the issue here. Thirdly, your reasoning on the status of the Governor is specious. Australia and other Commonwealth countries have Governors whose theoretical powers are identical. Yet we would not qualify their level of self-government on that basis. Similarly the constitution has evolved in consultation between the British Government and people of Gibraltar - so what. Any transfer or devolution of power would require that to take place. Australia, Canada, New Zealand or any former colony has had to go through that process. So to use that as a basis to deny self-government is not a sustainable argument by any stretch of the imagination. Also Spain and Holland and a number of other countries also still have a monarchy, are we to assert on that basis, falsely, they do no enjoy self-government as in theory the monarch can take over. You do not advance an argument that survives logical examination. Fourthly, none of this is based on my personal opinion, it is based on sourced material from reliable sources that evaluate the facts objectively and do not distort facts to assert a position based on dogma. Do not go down the route of attempting to paint me as being unreasonable when I am advancing an argument based on objective evaluation of sources, compliant with wikipedia's policies on content. That is unreasonable and a personal attack, which I have already indicated I will not tolerate. Fifthly, no again I will state the discussion is to focus on content, I am not going to be suckered into raking over the past and taking the discussion down a blind alley. Justin talk 14:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Source | Term used in introduction | Details in Politics / Gvt. section |
---|---|---|
UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) | “British Overseas Territory” [27] | “Gibraltar has a considerable measure of devolved government.” Also, “The Constitution thoroughly modernises the UK-Gibraltar relationship. Key elements include limiting the responsibilities of the Governor to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [28] |
UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) | “almost complete internal self-government” [29] (pg. 16) | "The constitution defines the responsibilities of the Governor as relating to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" [30] (pg. 146) |
United Nations | "Non self-governing territory" [31] and “Non-Self-Governing Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” [32] (pg. 3) | “The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar.” [33] (pg. 3) |
Gibraltar Chief Minister | n.a. | "The new Constitution is now in place and in operation. It maximises our self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers. All other matters are the competence of the Gibraltar Government, the Gibraltar Parliament or other Gibraltar legal institutions." [34] (pg. 4) |
BBC | “British overseas territory” [35] | “self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy” [36] |
CIA - The World Factbook | "overseas territory of the UK" [37] | "the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability" [38] |
Encyclopedia Britannica | “British colony, Europe” and “British overseas territory” [39] | “is self-governing in all matters but defense” [40] |
Merriam Webster | “a British colony” [41] | n.a. |
Encarta | “British dependency” [42] | No explicit reference to self-government |
British Library | “self governing British overseas territory in all matters but defence and foreign policy” [43] | n.a. |
PriceWaterhouseCoopers | "a peninsula" [44] | "Constitutionally, Gibraltar is a British dependent territory with internal self-government, the United Kingdom being responsible for defence, foreign affairs, financial stability and internal security." [45] |
Spanish Government | "a non self-governing territory", a "colony" Report about the question of gibraltar (in Spanish) | "The reform of the constitutional decree does not change the international status of Gibraltar, and even though it develops its self-government, it does not alter British sovereignty over Gibraltar, which remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for whose external relations and defense it is still responsible." Report about the question of gibraltar (in Spanish) |
UNINDENT
I apologise for not being able to make my point clear. If you allow me, I would like to try one final time, trying to make it as schematic as possible:
I hope I have been clear this time. I hope we don't get tangled with what my interpretation of the situation is (or Justin's or...) I agree with Richard: we are repeating ourselves. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 21:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT
I thought given my brief perusal earlier found considerable inconistencies between what Imalbornoz claimed and what the sources actually said that I would go through these sources and see what they actually say, given that I've noted a number are not represented accurately. What is interesting is that I have uncovered that the sources are in many cases misrepresented, in some cases outrageously so. Whats also interesting is that none and I repeat none of these sources contradict the edit I propose, all bar the UN directly support the proposed edit.
Focusing again on the UN, the UN bases its comments on the basis of statehood rather than governance. Specifically its criteria are independence, integration and free association - note devolved Government or self-government is not actually a valid criterion. Hence, to claim the UN list contradicts the proposed edit is to compare apples and oranges.
Misrepresenting sources is a serious matter on wikipedia. Edits should be based on reliable sources that are verifiable. The sources displayed support my proposed edit, they do not as claimed contradict it.
I have summarised the sources below, apologies in advance for the seemingly wall of text but I felt it important to fully list the evidence compiled from these sources. Justin talk 21:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
'ADDENDUM Again the proposed edit is self-governing with the qualifier except defence and foreign relations. I emphasise this as once again Imalbornoz has chosen to misrepresent the proposed edit as the basis to criticise it. I note my proposal earlier made this explicitly clear. Justin talk 21:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Source | Imalbornoz's claim | Actual wording in the source | Details in Politics / Gvt. section | Comments | Supports proposal (Y/N) | Richard's comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) | “British Overseas Territory” [49] | “British Overseas Territory” | “Gibraltar has a considerable measure of devolved government.” Also, “The Constitution thoroughly modernises the UK-Gibraltar relationship. Key elements include limiting the responsibilities of the Governor to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [50] | Devolved government is actual a synonym for self-government. For example the British Government has devolved powers to the Scottish and Welsh assemblies for matters concerning their respective countries. The comments about the Governor do not contradict the proposed edit as the role of the Governor is largely symbolic with internal affairs under local control. | Y | Devolved government describes a degree of self-government. It does not imply the entire thing. |
UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) | “almost complete internal self-government” [51] (pg. 16) |
"Most Overseas Territories have elected governments. These have varying degrees of responsibility for domestic matters, ranging from Bermuda and Gibraltar which have almost complete internal self-government...." |
"The constitution defines the responsibilities of the Governor as relating to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" [52] (pg. 146) |
"In 1999 the Government published a White Paper, which set out a “new partnership” between Britain and its Overseas Territories, based on four principles:
"We conclude that Gibraltar’s presence on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories is an anachronism. We recommend that the Government continues to make representations to the UN about delisting the Territory and that it makes clear that it is only sending the UN progress reports on Gibraltar because it is obliged to do so. (para 41)" P.147 (strange is it not that was forgotten to be mentioned given the previous comments.) |
Y |
This makes a much stronger case for Gibraltar's democracy being the master of its destiny, but it still doesn't amount to full self-government. |
United Nations | "Non self-governing territory" [53] and “Non-Self-Governing Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” [54] (pg. 3) | Linked PDF is a dead link | “The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar.” [55] (pg. 3) | UN definition is based not on governance but rather statehood, the presence on the list does not of itself contradict the proposed lead. See
[56] the Special Committee’s view that there are only three legitimate, acceptable and effective forms of decolonisation, namely: independence, integration and free association.
IE the UN does not define self-governance on the basis of devolved government but statehood. As the UK Parliamentary report notes this is anachronistic in the case of devolved government. |
N/A |
The UN makes the point that self-government is not quite complete. This is not contradicted by any other sources. |
Gibraltar Chief Minister | n.a. | Gibraltar | "The new Constitution is now in place and in operation. It maximises our self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers. All other matters are the competence of the Gibraltar Government, the Gibraltar Parliament or other Gibraltar legal institutions." [57] (pg. 4) |
"Our positions on these issues are therefore not reconcilable, and the people of Gibraltar will never succumb to the undemocratic proposition that anyone other than we ourselves should decide our own sovereignty and our own political future, freely and in accordance with our human and political rights to self-determination." P2 ...but the kicker is later in the document "The old power of United Kingdom Ministers to disallow legislation passed by the Gibraltar Parliament has been abolished. The so-called “Administering Power”, the UK, administers absolutely nothing in Gibraltar."P.4 Tell me why someone seeking to objectively evaluate self-governing would fail to highlight this quote? |
Y |
It's true, Gibraltar administers itself in a democratic way. The UK / monarchy however still retain some reserve powers. Mainly, in case anything goes wrong. |
BBC | “British overseas territory” [58] | Self-governing part of United Kingdom, claimed by Spain | “self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy” [59] | BBC is renowned for objectivity. | Y | Defence, foreign policy, and one or two other reserve powers... |
CIA - The World Factbook | "overseas territory of the UK" [60] |
overseas territory of the UK |
"the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability" [61] |
What is more interesting if we look at what the source actually says "The subsequent granting of autonomy in 1969 by the UK led to Spain closing the border and severing all communication links." ie the source supports the autonomous nature of the Government of Gibraltar "A new noncolonial constitution came into effect in 2007, but the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability." Note the word noncolonial but the source is actually slightly in error as internal security is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority, the UK's guarantee of financial stability does not detract from the proposed edit. |
Y |
Autonomy, devolution, local democracy, noncolonial local administration - all very true but, still, there are reserve powers, such as, technically, appointing the head of the local police authority. Which suggest to me that over-simplistic statements in the lead merely detract from the reality of self-governing Gibraltarian democracy. |
Encyclopedia Britannica | “British colony, Europe” and “British overseas territory” [62] |
Form of government: overseas territory of the United Kingdom with one legislative body (Gibraltar Parliament) |
“is self-governing in all matters but defense” [63] |
Interesting this one, it doesn't state that Gibraltar is a British colony. It mentions in the history section that it became a British colony ..... in 1830. This has to be just about the most outrageous misrepresentation of a source that I have ever seen. Full text of the Government section "Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense. Its constitution was established by the Gibraltar Constitution Order in 1969, which provided for a House of Assembly consisting of the speaker (appointed by the governor), 15 members elected to four-year terms, and 2 ex-officio members. (A new Constitution Order was approved by referendum in November 2006 and was implemented in January 2007; it renamed the House of Assembly as the Gibraltar Parliament and increased its number of members to 17.) " |
Y |
Indeed EB says little of note and as a source for this issue is best ignored. |
Merriam Webster | “a British colony” [64] | Lets see shall we? | n.a. | Full text of the entry:
Gi·bral·tar noun \jə-ˈbrȯl-tər\ Definition of GIBRALTAR
Origin of GIBRALTAR Gibraltar, fortress in the British colony of Gibraltar First Known Use: 1776 Intersting this one isn't it, it is about the use of Gibraltar as a noun in English to mean an impregnable stronghold, it is of no relevance to the actual status of Gibraltar. Its another outrageous misrepresentation of the source |
Y |
Well, it does use the word "colony" without dating it. But, like EB, it's not any real relevance to the current issue. |
Encarta | “British dependency” [65] | Discontinued link says absolutely nothing | No explicit reference to self-government | Nice to see that the sources were checked before posting a wall of text. | N/A | I can't check because it's gone. I doubt it said anything very useful in this context anyway. |
British Library | “self governing British overseas territory in all matters but defence and foreign policy” [66] | self governing British overseas territory | n.a. | Supports proposed edit perfectly. | Y | It does. It says (cut and paste): "self governing British overseas territory in all matters but defence and foreign policy". It depends what edit you mean. |
PriceWaterhouseCoopers | "a peninsula" [67] | an overseas territory of the United Kingdom with internal self government except in matters of defence, internal security and foreign affairs | "Constitutionally, Gibraltar is a British dependent territory with internal self-government, the United Kingdom being responsible for defence, foreign affairs, financial stability and internal security." [68] | So Gibraltar is a "peninsular", well yes that is how it is described in the general geography section in its lead in. It still supports proposed edit. |
Y |
I'd have said it supports the more cautious, but definite, approach that I suggest. |
Spanish Government | "a non self-governing territory", a "colony" Report about the question of gibraltar (in Spanish) |
British Overseas Territory [69] Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory, which has a special status within the European Union (EU). Gibraltar es un Territorio Británico de Ultramar, dotado de un estatus específico dentro de la Unión Europea (UE). P.7 of 65 |
"The reform of the constitutional decree does not change the international status of Gibraltar, and even though it develops its self-government, it does not alter British sovereignty over Gibraltar, which remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for whose external relations and defense it is still responsible." Report about the question of gibraltar (in Spanish) | Interesting is it not, "it develops its self-government" and "remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for whose external relations and defense it is still responsible."
Interesting is it not that even the Spanish Government does not actually contradict the thrust of the proposed edit. Whats most interesting is that the source doesn't even call it a colony, it calls it a "British Overseas Territory". Once again we see what the source actually says misrepresented. |
Y | The diplomats have done a good job here even though they do still refer to Gibraltar as a colony. The constitutional position is somewhat complicated. To repeat, I feel strongly that putting an oversimplified and therefore endlessly-arguable comment in the lede detracts from the power and legitimacy of the way that Gibraltar is governed, which is best explained by a short clear paragraph in the relevant section. Putting a sufficiently-full account in the lede strikes me as lede bias. I hope this column, inserted five days after the table went in, helps. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
In my opinion, it's perfectly adequate to have "self-governing" in the lede, with further clarification someplace below. Apcbg ( talk) 11:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Hi all, I don't want to be deeply involved in the edition of this article, as we've just left a quite traumatic arbitration case.
However, I'd like to get your comments about the second paragraph of the article. It starts by extensively quoting a report by a private organization focused on defense, geopolitics, transport and police issues (see its web site). I personally think we're giving undue height to it by mentioning it in the second paragraph of the article. However, regardless of that, don't you think that the last sentence of such a paragraph ("Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service.") should be in fact the first one? I mean, a neutral description on the degree of self government of the territory must be given more prominence that a report by a private organization with unknown impact and relevance. That way, the second paragraph would be that way:
Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service. According to the Jane's Country Risk Ratings 2008, which measures the stability of 235 countries, territories and political entities in the world, Gibraltar is the 5th most stable territory worldwide, and the highest ranked British territory. The ratings are based on five fundamental categories: political, social, economic, external and military and security.
Opinions? -- Ecemaml ( talk) 09:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not in the business of discussing where the mention to the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories must be. Although not topic banned, I'd been admonished by the Arbitration Committee on the grounds of tendentious editting and therefore I don't want to be in a position that might lead to a similar situation (even if I don't think my editions are biased). Sorry -- Ecemaml ( talk) 11:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC) PS: anyway, there is plenty of people in this talk page that might handle your suggestion
I don't think so, either. Most of the people involved in this discussion are quite balanced and neutral guys. Please, don't forget WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL -- Ecemaml ( talk) 11:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC) It´s a way to express my disagree ,it´s not real, but i always crashed against the royal guards and knights of british empire . It´s a very pro british article and all things i try to improve, always appear someone and say "you are difunding spanish propaganda, troll etc". Gibraltar was a crow colony and this was silenciate. Gibraltar is in the UN list and no talk about this in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.9.249 ( talk) 11:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ecemaml. I appreciate that feelings are still sore here. That makes it all the more important for all of us to assume good faith, and keep all discussions tightly focused on improving the article.
The suggested rearrangement makes sense to me. However, I also find the lead too long in general and I would suggest a second paragraph that reads:
Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service. According to Jane's Country Risk Ratings 2008, which estimates political, social, economic, external/military and security risks, Gibraltar is the 5th most stable territory worldwide, and the highest ranked British territory.
Personally I'd be quite happy to have the first sentence only, I think that the second is lead bias though it may deserve mention later, but removing it from the lead may be a step too far for some editors.
I incline to think that the claim of ongoing colonial status should not be in the lead, although I realize that it is a notable claim (a truism to one group, a deep insult to another, but all the more notable for that) with many reliable sources that needs mention in the article. Perhaps we could have comments on the wording:
Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories and is still widely regarded as a colony by Spanish commentators.(refs here)
and then discuss where in the article the result should go? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with putting in statements about Spanish commentators' views that Gibraltar is a colony. State the facts of the matter - where Gib has self government, where it does not, state the UN list, state the governments' views, then let the reader make up their own mind. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories and is still regarded as a colony by the Spanish Government.(refs here)
There is no good reason whatsoever to go into vast amounts of detail about the different POVs on the dispute in the intro or indeed in this particular article. This is supposed to be an article about Gibraltar, not a coatrack article for the dispute. In this article, we should state the facts as neutrally as we can without descending into the epithets used by one side or the other. If in doubt, we should stick to official usage within the territory. The detail of the different positions on the dispute should go on Disputed status of Gibraltar, an article that could do with significant improvement.
There is, in my view, very little benefit in citing Jane's Country Risk in the lead. The lead is supposed to introduce the topic, but this information is not provided later on in the article. It is also not provided on equivalent articles on countries and territories. I would thus suggest we change the first two paragraphs to:
Gibraltar (pronounced /dʒɨˈbrɔːltər/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. The territory covers 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) and shares a land border with Spain to the north.
Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service. [1] The territory has historically been an important base for the British Armed Forces and is the site of a Royal Navy base.
Pfainuk talk 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Pfainuk, the problem is that if you say "Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government....", you should say that UN say "gibraltar is a non self governing territory" and spain support the version UN. The other way you can induce an erroneous idea in an uninformed person.I think Richard´s idea is correct. 85.136.157.123 ( talk) 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories and is still regarded as a colony by the Spanish Government.(refs here)
In the main article,the reference number 6, it´s a failled document "informe sobre la cuestion de gibraltar" of spanish foreign ministery. The correct direction is the pdf document that i said and appear with number 20 in this section.I dont sure the way to correct this. could someone to repare the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.157.123 ( talk) 19:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think that many things are being mixed. Thus, we'd better settle them down one by one.
With regard to the movement of the mention of the Jane Group report, there seems to be a consensus on its removal from the beginning of the second paragraph. Pfainuk even suggests that it should be removed from such a paragraph (I agree with him). Where should it be included?
With regard to the mention to the "colony", my personal opinion is that the status of Gibraltar as Crown colony should be mentioned either in the history or the politics section. With regard to the Spanish POV with regard to this, I don't consider it being necessary in the introduction at all (although Richard's suggestion seems sensible anyway). After all, such an issue belongs to the dispute on sovereignty and that is already mentioned in the introduction. If a description on how the Spanish media and government mention Gibraltar is wished, its place is Disputed status of Gibraltar.
Finally, with regard to the mention to the UN list, I didn't want to enter in this discussion, but after all... I think that a mention to its permanence in the list might be added after the description of the self-government. It may be complemented with the POV of the Gibraltar and UK governements (of the like "Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories. However, both the governments of Gibraltar and the United Kingdom has requested to the C24 that Gibraltar should be pulled out of the list"
My €0.02. Best regards -- Ecemaml ( talk) 22:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Red Hat. The lead section currently has a threefold structure. I'd just get rid of the second paragraph which deals both with the "almost complete internal self-government" status of Gibraltar, "the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" which is awkward and not-really-vital information to stay in the lede (moreover when the same wording can be found below in the 'politics section'); and the Jane's Country Risk Ratings, which just looks like fanservice to me. From my perspective, this wording is likely to be more encyclopaedic:
With WP:lede in mind (that is few paragraphs, not a teaser, defining the topic and context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarizing the most important points—including any notable controversies), this locates the place broadly, briefly explains the international situation, recent history and mentions relevant data (in my opinion) such as population, main economic activities, landmarks... What do you think? Cremallera ( talk) 08:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts
Best regards 150.214.9.254 ( talk) 09:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
To the anonymous editor, dos cosas: first of all, please register. It is helpful! Secondly: let's try to follow a structured discussion. The purpose of this talk page section is to discuss the lead section. In order to an analyse UN resolutions and/or the 'colonial status of Gibraltar', we should create another because they are different issues and deserve distinct attentions (or none at all).
To Pfainuk: I've been reading the
Hong Kong article lately and it does mention the former colonial situation of the territories in the lead section. The information is not really groundbreaking, but of course that's just my perception of the issue and you are very entitled to think otherwise. Personally I do think that Gibraltar being a former Crown Colony is really notable data, the kind lead-ins are usually made of; however I have no strong opinion on whether this should be mentioned in the lead or in the part devoted to history.
Finally, concerning the Offshore Finance Centre: you are right. The source provided is not actualised, but its no secret that gibraltarian officials
pursue "the development of Gibraltar as an offshore finance centre" and that this represents a significant portion of the BOT's economy. More references
here (some of them fairly recent).
With all that said, I am perfectly content with the current draft in Richard's userpage.
Cheers! Cremallera ( talk) 19:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Cremallera, i have commented my thougs about the lead and history of gibraltar. I only was describing the position of UN and Spain becouse other editor say that the positions was differents.And i agree with you in other point... i´m going to have to register. 85.136.157.123 ( talk) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello,i´m the anonymous editor and i used the link of cremallera . It was easier than i though.
Verboom (
talk)
19:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) General comments here:
To Verboom, if Spain says that the UN agrees with them, that does not mean that the UN shares that view. As per TFD above, the UN position is not, in fact, that Gibraltar should be handed over to Spain.
To Cremallera: your cite to a Gibraltar website does not back up the claim that offshore financial services form a large and increasing part of the Gibraltar economy. I haven't looked through all the IMF documents because they're quite long - but from their titles it seems unlikely that they will back it up either. I note in particular that they all predate the Financial Crisis, an event likely to have had a significant impact on the Gibraltar finance industry. A source from 2009 or 2010 would be far better IMO. If people want this, could they please give a recent and reliable source for it.
To Richard: I appreciate that offensiveness is not, in and of itself, a reason not to include things. But at the same time I do feel that we ought to be careful with potentially offensive language, only using it where it is actually necessary. Since it has been removed, it's no longer an issue. I do not have a strong issue with using the words "Crown Colony" in reference to Gibraltar pre-1981 in the article, beyond a general feeling that this article is already far too long and making it even more bloated would seem to be a bad idea.
Finally a general point. I agree with Red Hat in his post of 00:17, 14 May. There are plenty of ways this article could be improved without going over and over with the dispute. It may be a good idea to do that: following recent events I think it would be a good idea to build up some good faith by working together on other parts of this article. Pfainuk talk 20:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough:
Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories. The British and Gibraltarian governments reject this view.[11]" It´s better becouse it remark the "oficially" POV, What dou you think?
best regards Verboom ( talk) 07:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I have boldly made some fairly major changes to the article, per discussions above. The lead is shorter and, I think, now rather good. The words "self-government" and "colony" do not appear in the lead although the dispute is prominently mentioned. Both are treated briefly in the Politics section, which I have put into approximate chronological and thematic order, with a few edits for clarity and brevity. I really, really hope that this is a stepping stone on the way to a more stable account that will enable all editors to concentrate on improving the article to Good or even Featured status. I don't think that we will make any progress in that direction while reasonable editors feel strongly that important points of view are not fairly represented. But maybe I'm wrong, in which case I've just wasted another couple of hours. Even if I'm right there are doubtless improvements to be made. Anyway, comments are welcome! Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not keen on this sentence at all - "Gibraltar was ruled directly by the British Governor from 1704, and was described formally as a Crown colony from 1830 until 1983." This is the politics section. Politics sections describe the politics of the country as they are now. For example, see Angola or Belize, two countries that were until relatively recently also European colonies. This information should be in the history section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
It's now in the British period section of history. Pfainuk, you might want to put in a brief remark about later BDT and BOT status? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 20:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The following are areas where I think we can immediately improve the article.
Would there be any objections if I went ahead and tackled these? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
“ | The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return.[4] Gibraltarians resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referenda held in 1967 and 2002. The UK has negotiated proposals of shared sovereignty with Spain but has committed itself to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes. [13] The UN invited in 1968 the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom to undertake negotiations in order to put an end to what it considered a colonial situation in Gibraltar, safeguarding the interests of its population. [14] | ” |
“ | The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return.[4] Gibraltarians have resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referenda. The UK has negotiated proposals of shared sovereignty with Spain but has committed itself to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes. [15] The UN has approved several resolutions inviting the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom to negotiate a solution. | ” |
I agree about the article needing a trim in order for it to perform its purpose as an overview article. However, can I kindly ask all editors to check if the information they're removing from this article is available in another? If it isn't, I believe it should be added to a relevant article rather than losing it altogether. -- Gibmetal 77 talk 01:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The history section is disproportionately large and needs a bit of a hacksaw job on it. Are people OK if I get my hedge trimmers out, ensuring that History of Gibraltar contains all the excised info? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm impressed, Red Hat. I have corrected a minor typo and with extreme boldness - over six months after I first thought I'd make a brief but considered comment, at the request of a stranger, on a town and an issue I'd never heard of - re-inserted mention of San Roque as the destination of most of the previous inhabitants of Gibraltar. To reiterate for the umpteenth time, it's true, and it's mentioned by historians ahead of facts which are uncontentiously in the article. I will also add my personal comment, which is that the fact is also important to people who want to understand what the arguments on either side actually are. Let's see what everyone else thinks. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Having a section on the dispute is sensible. It's not only a notable issue (you can see the large amount of books devoted to the issue) but, in a purely empiric way, you may simply verify the number of readers of Disputed status of Gibraltar. You'll see that it's one of the most visited articles in the "Gibraltar space". -- Ecemaml ( talk) 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see much need for a new section for the dispute. I don't see significant benefit over simply noting the relevant parts of the dispute in relevant parts of this article as and when the need arises (as we do now). This article is already too long, and I feel that we should be thinking of cutting it down, not adding new sections. Our time would be better spent improving Disputed status of Gibraltar, to give it some actual structure and make it into a usable article. Pfainuk talk 20:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the less I'm inclined to see this as being important enough to include in a potted history of Gibraltar. It's an extra paragraph in a subsection that is already disproportionately long (50% of the history section is devoted to the last 60 years) in a section that is disproportionately long in the article as a whole. I suggest we remove it entirely - it still gets coverage in History of Gibraltar. What are people's thoughts? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
One sentence would be perfect in my opinion. There's no need to write a thesis here, its just that the 1964 UN resolutions, the 1967 referendum and the 1969 Constitution Order are very closely related. As for the verbs used in the sources, here's a recollection made some time ago by Ecemaml (thanks!) where we can read:
I think that 'sacking' sums it up quite well whilst being concise and aseptic enough (at least more than the current "drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating most Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings"). Any thoughts? Cremallera ( talk) 23:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Pfainuk on this one; the (very) slightly longer sentence here is more faithful to the sources, giving similar implications as well, and it gives a better description of a very unpleasant few days. I think it's a particularly good example of encyclopedic prose: "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating most Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]." Richard Keatinge ( talk) 05:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems everyone is OK with the radical overhaul and we just need to iron out the final details, so I went ahead and put up the preliminary version from my workshop page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Response to Pfainuk: the wording has been reverted in favor of a description of the sacking. I have no problem at all with that.
But let's be clear about my intentions and the sources, because I don't really enjoy implications like the one you left in the edit summary stating that I "assert the Spanish POV as fact while ignoring the British". I based my edition purely on the sources, which are authored mainly by British historians, and tried to write it down pretty dispassionately. The result being:
Nowhere in these 3 phrases the townspeople are qualified as poor and innocent, but as villagers. Equally, the British and Dutch troops aren't qualified as evil nor their commanders are accused of promoting the plunder. How on Earth did you manage to think that villagers weren't "entirely innocent" because they defended themselves against the uncontrolled soldiery which after the surrender started beating them, desecrating the churches, looting their houses and raping their women and daughters, is beyond my grasp. However, neither your opinion nor mine made it to the published draft, what's written above are the plain facts as all the reliable sources tell us it happened. As for the intention of the British, whilst William Jackson wrote that "Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline" in "The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar" (Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101); George Hills in his book "Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar" (London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174) states that "Such was the behaviour not only of the men but their officers that the worst fears of the population were confirmed". So, probably, George Rooke was sincere when he offered the Terms of Surrender, and most certainly he wasn't competent enough to impose them to his own officers and troops. Presumably, the villagers were as innocent as any other civilian could've been; and in all probability no reliable source states that the fear of reprisals was part of the motivation for the "departure" (sic.) of the townsfolk. Nevertheless, when devoid of any emotive language and putative intentions attributed by people who assuredly wasn't there at that time, what's supported by the references is the aforementioned text. I understand that this was not the most brilliant episode in the Royal Marines' history, but that's no reason to accuse me of bias. Especially without providing a single reliable source to back up your diatribe.
With all that said, if y'all think that the current wording is preferable and more encyclopaedic, you've got my blessing. I don't like it, but I won't oppose to it. Cremallera ( talk) 11:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
A good question. I've just re-read the above and I don't see any substantial disagreements remaining. Perhaps I should be a bit clearer; please, everyone, avoid making guesses about other people's motives, or at least avoid writing them down. Is anyone disagreeing with the current text? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The latin motto is incorrectly translated. Expugnabilis does not mean conquered.-- 190.22.140.13 ( talk) 20:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Replying to Cremallera's post on my page [22], the reason I removed Minorca is because we need to stick to the topic at hand - the history of Gibraltar. I don't believe we need to add the fact that Minorca was also ceded in 1713 to the history section purely in order to give background to mention of Minorcans in the demography section. The right place for this information is at Demographics of Gibraltar. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is what it says at Wikipedia:Good article criteria:
A good article is—
-- Gibmetal 77 talk 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's time to turn the History of Gibraltar article into prose instead of the chronological timeline it currently is. I'm happy to make the first stab at this, but given that it is going to be very time consuming and hard work, I don't want to do this if it's just going to get reverted. So can everyone give their support or opposition to this move? Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: WTF? ( talk) 22:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
After over a month being on hold, many issues still remain, and I'm not really seeing evidence of a coordinated effort to improve the article (the article's edit history, in fact, shows a lot of reverting, which goes against the stability criterion). So, this article does not meet the GA criteria at this time, and will be removed from the nominations list. It can be renominated once the issues mentioned above have been dealt with. In the meantime, it may help to review the guidelines under WP:COUNTRIES, as well as some of the other nation and/or city articles currently listed at WP:GA. WTF? ( talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
This was raised in the GA review as needing work, because it's basically a list in disguise. I moved out the media part of this to "culture", but the remainder strikes me as far too technical for this article and would be better served just by getting rid of this section entirely and simply doing a See Also to the Communications in Gibraltar article. Thoughts? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I've added some changes in the History section (deduplicating references and adding some new ones and some slight detail according to previous talks) and the Geography section (leaving only one picture of the Rock -of the 3 preexisting ones- if someone has a different preference, please feel free to choose another one).
I still think that the dispute over Gibraltar should be explained in one subsection as in the Israel featured article (the dispute even has one full paragraph in the lead of the Gib article, even though there's no proportional development in the body of the article). Any comments? -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 09:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I reverted a large addition about parallels with other territories. I'm mindful of past disputes and don't want to provoke another, but I politely suggest to Justin that an overview article on Gibraltar is not the right place to go into this kind of thing. Gibraltar is so much more than the subject of territorial disputes involving Spain. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
“ | Of course, Spain argues this while happily sitting on a dozen separate enclaves on another continent, Africa, including two cities, in the territory of what would otherwise naturally be the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco.
Spain passionately believes these to be Spanish by virtue of history, the passage of time (around 500 years) and the fact that the Kingdom of Morocco did not exist at that time in the same legal form as it exists now. With respect, those distinctions seem wholly insufficient to justify Spain holding and advocating diametrically opposed positions in the cases of Gibraltar and her own enclaves in North Africa just 15 kilometres away from Gibraltar across the Strait of Gibraltar. |
” |
“ | In this respect, the Spanish have a convincing argument that the British occupation of Gibraltar is anomalous given its location compared to Britain. However, such an argument is undermined by Spain’s similar occupation of Ceuta and Melilla in Northern Africa. | ” |
I feel that this is a good moment to call for further opinions. I insert here Justin's edit that is the subject of this section:
"Parallels with Spanish territories
The strategic position of the Strait of Gibraltar has left a legacy of a number of sovereignty disputes. Spain maintains sovereignty over Ceuta, Melilla, Penon de Velez de la Gomera, Alhucemas and the Chafarinas Islands (captured following the christian reconquest of Spain) based upon historical grounds, security reasons and on the basis of the UN principle of territorial integrity. Spain also maintains that the majority of residents are Spanish. Morocco claims these territories on the basis of the UN principles of decolonisation, territorial integrity and that Spanish arguments for the recovery of Gibraltar substantiate Morocco’s claim.
Olivenza (Spanish) or Olivença (Portuguese) is a town and seat of a municipality, on a disputed section of the border between Portugal and Spain, which is claimed de jure by both countries and administered de facto as part of the Spanish autonomous community of Extremadura. The population is 80% ethnic portuguese and 30% of portuguese language. Olivenza had been under continuous Portuguese sovereignty since 1297 when it was occupied by the Spanish in 1801 and formally ceded by Portugal later that year by the Treaty of Badajoz. Spain claims the de jure sovereignty over Olivenza on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz still stands and has never been revoked. Thus, the border between the two countries in the region of Olivenza should be as demarcated by that treaty. Portugal claims the de jure sovereignty over Olivenza on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz was revoked by its own terms (the breach of any of its articles would lead to its cancellation) when Spain invaded Portugal in the Peninsular War of 1807.
Portugal further bases its case on Article 105 of the Treaty of Vienna of 1815, which Spain signed in 1817, that states that the winning countries are to "endeavour with the mightiest conciliatory effort to return Olivenza to Portuguese authority". Thus, the border between the two countries in the region of Olivenza should be as demarcated by the Treaty of Alcanizes of 1297. Spain interprets Article 105 as not being mandatory on demanding Spain to return Olivenza to Portugal, thus not revoking the Treaty of Badajoz. Portugal has never made a formal claim to the territory after the Treaty of Vienna, but has equally never directly acknowledged the Spanish sovereignty over Olivenza.
Spanish public opinion is not generally aware of the Portuguese claim on Olivenza (in contrast to the Spanish claim on Gibraltar or the Moroccan claims on Ceuta, Melilla and the Plazas de soberanía). On the other hand, awareness in Portugal has been increasing under the efforts of pressure groups to have the question raised and debated in public."
And I would really appreciate the advice of anyone who can take the time to read through this section and advise on whether this text should be in the article, in the above or any form. A more formal request for comments may be appropriate if this doesn't get us anywhere. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm unhappy with the Government and politics section. It is misleading and inaccurate and I wish to see it corrected. Gibraltar is self-governing with the exception of defence and foreign relations. The constitution gives the GoG powers over everything except the judiciary and internal security. As with the UK, the judiciary is independent of Government, the selection of judges is not a GoG resposibity but equally they are not appointed by the UK Government as the article implies. Equally internal security is the responsibility of the Gibraltar Police authority. Effectively these two functions remain under Gibraltar control but this article does not make that clear; effectively POV by ommission. This needs to be corrected. Justin talk 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT
Richard, it is actually unhelpful to make comments like alleging I am overstating the position. I have made a suggestion for a proposed edit, do you accept the basis or do you want to pontificate further? The present text is not accurate, it does not conform to NPOV - omitting details like the figurehead status of the governor is tantamount to misrepresenting the GoG by omission.
Only in extremis is the Governor able to intervene and in that case it would actually be the UK Government that does so, in the normal course of events it is a purely symbolic position and Gibraltar is governed by the people and for the people. And in many case the GoG has demonstrated it will act independently and in blatant opposition to the British Government, such as recent events when the Blair Government proposed to share sovereignty with Spain. So again my proposal is to explain the symbolic status of the Governor and that power is vested in local institutions such as the GPA and the local independent judiciary. As an aside I don't find the comments about the Spanish king of relevance since the Queen would never intervene in that manner.
Could we discuss my content proposal please, then move ahead to discussing text? Justin talk 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the archiving of this talk page after Justin's reversion. The page is extremely long - any threads that are pertinent to a discussion can be linked to on the archive page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a overview article, rather than a full account of historical events, and it now seems to me that we would need to put in an excessive number of details to achieve consensus text that treats certain events in a neutral manner. A NPOV blow-by-blow account of the whole thing, including the who did what to whom, who went where, towns that were founded in SPAIN not GIBRALTAR, and so on, just seems too much for an incident in a overview. Personally I'd go for slimming down the text as I edited tonight, which no doubt will satisfy no one but treat the incident in a neutral manner. Much as I suggested months ago before we had an outbreak of atrocity tennis. Seems to me that there is certain inconsistenty in the standards on deciding on content. Justin talk 23:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted back to the last stable version. Sort it out here before engaging in another edit war please mark nutley ( talk) 00:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a review and possibly more opinions. Here is the longish-consensus text that we have at present, minus references: "On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain."
and here is Justin's slimmed down version: "On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo- Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to nearby areas of Spain."
Justin's edit removes details of the disturbances after the conquest of Gibraltar, which Red Hat agrees might well go as too detailed for an overview article, and it also removes mention of San Roque as the destination for most of the refugees.
The consensus text on the disturbances was carefully and painfully crafted as balanced (and I think it is). However I agree that it's also too detailed and personally I'd be happy to see it go. Justin's text here also strikes me as acceptably balanced.
San Roque is an ongoing hot button because the modern town (about 7km from Gibraltar) maintains historical continuity (or identity) with Spanish Gibraltar. It is mentioned in many references as the main destination, ahead of many other details, and the ongoing claim may also be thought to give its foundation some degree of notability. The inclusion of the name "San Roque" had already been the subject of a very long argument - if I remember rightly, starting about archive 15. I haven't changed my opinion here; it should be in. It's true and highly notable in the context.
Could we have some comments on:
Whether to include the fuller version of the disturbances?
Whether to mention the name "San Roque"? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
(Justin, I purposely didn't mention names when I made that comment, and I don't even think that I had you in mind. There had been earlier nationalist insults by other parties. I don't propose to repeat them. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 19:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC))
Opinions please
OK, could we ask for opinions on whether to remove the present sentence: "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings." Richard Keatinge ( talk) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
And, on whether to remove the mention of San Roque as the main destination: Richard Keatinge ( talk) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. :
“ | Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives. | ” |
I presume you're familiar with it. Wait. Theres more. Justin talk 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
“ | When the garrison marched out on 7 August almost all of the inhabitants, some 4,000 people in total, joined them. They had reason to believe that their exile would not last long; fortresses changed hands frequently at the time. Many thus resettled nearby in the ruins of Algeciras or around the old hermitage at San Roque at the head of the bay. They took with them the records of the city council including Gibraltar's banner and royal warrant. The newly founded town of San Roque thus became, as Philip V put it in 1706, "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo". A small population of neutral Genoese numbering some seventy people stayed behind in Gibraltar.[60] | ” |
Chris's prose, which everyone agreed was an excellent summary. Justin talk 21:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT
Part of the reason for keeping the talk page record intact was for the ability to refer to the discussion that took place that you claim establishes consensus. I note that Pfainuk had this to say:
“ | You propose we do exactly that. It is biased to present the townspeople as complete innocents driven out by evil British soldiers and marines, as you propose - especially when we have it sourced that the townspeople killed soldiers and desecrated their bodies. And no matter how much you insist that my concerns about the clear bias in your text and the serious inaccuracy implied by it are unimportant, I will not accept that. | ” |
I agree the text is clearly biased and the serious inaccuracies implied by it are important. I too can't accept it as conforming to a policy of NPOV. I note that despite these reservations is was nontheless imposed. I have therefore opted to make the text more agreeable with our policy of NPOV. Justin talk 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This is getting out of order, changes I did last night gave due coverage of a political issue, they expanded a section to cover an important event and added information that was sourced, from reliable sources and changed POV text to more neutral prose. Any change I make or propose to this article is reverted. This isn't about consensus building it is ownership and it must stop or I will take the issue to WP:AE. Final warning. Justin talk 07:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the lede to the previous consensus text. I hope we can see new reasonable arguments in the discussion and are able to reach a new consensus or keep the old one. Please let us all be reasonable and follow BRD. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 11:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT
No, I said no such thing. I have explained the position of the UN so many times now, yet you repeatedly misrepresent my comments. I say the UN opinion is not relevant for the lede as it is not based on criteria judging governance but statehood and the two are not co-incident. To use the UN position to comment on governance is mendacious and misleading. Stop it, now please. Secondly, no that is not my opinion, it describes how the sources I quoted derived their opinion based on objectively evaluating the facts of the situation. Sources that derive their opinion from dogmatic reasons that deny verifiable facts are not the suitable basis for NPOV. I make no comment whatsoever on their national or ethnic origin, merely that they assert black is white. The only person to raise concerns on a nationalist basis is yourself. No matter the origin on the source, it is the basis of their argument that is the issue here. Thirdly, your reasoning on the status of the Governor is specious. Australia and other Commonwealth countries have Governors whose theoretical powers are identical. Yet we would not qualify their level of self-government on that basis. Similarly the constitution has evolved in consultation between the British Government and people of Gibraltar - so what. Any transfer or devolution of power would require that to take place. Australia, Canada, New Zealand or any former colony has had to go through that process. So to use that as a basis to deny self-government is not a sustainable argument by any stretch of the imagination. Also Spain and Holland and a number of other countries also still have a monarchy, are we to assert on that basis, falsely, they do no enjoy self-government as in theory the monarch can take over. You do not advance an argument that survives logical examination. Fourthly, none of this is based on my personal opinion, it is based on sourced material from reliable sources that evaluate the facts objectively and do not distort facts to assert a position based on dogma. Do not go down the route of attempting to paint me as being unreasonable when I am advancing an argument based on objective evaluation of sources, compliant with wikipedia's policies on content. That is unreasonable and a personal attack, which I have already indicated I will not tolerate. Fifthly, no again I will state the discussion is to focus on content, I am not going to be suckered into raking over the past and taking the discussion down a blind alley. Justin talk 14:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Source | Term used in introduction | Details in Politics / Gvt. section |
---|---|---|
UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) | “British Overseas Territory” [27] | “Gibraltar has a considerable measure of devolved government.” Also, “The Constitution thoroughly modernises the UK-Gibraltar relationship. Key elements include limiting the responsibilities of the Governor to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [28] |
UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) | “almost complete internal self-government” [29] (pg. 16) | "The constitution defines the responsibilities of the Governor as relating to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" [30] (pg. 146) |
United Nations | "Non self-governing territory" [31] and “Non-Self-Governing Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” [32] (pg. 3) | “The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar.” [33] (pg. 3) |
Gibraltar Chief Minister | n.a. | "The new Constitution is now in place and in operation. It maximises our self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers. All other matters are the competence of the Gibraltar Government, the Gibraltar Parliament or other Gibraltar legal institutions." [34] (pg. 4) |
BBC | “British overseas territory” [35] | “self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy” [36] |
CIA - The World Factbook | "overseas territory of the UK" [37] | "the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability" [38] |
Encyclopedia Britannica | “British colony, Europe” and “British overseas territory” [39] | “is self-governing in all matters but defense” [40] |
Merriam Webster | “a British colony” [41] | n.a. |
Encarta | “British dependency” [42] | No explicit reference to self-government |
British Library | “self governing British overseas territory in all matters but defence and foreign policy” [43] | n.a. |
PriceWaterhouseCoopers | "a peninsula" [44] | "Constitutionally, Gibraltar is a British dependent territory with internal self-government, the United Kingdom being responsible for defence, foreign affairs, financial stability and internal security." [45] |
Spanish Government | "a non self-governing territory", a "colony" Report about the question of gibraltar (in Spanish) | "The reform of the constitutional decree does not change the international status of Gibraltar, and even though it develops its self-government, it does not alter British sovereignty over Gibraltar, which remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for whose external relations and defense it is still responsible." Report about the question of gibraltar (in Spanish) |
UNINDENT
I apologise for not being able to make my point clear. If you allow me, I would like to try one final time, trying to make it as schematic as possible:
I hope I have been clear this time. I hope we don't get tangled with what my interpretation of the situation is (or Justin's or...) I agree with Richard: we are repeating ourselves. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 21:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT
I thought given my brief perusal earlier found considerable inconistencies between what Imalbornoz claimed and what the sources actually said that I would go through these sources and see what they actually say, given that I've noted a number are not represented accurately. What is interesting is that I have uncovered that the sources are in many cases misrepresented, in some cases outrageously so. Whats also interesting is that none and I repeat none of these sources contradict the edit I propose, all bar the UN directly support the proposed edit.
Focusing again on the UN, the UN bases its comments on the basis of statehood rather than governance. Specifically its criteria are independence, integration and free association - note devolved Government or self-government is not actually a valid criterion. Hence, to claim the UN list contradicts the proposed edit is to compare apples and oranges.
Misrepresenting sources is a serious matter on wikipedia. Edits should be based on reliable sources that are verifiable. The sources displayed support my proposed edit, they do not as claimed contradict it.
I have summarised the sources below, apologies in advance for the seemingly wall of text but I felt it important to fully list the evidence compiled from these sources. Justin talk 21:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
'ADDENDUM Again the proposed edit is self-governing with the qualifier except defence and foreign relations. I emphasise this as once again Imalbornoz has chosen to misrepresent the proposed edit as the basis to criticise it. I note my proposal earlier made this explicitly clear. Justin talk 21:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Source | Imalbornoz's claim | Actual wording in the source | Details in Politics / Gvt. section | Comments | Supports proposal (Y/N) | Richard's comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) | “British Overseas Territory” [49] | “British Overseas Territory” | “Gibraltar has a considerable measure of devolved government.” Also, “The Constitution thoroughly modernises the UK-Gibraltar relationship. Key elements include limiting the responsibilities of the Governor to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [50] | Devolved government is actual a synonym for self-government. For example the British Government has devolved powers to the Scottish and Welsh assemblies for matters concerning their respective countries. The comments about the Governor do not contradict the proposed edit as the role of the Governor is largely symbolic with internal affairs under local control. | Y | Devolved government describes a degree of self-government. It does not imply the entire thing. |
UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) | “almost complete internal self-government” [51] (pg. 16) |
"Most Overseas Territories have elected governments. These have varying degrees of responsibility for domestic matters, ranging from Bermuda and Gibraltar which have almost complete internal self-government...." |
"The constitution defines the responsibilities of the Governor as relating to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" [52] (pg. 146) |
"In 1999 the Government published a White Paper, which set out a “new partnership” between Britain and its Overseas Territories, based on four principles:
"We conclude that Gibraltar’s presence on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories is an anachronism. We recommend that the Government continues to make representations to the UN about delisting the Territory and that it makes clear that it is only sending the UN progress reports on Gibraltar because it is obliged to do so. (para 41)" P.147 (strange is it not that was forgotten to be mentioned given the previous comments.) |
Y |
This makes a much stronger case for Gibraltar's democracy being the master of its destiny, but it still doesn't amount to full self-government. |
United Nations | "Non self-governing territory" [53] and “Non-Self-Governing Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” [54] (pg. 3) | Linked PDF is a dead link | “The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar.” [55] (pg. 3) | UN definition is based not on governance but rather statehood, the presence on the list does not of itself contradict the proposed lead. See
[56] the Special Committee’s view that there are only three legitimate, acceptable and effective forms of decolonisation, namely: independence, integration and free association.
IE the UN does not define self-governance on the basis of devolved government but statehood. As the UK Parliamentary report notes this is anachronistic in the case of devolved government. |
N/A |
The UN makes the point that self-government is not quite complete. This is not contradicted by any other sources. |
Gibraltar Chief Minister | n.a. | Gibraltar | "The new Constitution is now in place and in operation. It maximises our self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers. All other matters are the competence of the Gibraltar Government, the Gibraltar Parliament or other Gibraltar legal institutions." [57] (pg. 4) |
"Our positions on these issues are therefore not reconcilable, and the people of Gibraltar will never succumb to the undemocratic proposition that anyone other than we ourselves should decide our own sovereignty and our own political future, freely and in accordance with our human and political rights to self-determination." P2 ...but the kicker is later in the document "The old power of United Kingdom Ministers to disallow legislation passed by the Gibraltar Parliament has been abolished. The so-called “Administering Power”, the UK, administers absolutely nothing in Gibraltar."P.4 Tell me why someone seeking to objectively evaluate self-governing would fail to highlight this quote? |
Y |
It's true, Gibraltar administers itself in a democratic way. The UK / monarchy however still retain some reserve powers. Mainly, in case anything goes wrong. |
BBC | “British overseas territory” [58] | Self-governing part of United Kingdom, claimed by Spain | “self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy” [59] | BBC is renowned for objectivity. | Y | Defence, foreign policy, and one or two other reserve powers... |
CIA - The World Factbook | "overseas territory of the UK" [60] |
overseas territory of the UK |
"the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability" [61] |
What is more interesting if we look at what the source actually says "The subsequent granting of autonomy in 1969 by the UK led to Spain closing the border and severing all communication links." ie the source supports the autonomous nature of the Government of Gibraltar "A new noncolonial constitution came into effect in 2007, but the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability." Note the word noncolonial but the source is actually slightly in error as internal security is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority, the UK's guarantee of financial stability does not detract from the proposed edit. |
Y |
Autonomy, devolution, local democracy, noncolonial local administration - all very true but, still, there are reserve powers, such as, technically, appointing the head of the local police authority. Which suggest to me that over-simplistic statements in the lead merely detract from the reality of self-governing Gibraltarian democracy. |
Encyclopedia Britannica | “British colony, Europe” and “British overseas territory” [62] |
Form of government: overseas territory of the United Kingdom with one legislative body (Gibraltar Parliament) |
“is self-governing in all matters but defense” [63] |
Interesting this one, it doesn't state that Gibraltar is a British colony. It mentions in the history section that it became a British colony ..... in 1830. This has to be just about the most outrageous misrepresentation of a source that I have ever seen. Full text of the Government section "Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense. Its constitution was established by the Gibraltar Constitution Order in 1969, which provided for a House of Assembly consisting of the speaker (appointed by the governor), 15 members elected to four-year terms, and 2 ex-officio members. (A new Constitution Order was approved by referendum in November 2006 and was implemented in January 2007; it renamed the House of Assembly as the Gibraltar Parliament and increased its number of members to 17.) " |
Y |
Indeed EB says little of note and as a source for this issue is best ignored. |
Merriam Webster | “a British colony” [64] | Lets see shall we? | n.a. | Full text of the entry:
Gi·bral·tar noun \jə-ˈbrȯl-tər\ Definition of GIBRALTAR
Origin of GIBRALTAR Gibraltar, fortress in the British colony of Gibraltar First Known Use: 1776 Intersting this one isn't it, it is about the use of Gibraltar as a noun in English to mean an impregnable stronghold, it is of no relevance to the actual status of Gibraltar. Its another outrageous misrepresentation of the source |
Y |
Well, it does use the word "colony" without dating it. But, like EB, it's not any real relevance to the current issue. |
Encarta | “British dependency” [65] | Discontinued link says absolutely nothing | No explicit reference to self-government | Nice to see that the sources were checked before posting a wall of text. | N/A | I can't check because it's gone. I doubt it said anything very useful in this context anyway. |
British Library | “self governing British overseas territory in all matters but defence and foreign policy” [66] | self governing British overseas territory | n.a. | Supports proposed edit perfectly. | Y | It does. It says (cut and paste): "self governing British overseas territory in all matters but defence and foreign policy". It depends what edit you mean. |
PriceWaterhouseCoopers | "a peninsula" [67] | an overseas territory of the United Kingdom with internal self government except in matters of defence, internal security and foreign affairs | "Constitutionally, Gibraltar is a British dependent territory with internal self-government, the United Kingdom being responsible for defence, foreign affairs, financial stability and internal security." [68] | So Gibraltar is a "peninsular", well yes that is how it is described in the general geography section in its lead in. It still supports proposed edit. |
Y |
I'd have said it supports the more cautious, but definite, approach that I suggest. |
Spanish Government | "a non self-governing territory", a "colony" Report about the question of gibraltar (in Spanish) |
British Overseas Territory [69] Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory, which has a special status within the European Union (EU). Gibraltar es un Territorio Británico de Ultramar, dotado de un estatus específico dentro de la Unión Europea (UE). P.7 of 65 |
"The reform of the constitutional decree does not change the international status of Gibraltar, and even though it develops its self-government, it does not alter British sovereignty over Gibraltar, which remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for whose external relations and defense it is still responsible." Report about the question of gibraltar (in Spanish) | Interesting is it not, "it develops its self-government" and "remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for whose external relations and defense it is still responsible."
Interesting is it not that even the Spanish Government does not actually contradict the thrust of the proposed edit. Whats most interesting is that the source doesn't even call it a colony, it calls it a "British Overseas Territory". Once again we see what the source actually says misrepresented. |
Y | The diplomats have done a good job here even though they do still refer to Gibraltar as a colony. The constitutional position is somewhat complicated. To repeat, I feel strongly that putting an oversimplified and therefore endlessly-arguable comment in the lede detracts from the power and legitimacy of the way that Gibraltar is governed, which is best explained by a short clear paragraph in the relevant section. Putting a sufficiently-full account in the lede strikes me as lede bias. I hope this column, inserted five days after the table went in, helps. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 10:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
In my opinion, it's perfectly adequate to have "self-governing" in the lede, with further clarification someplace below. Apcbg ( talk) 11:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)