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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Gibraltar is a spanish town where is spoken english very much... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.140.163.10 ( talk) 12:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
May I suggest that we start by putting possible additions into this table, one line per potential addition? I assume that everyone knows how to add text and extra lines, but it's fairly obvious from the edit screen. It may be particularly useful if you can put in points that you don't personally agree with. I'd also like to suggest keeping the comments brief. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 19:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The fact which might be included | One or more references | Actual wording in the source | The authority of the source, see WP:RS | Brief comments supporting inclusion / sufficient notability | Brief comments for non-inclusion / insufficient notability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
There are discussions repeating the same circles again and the tone of some editors is becoming extremely combative and uncooperative. All of those discussing matters here have been given a warning about discretionary sanctions. Evaluate your comments. If you cannot say 100% that your comments are productive and focused on how to improve the article, you should question whether they are disruptive (or whether myself or another administrator will judge them so).
I will consider disruptive comments anything that disrupts the article improvement and consensus building process. Personal accusations and roadblocking without providing a clear rationale or alternative are two obvious examples. Small side banter and the occasional groan of frustration are not disruptive, as two obvious counterexamples.
Please focus on productive discussion and research. Any incidents of roadblocking or incivility will be rewarded with a topic break under discretionary sanctions. Vassyana ( talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
O We have, subject of course to anyone else exercising their right to disagree, a consensus text:
“ | While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity.
The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK also accepts a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht that states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept that this limits its right to self-determination. Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UK and Gibraltar argue that under the criteria specified by UN Resolution 1541 Gibraltar has been decolonised, meriting removal. Spain supports its retention arguing that Gibraltar has not been decolonised as required by UN Resolution 1514. |
” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. I wasn't aware of this discusion, but I was kindly warned in my talk page by Vassyana. I've reading the discussion and what I miss is a mention to the position of Spain with regard to the UN resolutions. Besides what you mention, Spain simply ask for the fulfillment of the UN resolutions on the question of Gibraltar. The issue here is that the UN resolutions support the Spanish position (and therefore Spain wished they to be fulfilled). -- Ecemaml ( talk) 15:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
May I appeal for calm at this time. I am disappointed by this and I sense Richard is too; we've both worked hard to build a consensus text here. This has been positive and I would like it to continue. However, reluctantly I would have to add my voice to User:Pfainuk at this time and now register my opposition to incorporation of this text.
I would suggest everyone takes a break for 24 hrs. I am going to go away and work on a response and seek advice before I post again. A point to note, this is what I hope to be a temporary withdrawal of support not a statement of intransigence. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry WMC, Richard, I agree with Pfain on this. If this is, rather than a genuine consensus position simply a 'thin end of a wedge' edit designed to open up a can of worms, then it seriously impacts on the virtue of the edit. I would rather consider whatever edit Imalbornoz plans in full so I can examine its merits. Given recent events, the level of faith remaining is low and this was a bloody foolish thing to bring up IMO. Especially when it has been round the houses so many times before. There is no point in making this edit if the second it is made we have a new conversation on changing the exact same text. -- Narson ~ Talk • 00:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The suggested statement “The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar.” seems factually incorrect to me; at least, I am not aware of any such ‘willingness’. In my opinion, the current phrasing “it is UK Government policy not to engage in talks about the sovereignty of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar.” is quite adequate. Apcbg ( talk) 09:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity.
The UK has negotiated on this request, but cites the principle of self-determination, and has since declared that it will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK also accepts a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht that states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept that this limits its right to self-determination. Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UK and Gibraltar argue that under the criteria specified by UN Resolution 1541 Gibraltar has been decolonised, meriting removal. Spain supports its retention arguing that Gibraltar has not been decolonised as required by UN Resolution 1514. |
” |
On whether to include now, I'll keep quiet as suggested for a bit. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I am still reconsidering my position and remain disappointed that consensus appears to have unravelled. I do however support the position that this cannot be the starting point for yet another debate in a months time about including yet more detail about the sovereignty dispute. WP:COATRACK is an instructive essay on the matter, this would unbalance the article which is intended to be an overview on Gibraltar. I believed the consensus text we were working on was to fulfill the role of that overview. Gibraltar has a fascinating history, it is a complex and vibrant modern city; an overview article should reflect this, not be a platform to state competing claims. Hence, I remained opposed to the suggestion that we include text that supports one national position, whether it is the British, Gibraltar or Spanish position.
Per the arbcom decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltar#National and territorial disputes and similar conflicts Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds., I do not believe we should go down the route of expanding the article in this manner. I would urge those pushing for this to reconsider.
Another element of the arbcom decision is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltar#Fact versus opinion. In drafting articles and especially in discussing disputed article content, editors should take appropriate care to distinguish reasonably agreed-upon facts from statements of opinion or partisan views. I would invite those who assert the UN supports the Spanish position to consider the relevance of this in line with their comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I will repeat that the purpose of this text is to provide a simple overview summary of the sovereignty dispute. It states the facts of the dispute and no more and in a manner appropriate for an overview. I believe there was a concensus for this approach.
What you're proposing would be the classic example of a WP:COATRACK, whereby an overview becomes transmorphed into an article on the sovereignty dispute. A simple neutral statement of the facts of the matter will suffice. That I believe we had achieved. I would oppose including additional details going in depth into various positions, as it is inappropriate for an overview.
May I once again draw attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltar#National and territorial disputes and similar conflicts, the discussion is deteriorating into nationalist lines again. I do not believe this is healthy. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Just kidding - obviously there is, but I cannot easily determine what it is. Can someone direct me to a summary of the dispute and proposed resolutions? I know nothing about Gibraltar. Thanks. Blue Rasberry 06:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Some editors want to mention the UN POV about the dispute (which is usually interpreted as supporting Spain's position, as you can see in the collection of sources) but some editors don't want to include the UN POV because they say that it is too much detail for an overview. | ” |
Things are riding the same groove again. I will try to help you break out of that pattern. Let's completely refocus the discussion.
Subtopic:
Policy notes:
Let's start by compiling some quotes from secondary sources that summarize the issue. Focus on university level textbooks, overviews from reliable secondary sources, and similar references that are likely provide a good overview of the general consensus view. Outside sources such as French, American, or German scholars and textbooks would be ideal. Please leave out any discussion of how the section should be written. Stay focused on finding and discussing the reliable sources and what they say. Vassyana ( talk) 20:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Please include brief (one to two paragraph) quotations below, including citation information. Please cite reputable, independent sources that provide a good summary overview of the matter.
Most recent archive: 15:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | However, the United Nations has indicated in a number of other cases that historical title can oust the right of self-determination, for example in the cases of Gibraltar and the Falkland islands.
Gibraltar was ceded to the United Kingdom by Spain in the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713. Article of the treaty declared that Spain would yield to the United Kingdom ‘the full and entire propriety [sic] of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications and forts thereunto belonging’. It also stipulated that, should the United Kingdom by any means ‘alienate’ Gibraltar, ‘the preference of having the same shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others’. Spain maintains that Article X creates a right of retrocession which, because it predates the development of the right of self-determination, must take precedence over that right, and must therefore apply to Gibraltar. Gibraltar cannot attain independence through exercising a right of self-determination, but must simply revert to Spain by virtue of Article X. This reversionary right under Article X is, according to Spain, reinforced by paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514(XV). (…) In the cases of both Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, the Assembly has decided that the territories in question should be returned to the claimant states, without the inhabitants of those territories being permitted to exercise the right of self-determination. (…) The General Assembly’s position with regard to the Falkland Islands appears to have been reached, as in the case of Gibraltar, largely on the basis that the Falkland Islanders are a ‘settler population’ occupying territory of a colonial power. Not being ‘indigenous’ to the territory they cannot be considered a ‘people’, and are therefore not entitled to self-determination as provided in paragraph 2 of Resolution 1514(XV). (…) With regard to Gibraltar, the General Assembly concluded that 250 years of habitation was insufficient to establish the indigenous character of the territory’s inhabitants. |
” |
These paragraphs have been extracted from a text that deals with several cases regarding self-determination and soverignty disputes. It deals with the cases of Falklands and Gibraltar (as an exception in UN policy to the principle of self-determination) for about 10 pages. I have cited paragraphs from the introduction and the conclusion to those two cases. Unfortunately, the 3 pages specifically regarding Gibraltar are not viewable in Google Books. I have asked my local public library for a copy of these pages (but I don't know how long it will take). If someone has access to those pages, could they please share them and/or tell me? Thanks. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 13:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Could I request that the source of the material highlighted be clarified in bold. I cannot find this text in the book quoted. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a quite crucial passage discussing territorial integrity in Musgrave's work:
(p239)
“ | Since the Second World War a number of states have laid claim to territories which they allege to have been detached from them as a result of colonisation. As legal justification for such claims Paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514(XV) has been cited. Paragraph 6 provides that any attempt "aimed at partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter". This paragraph it is argued, applies to situations in which the territorial integrity of a state has been disrupted as a result of colonisation, so that a return of the territory in question simply restores the state to its original condition. This means that the inhabitants of a territory claimed on the basis of historical title are precluded from exercising a right to self-determination...Although Paragraph 2 of Resolution 1514 (XV) provides that "all peoples have the right to self-determination", in cases of historical title paragraph 6 would pre-empt paragraph 2....
Many states reject this interpretation, arguing that paragraph 6 cannot be read to justify territorial claims. The purpose of paragraph 6 they contend was simply "to ensure that acts of self-determination occur within the established boundaries of colonies, rather than within sub-regions". This is the position, for example, of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has pointed out that the use of the word "attempt" in paragraph 6 connotes future action, and that paragraph 6 cannot therefore be construed to justify territorial redress for past actions. Its aim is rather to protect "colonial territories or countries that have recently become independent against attempts to divide them...at a time which they are least able to defend themselves. This interpretation makes paragraph 6 subordinate to paragraph 2, so that the right of self-determination remains available to the inhabitants of all non-self-governing territories without exception. |
” |
The above quote demonstrates that the interpretation of territorial integrity clauses are not straight forward. Further that the principle used by Spain is not universally accepted and flatly rejected by others. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd deal with Imalbornoz's final paragraph above, and would invite editors to compare the tone and implication of that quote with the tone and implication of the paragraph from which it was drawn:
“ | But, if 'indigenousness' is now being used by the General Assembly as a criterion to determine whether a population is entitled to self-determination, it has never been defined by the General Assembly, nor has it been applied by the Assembly in any consistent manner. With regard to Gibraltar, the General Assembly concluded that 250 years of habitation was insufficient to establish the indigenous character of the territory's inhabitants. Yet the General Assembly refused to draw any distinction based on indigenousness between the native Fijian and immigrant Indian communities, insisting that independence should be attained on the basis of 'one man, one vote'. Nor did the Assembly take into account the notion of indigenousness in the case of Belize. Forty per cent of the population of Belize was made up of Guatemalan Mayan Indians, the remaining 60 per cent had come to Belize from neighbouring Caribbean islands. Yet when Guatemala attempted to argue that this 60 per cent of Belize's population were non-indigenous to the territory, the General Assembly not only made no mention of this issue but, in Resolution 35/20 of 11 November 1980, reaffirmed 'the inalienable right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity'. If 'indigenousness' has been a factor in the General Assembly's decisions with regard to self-determination, it has been applied by the Assembly in a highly selective and far from uniform manner. However, the Assembly has never explicitly indicated that it does take 'indigenousness' into consideration in deciding whether a particular population is a people with a right of self-determination. | ” |
I would suggest that this makes it clear that the quote is discussing the UNGA, not the Gibraltar dispute. Pfainuk talk 16:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#Theoretical Question on Sources - Related to Gibraltar Sovereignty Dispute
Original German-language quote
| |||
---|---|---|---|
|
“ | For centuries, Britain was Spain’s arch rival. The victory over the powerful Spanish Armada opened the way to the United Kingdom Commonwealth. Even if the new European realities, especially those of the EU and NATO, Spain and the UK, as occasionally as a partner and in close political proximity (especially when it comes to fight off German-French ideas and initiatives), there remains a relic from colonial times, the crucial issue between the two countries: the rock of Gibraltar. The Spanish Government has repeatedly asked a return of Gibraltar, which stands for the Peace of Utrecht in 1713, which ended the War of Spanish Succession (1701-1713/14, 1704 capture of the Rock by the British), under British sovereignty. The territory of only 6.5 sq km and about 27 600 inhabitants in 2001, Crown Colony since 1830. Since the Constitution of 1969, it enjoys internal autonomy while the defense and foreign policy and domestic security and (in part) constitutional issues is still Great Britain. At the same time, Gibraltar is a nuclear base of the British military in the geo-strategically important straits at the exit of the Mediterranean.
Great Britain’s strict refusal to recognize, in spite of UN pressure (resolution 2070 of 1965), the question of sovereignty over Gibraltar as a subject of negotiations, was answered by Franco with various counter-reactions. They culminated in the fact that Spain closed its border with Gibraltar in 1969. As early as 1967, Britain held a referendum in which 95.8% of voters voted Gibraltar to remain in the UK and only 44 voters for the connection to Spain. The re-democratization of Spain and the new context of EU accession and NATO membership have made certain changes in the Gibraltar issue. Spain opened in 1982 and 1985, partially complete the crossing. A significant progress in December 1984 yielded the agreement reached in Brussels, in which the British government for the first time since the Peace of Utrecht declared willing to clarify through negotiations the existing differences between Britain and Spain over the sovereignty of Gibraltar. Fruit of this approach was the early December 1987 Spanish-British agreement reached on the joint use of Gibraltar airport. In Gibraltar, even this was only little support. In protest came from Gibraltar's then Prime Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, the same month back. The anti-Spanish Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party (GSLP), led by Joe Bossano, also won the parliamentary elections in Gibraltar on 24 March 1988, by an absolute majority. On the basis of the Brussels Convention, it came in the 1990s to a more advanced cooperation in economic, cultural and tourism issues on the central question of the sovereignty of Gibraltar, however, the legal positions remain unchanged opposite. Spain considered Gibraltar as a colonial relic, whose future is ultimately the re-integration into the Spanish territory. The arguments for this are the fact that the UN General Assembly on the recommendation of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee has repeatedly made (most recently in December 1995) decisions on the solution to the Gibraltar problem, on the other hand, the Treaty of Utrecht, in the the case of a sale or other types of disposal of Gibraltar by the British crown explicitly the right of first option, Spain mentioned. UK, however, always insisted that without the will of the people of Gibraltar a return to Spain is not an option. Only in July of 2002, after protracted negotiations, Great Britain and Spain reached a degree of convergence of their views on the future of Gibraltar, when they were on the proposal of a condominium, that had a future agreement between the two countries shared sovereignty. UK entrenched itself no longer behind the argument that under the Constitution of Gibraltar's status can be changed without the prior consent of Gibraltar's population, but had to sign a condominium agreement ready, the practical implementation of course requires a posteriori a referendum of the Gibraltarians. On the other hand, Spain, whose ultimate goal the attainment of full sovereignty over Gibraltar is now willing to sign an agreement on shared sovereignty. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Peter Caruana, whose goal is through a constitutional reform to enshrine the right of Gibraltar to self determination, reacted with the holding of a referendum on 7th November 2002, not recognized by Britain nor Spain. In it 98.9% of votes rejected the proposal of shared sovereignty (only 187 for it). It is not evident, as can be resolved in the near or medium term future of the traditional dispute between the two countries. |
” |
This source comes from a third country and summarizes the sovereignty dispute. Even though the beginning is not too promising (a bit too literary IMHO), the rest is rather academically proficient. The publisher is quite serious. The approach is a bit chronological, and is dated before the new Constitution. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 20:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT Well, I hope that the answers to Wee's post at the RSN [23] settle the issue and we can consider this as an "acedamically proficient" source and move on. Just in case, please check the following:
Guys, you could have researched this yourselves before using expressions such as "demonstrably flawed", "to use a little common sense", "Disproving that claim is pretty trivial (though outside the scope of this process)", "riddled with factual errors"...
Again, I hope this settles the question. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 07:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The RSN noticeboard also pointed out this is an opinion piece and is not a neutral and objective summary as you claimed. In addition, it is not a reliable source for facts that are demonstrably in error. Semantic arguments don't change the latter and noting the former it should be acknowledged as an opinion piece if it is used at all. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
“ | Not a quote | ” |
I think a major point has been missed in the creation of this process. The primary point of disagreement is not so much the facts (though there is some dispute there) but the level of detail that should be included. This article is shorter than it used to be, but it's still overly long.
It's not as though we don't already have two articles on the dispute ( Disputed status of Gibraltar and Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain). Some might say that that is already one too many.
As such, it seems to me reasonable to point out that every section of this article is and should be in summary form. A complete overview of the sources is not appropriate here, but that's what this section appears to me to be encouraging. There will be significant points on both sides that will be and should be left out in our summary of the dispute - and I don't see why we should feel that there is anything wrong with that. Pfainuk talk 22:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask a couple of questions?
Is there a reason why the same source has been listed three times? Once by me and subsequently twice by Imalbornoz. See [24]. Would it not be better to group quotes in the same place?
Is it also not important to separate fact from opinion? For example when Spain claims that UN resolutions support its claim, that is an opinion of the Spanish Government. The facts are the resolutions call for negotiations. Nothing more. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
For the record, we did include text that summarises Spain's view on decolonisation. In a manner appropriate for an overview. 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing some sources to the table and for working with this approach. Let's get some more sources on the table, then we'll start talking about the sources before us. Sound good? -- Vassyana ( talk) 04:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
If we are going to quote sources, can we please use complete paragraphs and not cherry pick? It gives the appearance of selective quoting to misrepresent and it is academically bankrupt. While we are on the subject, there are plenty of good sources, lets please not use Lonely Planet. We are not so short we need to shove a small child into the barrel to get the dregs. -- Narson ~ Talk • 03:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:BOLD I have made a bold edit and removed all details from the article that are disputed per WP:NPOV, in doing so I have also removed the NPOV tag I placed earlier. If there is a serious intention to take this to MEDCOM, I believe this to be a sensible compromise. It means that no one has ownership of the current text in the article. I have to say though, the article is no poorer for its passing.
If this is maintained I will agree to take the case to MEDCOM, where hopefully there can be agreement reached. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have offered a compromise to remove disputed text, which doesn't actually affect the article at all. That is being rejected for an insistence on the status quo. Very well, I have reverted. My conduct was not disruptive and I ask that accusation is withdrawn. I also withdraw my consent to agree to MEDCOM. I am not prepared to enter into any form of mediation where there are preconditions attached. I do not agree to a moratorium on editing to maintain a preferred text that I consider at odds with NPOV. I will be considering my options and formulating a response to the criticism of my proposed edit presently. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
[25] This does not represent consensus, the last time there was any consensus over this passge was as the result of mediation led by User:Atama. The text you have reverted was not and still is not a consensus text. It was imposed over and above serious objections as to its neutrality and its cherry picking of facts to creat a misleading impression. It was imposed by weight of numbers not weight of argument. This wasn't even a revert, pointedly the {{POV}} tag was not restored. And where pray is the discussion following the revert? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The point of WP:BRD is that the discussion on the subject of the edit actually takes place, not that we instead discuss other things (as happened last time BRD was invoked on this particular topic). I do not see that it is unreasonable to suggest that the ed should be restored as a new consensus if no substantial objection is raised (the position we are currently in).
The current text, very clearly, does not currently have consensus. We should be aiming to reach a point where we can get a text that does have consensus.
So let me ask a question that is similar to Curry Monster's. The current text has a long list of what some call "atrocities" (a very POV term). I contend such a list is neither desirable nor useful in an overview of Gibraltar history, and that the article currently strongly overemphasises this point to the exclusion of other relevant points - points that could easily be mentioned in the brief space available, as Curry Monster demonstrates. What compromise is possible to achieve a more balanced text? Pfainuk talk 19:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Some guidelines from policy I'd like to draw to people's attention, see WP:CON:
“ | Consensus discussion have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic. It is useful to remember that consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia. It is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise - with the understanding that the article is gradually improving - than to try to fight to implement a particular 'perfect' version immediately. | ” |
Pfainuk raised a number of objections to this text at the time, the fact that he acquiesced finally with the current version of the text should not be taken as a definitive statement that he fully accepted it at the time. It was a less than perfect compromise, from my perspective a flawed compromise in that it gives undues weight to what is repeatedly referred to by editors as "atrocities", so I will again draw attention to policy guidelines WP:WORDS and WP:LABEL and ask editors to refrain from using emotive language in talk page discussions. Given the nature of the discussion in the talk page at the time, Pfainuk's position was entirely understandable. I note that there were several inflammatory comments raised at the time, so letting go on this defused tension. I can of course provide diffs to several offending comments but I don't see that dwelling on the past is either helpful or healthy.
“ | Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed. | ” |
Please note your objection, "this is consensus", without a clear policy based objective is not grounds or reason to reject my proposed edit.
“ | Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things. | ” |
Pfainuk is perfectly entitled to change his mind about the previous edit, a new proposal has been put forward, which I consider a better way of doing things. It appears that he agrees with me. I note also there appears to be no arguments for maintaining the status quo, this being the second "discussion", where no substantive policy based objection has been raised. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Even if it is generally accepted that the current text is the previous consensus, I see no particular reason why I should feel I have to "respect" that consensus when a proposal is made to change it and no-one voices any objection to it. Either you're invoking WP:BRD, which requires you to actually discuss why you reverted, or else you're not, in which case you have no business in reverting the edit.
You say that it leaves out point "very relevant to Gibraltar's history" - not really. In fact it adds information that is very relevant to Gibraltar's history, without removing very much at all: it gives a more rounded overview of the events surrounding the capture of Gibraltar without running across a POV minefield by going on and on and on about the details of one particular aspect of it. Both are advantages. Pfainuk talk 11:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
UNINDENT
I prefer the current text vis a vis Wee's edit because the latter removes certain facts that are very relevant to the History of Gibraltar: A) the episodes that happened during the capture and drove away the population of Gibraltar (rapes, plunder and desecrations) and B) the subsequent exile of the largest part of the population of Gibraltar to San Roque
They are very noteworthy therefore they should be briefly included in the article.
A) Regarding the abuses on the population:
“ | English authorities note with surprise, but without any explanation, that almost the entire population of Gibraltar fled from the town, though one of the articles of war specifically promised that 'the inhabitants, soldiers and officers who may choose to remain in Gibraltar shall be conceded the same privileges they had in the time of Carlos II, their religion and all the tribunals shall remain intact . . .' The truth would seem to be most discreditable to the English, and has therefore been suppressed in English books. | ” |
(G. T. Garratt (1939).
Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. p. 40. {{
cite book}}
: External link in
(
help) (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
[27])
|title=
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |title=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |title=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |title=
(
help) (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
[28]
B) Regarding the exile to San Roque, it is very easy to check that it is noteworthy enough to be overwhelmingly covered by sources.
It is much more mentioned than other episodes that Wee and Pfainuk do not dispute in the article, so it's obvious that -following the standards set by themselves- "San Roque" is noteworthy enough to be mentioned:
compare with
I think these are enough reasons to satisfy Wee's and Pfainuk's question (even if they disagree with them). I agree with Richard that, in case anybody still wants to remove any mention of these facts in the overview article, we should discuss it after we get over with Vassyana's procedure regarding the sovereignty and territorial dispute. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 23:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Many of my points would be similar to Curry Monster's. I'm going to repeat them because they are important and we've gone off track.
(Incidentally, I note that no case accepted since last June has actually managed to proceed at Medcom. There are three requests that have been waiting for over three months and another that's nearly at that stage. I see no good reason to push this process back by the months or even years that it would take Medcom to get to it.)
The substance
So we now have a series of arguments against this change. None of them would seem to make any particularly good case against it, but they are there. This needs further discussion and I suggest that we start by sticking to the topic at hand: how best to handle these points in our article. Pfainuk talk 18:48, 10 January 2011 (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 these 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 above, which no doubt will satisfy no one but treat the incident in a neutral manner. As I have pointed out many times, I do not feel the article benefits from a pre-occupation with what I refer to as "atrocity tennis". | ” |
WP:MEDCOM Statistics
|
---|
|
Google books with "Gibraltar" in the title, and explicitly mentioning the exodus to San Roque in 1704
|
---|
|
Imalbornoz, I have asked you politely to stop referring to me in that manner. You promised to stop and then did it again.
I can't really add much to Pfainuk's comments but I will ask what do you actually hope to achieve with this wall of text? We're trying to have a meaningful discussion about depth of coverage suitable for an overview. There is no dispute about the events and you flooded the page with a huge wall of text to prove the events happened. This doesn't address the argument about depth of coverage at all.
Again no one disputes that the events of the take over were possibly a factor in the departure. But they weren't the only factor. Wikipedia NPOV policy requires we report all. Your insistence on only the one you favour is at odds with that policy.
You're reporting Garrat's opinion from 1939 as if it remains relevant, that it is irrelevant should be more than apparent from the number of English language texts you've just quoted. All too easily it can be taken to infer an oblique accusation against other editors are motivated by such sentiments. I see that Pfainuk independently identifed the same, that should tell you something.
You invoked WP:BRD, are you prepared to consider a compromise from the current text? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it fair to conclude from that response that you are not prepared to compromise on any point along the lines I suggested?
Equally when I have added details of equal and in some cases more significance and relevance to balance the text for NPOV, you have rejected those additions. It is fair to conclude that you are not prepared to allow those changes either?
You insist on using the loaded word "atrocity" to describe these events. They weren't atrocities, criminal certainly but not atrocities. An atrocity is an event like the Srebrenica massacre and to use that term here cheapens events like that. Its an adding an unnecessarily emotive aspect to the discussion. I note omitted from your list is the act of murder and there was no deliberate massacres of the population. In the opinion of some authors it was worse than the agreed 18th Century standard for rape and plunder, those are the author's opinions it is not a fact.
Equally you also insist on the word "descration", another loaded term. From the perspective of an 18th Century English protestant, the statue of the Virgin Mary was "pagan idolatory" and of itself a descration of the house of god.
In both cases, these are WP:WORDS that WP:LABEL and have no place in either the article or discussion. This form of language is at odds with wikipedia policies. I would strongly suggest that you stop using them if we are to have a reasonable discussion.
What words would you actually suggest, rather than simply rejecting what has been put forward? And please avoid WP:WORDS that WP:LABEL.
Another point to consider. Reading the article currently, we have no idea of the reasons for seizing Gibraltar, we have no idea of the campaign objectives and equally we have no idea of how events during the take over ultimately frustrated those objectives. But we do know that some women were raped, they smashed a statue and they pinched a few things. Is this educating our readers. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I go back to my previous points:
I note also that you're now citing WP:SYNTH and WP:OR because the text doesn't quote the source. The text does not and has never had to quote the source. It's no more a logical argument now than it was the first time you made it.
You ask why we should have change here. We should have change because the current wording is POV. It overemphasises the violence and fails to provide appropriate context. And I for one can't see any particular reason why events that have had no significant impact on any particular aspect of Gibraltar (such as the founding of a town several miles away) belong in an overview history of Gibraltar.
Now, the question I would ask is this. What compromises are you willing to make from the current text to allow us to achieve a consensus? Don't let's try and put it off to the never-never-land of a MEDCOM that might not be opened until June (or indeed much later at the rate it's currently going through cases). We can sort this. Pfainuk talk 19:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT
See [44], [45] and [46], nowhere are these events described as atrocities. Show me evidence per WP:V that in the historical perspective these events are described as "atrocities". Your sources do not back up this claim. This is entirely your WP:OR and I find this use of emotive language is inflaming tension and preventing a reasonable discussion. Please stop it.
Secondly, are you seriously claiming that the Battle of Trafalgar and the threat to Gibraltar in WW2 is less notable than these events? Is that really your argument? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I think all of us agree that when one of us makes a question in an outside noticeboard, it is very annoying to see other inside editors starting to hijack the discussion with walls of text. On the other hand, I understand that when one of us sees a question posted by someone else who misses some crucial point, the urge to make the question more neutral or complete is irresistible.
Maybe a good solution could be that all of us agree in a brief exposition of our dispute and then post it in the noticeboard with the compromise not to disturb the discussion with our comments. We could give it a try in the current post started by Wee (and collapse the current walls of text there). Otherwise, I'm afraid we will keep dissuading outside editors from commenting (once more).
One simple way to do it could be to agree t summarize the position for and against some edit (e.g. mentioning the atrocities and the exodus to San Roque) in -say- 100 words for and 100 words against (this is open to suggestions). One side of the discussion (say, Wee and Pfain) could take care of the for (or against) part and the other side (me and whoever else agrees with me) could fill the other part. We would first agree on the question and pro/con part here in the talk page and then we would post it in the noticeboard.
What do you think? -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 18:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
On every single occasion we have sought outside opinion it has been deterred by walls of text. Consistently anyone who expresses an opinion is immediately lobbied to support a particular position. Secondly, when there have been comments on edits, they have not explained the merits of an individual contribution rather undermined other contributions.
Again I make the point that text should stand on its own, supported by inline citations. I will re-iterate that I'm prepared to allow the community to judge on merit and will accept any outcome from that process. Are you prepared to do the same? A simple yes/no will suffice. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There's been a far amount of snark and rudeness in my absence. Keep it toned down, please. Continued insults, hostile attitudes, personal insinuations, or any other kind of talk page disruption will be stopped cold.
If you cannot control yourself in this topic area, you have a choice to bow out gracefully or be forced from the topic area in order to remove the disruption. Enough is enough. No more warnings. No more pleas for basic, civil working attitudes. If you disrupt discussions about Gibraltar further, you will be banned from this entire topic area, including discussions. -- Vassyana ( talk) 19:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello! A case is now pending before the Mediation Cabal that lists this article as a site of the dispute. All interested editors are welcome to participate in the mediation process which is here. I ask that all named parties and all interested parties indicate their acceptance of mediation below my initial statement on the case page. Until mediation concludes, I invite all editors to take a break from editing of this page, in an effort to cool down. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 20:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The mediation process is now starting. The first phase starts here. -- Lord Roem ( talk) 12:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Process:
Conditions:
What do you think of the proposed process? What about the conditions? Let's see out a clear road and clear conditions. -- Vassyana ( talk) 19:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we should be able to find a reasonable summary, despite the source length. We regularly create few paragraph summaries for sub-topics that have more written about them than the entirety of Gibraltar subjects.
Do you have an alternative suggestion for ensuring a short summary? For example, Richard suggests below that I be permitted to unilaterally cut things down. Another alternative might be having me invite outside GA/FA editors to do it. You thoughts?
On the general process, I truly believe in the high value of the working experience. Solving long-standing disagreements usually leads to a much better editing environment and working relationships. The value of solving the dispute, in my years of DR experience, is not so much its relation to the broader topic but rather the prominence in conflicts and discussion. While future discussions need not be so restricted or lengthy, it also provides a real working example of going from source collection to summarized article text. Think of it like learning a subject; the initial exposure is always more lengthy and tedious than practicing the discipline going forward. -- Vassyana ( talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Points noted above. Are these acceptable to everyone involved? -- Vassyana ( talk) 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I am heading out for the morning and afternoon, but I will return later today. I will put up a post to get the ball rolling on sorting out the modern political dispute. Just wanted to make sure you knew that I didn't forget you during my wiki-absence. Cheers! -- Vassyana ( talk) 10:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a suggestion:
I don't know whether members of the British armed forces in Gibraltar are exlusively men or include servicewomen too. Footnote number three on the Gibraltar page mentions that the population figure quoted does not include British Servicemen and their wives and families. Would it be more correct to say instead that it 'does not include British service men and women or their families' (no need to mention spouses separately as the term 'family' encompasses both spouses and children) Ulysses Elias 31.01.11
All, I have my own panoramic photo of the airport, bay and La Linea uploaded, let me know if you think this would make a nice addition to the article.
Lipatden ( talk) 14:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a nice image. I'd just suggest that, before you make a bold edit, that you check the opinions of the Good Article reviewer at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gibraltar/GA1, who said: There's three images of the Rock of Gibraltar in the geography section -- two on the left and one on the right with the map beneath it. This seems like a tad overkill. I'd pick one of those images and leave the rest in the Rock of Gibraltar article." Go for it! Richard Keatinge ( talk) 15:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I have seen that Wee Curry Monster has returned the article to his preferred version of an episode under discussion (removing the atrocities during the capture and the reference to the exodus to San Roque), without consulting the mediator or other editors. I kindly ask him and others to return to the discussion. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 17:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
So the position is, Imalbornoz is not willing to make any compromises to resolve this point and is instead going to insist that we give massively undue weight to one particular point, regardless of the weight it is given by the sources?
We need compromise from you here, Richard and Imalbornoz. If you want to reach a solution, we need to see how you're willing to do it. Don't keep asking us to come up with the suggestions: you know what the objections are, how do you intend to address them. Pfainuk talk 19:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Richard: Curry Monster and I have both made proposals, and you have rejected them - but I for one am not at all clear as to why you in particular rejected them. Could you detail your objection to the texts proposed here - and in particular the text proposed here - please? Note that I would like more than vague references to previous discussions. This discussion has been so long that I would consider it unreasonable to expect any editor to trawl through the archives for objections made texts other than those being proposed.
Also, since we're all working toward a common consensus here, I believe that it would be useful for you to come up with proposals as to how you think we can most easily come to a consensus. The objections to the current wording that need to be addressed are described in some detail here, so there should be no problem in determining the issues that you need to consider. Your providing a text that attempts to address these objections would improve our situation by giving us all a greater understanding as to your view as to what the most appropriate text would be, potentially allowing for progress on our sticking points here.
If no reasoned objections to my proposed edit - as included by Curry Monster per WP:BOLD - are forthcoming, then I will reinstate it on the basis that no objection of substance appears to have been made against it. Simply saying that it needs to be discussed is inadequate unless you are actually willing to engage in discussion - discussion about the specific point. It is not appropriate behaviour on Wikipedia to revert solely on the basis that you claim no consensus. Pfainuk talk 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It's really hard to imagine how we might proceed constructively. Trying to force in an edit that has been repeatedly rejected probably isn't a good approach. But we could, as Vassyana suggests, start by listing the points that the sources make. Or we could start at the other end, by suggesting a text, preferably one that takes into account suggestions and discussion already available at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-14/Gibraltar and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 18. An idea that begins to look quite attractive is for all four of us to take a year's break from Gibraltar and related articles, so that we can use out talents more constructively elsewhere. Thoughts? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:26, 17 March 2011 (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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Gibraltar is a spanish town where is spoken english very much... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.140.163.10 ( talk) 12:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
May I suggest that we start by putting possible additions into this table, one line per potential addition? I assume that everyone knows how to add text and extra lines, but it's fairly obvious from the edit screen. It may be particularly useful if you can put in points that you don't personally agree with. I'd also like to suggest keeping the comments brief. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 19:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The fact which might be included | One or more references | Actual wording in the source | The authority of the source, see WP:RS | Brief comments supporting inclusion / sufficient notability | Brief comments for non-inclusion / insufficient notability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
There are discussions repeating the same circles again and the tone of some editors is becoming extremely combative and uncooperative. All of those discussing matters here have been given a warning about discretionary sanctions. Evaluate your comments. If you cannot say 100% that your comments are productive and focused on how to improve the article, you should question whether they are disruptive (or whether myself or another administrator will judge them so).
I will consider disruptive comments anything that disrupts the article improvement and consensus building process. Personal accusations and roadblocking without providing a clear rationale or alternative are two obvious examples. Small side banter and the occasional groan of frustration are not disruptive, as two obvious counterexamples.
Please focus on productive discussion and research. Any incidents of roadblocking or incivility will be rewarded with a topic break under discretionary sanctions. Vassyana ( talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
O We have, subject of course to anyone else exercising their right to disagree, a consensus text:
“ | While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity.
The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK also accepts a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht that states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept that this limits its right to self-determination. Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UK and Gibraltar argue that under the criteria specified by UN Resolution 1541 Gibraltar has been decolonised, meriting removal. Spain supports its retention arguing that Gibraltar has not been decolonised as required by UN Resolution 1514. |
” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. I wasn't aware of this discusion, but I was kindly warned in my talk page by Vassyana. I've reading the discussion and what I miss is a mention to the position of Spain with regard to the UN resolutions. Besides what you mention, Spain simply ask for the fulfillment of the UN resolutions on the question of Gibraltar. The issue here is that the UN resolutions support the Spanish position (and therefore Spain wished they to be fulfilled). -- Ecemaml ( talk) 15:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
May I appeal for calm at this time. I am disappointed by this and I sense Richard is too; we've both worked hard to build a consensus text here. This has been positive and I would like it to continue. However, reluctantly I would have to add my voice to User:Pfainuk at this time and now register my opposition to incorporation of this text.
I would suggest everyone takes a break for 24 hrs. I am going to go away and work on a response and seek advice before I post again. A point to note, this is what I hope to be a temporary withdrawal of support not a statement of intransigence. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry WMC, Richard, I agree with Pfain on this. If this is, rather than a genuine consensus position simply a 'thin end of a wedge' edit designed to open up a can of worms, then it seriously impacts on the virtue of the edit. I would rather consider whatever edit Imalbornoz plans in full so I can examine its merits. Given recent events, the level of faith remaining is low and this was a bloody foolish thing to bring up IMO. Especially when it has been round the houses so many times before. There is no point in making this edit if the second it is made we have a new conversation on changing the exact same text. -- Narson ~ Talk • 00:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The suggested statement “The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar.” seems factually incorrect to me; at least, I am not aware of any such ‘willingness’. In my opinion, the current phrasing “it is UK Government policy not to engage in talks about the sovereignty of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar.” is quite adequate. Apcbg ( talk) 09:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of
territorial integrity.
The UK has negotiated on this request, but cites the principle of self-determination, and has since declared that it will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK also accepts a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht that states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept that this limits its right to self-determination. Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UK and Gibraltar argue that under the criteria specified by UN Resolution 1541 Gibraltar has been decolonised, meriting removal. Spain supports its retention arguing that Gibraltar has not been decolonised as required by UN Resolution 1514. |
” |
On whether to include now, I'll keep quiet as suggested for a bit. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I am still reconsidering my position and remain disappointed that consensus appears to have unravelled. I do however support the position that this cannot be the starting point for yet another debate in a months time about including yet more detail about the sovereignty dispute. WP:COATRACK is an instructive essay on the matter, this would unbalance the article which is intended to be an overview on Gibraltar. I believed the consensus text we were working on was to fulfill the role of that overview. Gibraltar has a fascinating history, it is a complex and vibrant modern city; an overview article should reflect this, not be a platform to state competing claims. Hence, I remained opposed to the suggestion that we include text that supports one national position, whether it is the British, Gibraltar or Spanish position.
Per the arbcom decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltar#National and territorial disputes and similar conflicts Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds., I do not believe we should go down the route of expanding the article in this manner. I would urge those pushing for this to reconsider.
Another element of the arbcom decision is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltar#Fact versus opinion. In drafting articles and especially in discussing disputed article content, editors should take appropriate care to distinguish reasonably agreed-upon facts from statements of opinion or partisan views. I would invite those who assert the UN supports the Spanish position to consider the relevance of this in line with their comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I will repeat that the purpose of this text is to provide a simple overview summary of the sovereignty dispute. It states the facts of the dispute and no more and in a manner appropriate for an overview. I believe there was a concensus for this approach.
What you're proposing would be the classic example of a WP:COATRACK, whereby an overview becomes transmorphed into an article on the sovereignty dispute. A simple neutral statement of the facts of the matter will suffice. That I believe we had achieved. I would oppose including additional details going in depth into various positions, as it is inappropriate for an overview.
May I once again draw attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltar#National and territorial disputes and similar conflicts, the discussion is deteriorating into nationalist lines again. I do not believe this is healthy. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Just kidding - obviously there is, but I cannot easily determine what it is. Can someone direct me to a summary of the dispute and proposed resolutions? I know nothing about Gibraltar. Thanks. Blue Rasberry 06:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | Some editors want to mention the UN POV about the dispute (which is usually interpreted as supporting Spain's position, as you can see in the collection of sources) but some editors don't want to include the UN POV because they say that it is too much detail for an overview. | ” |
Things are riding the same groove again. I will try to help you break out of that pattern. Let's completely refocus the discussion.
Subtopic:
Policy notes:
Let's start by compiling some quotes from secondary sources that summarize the issue. Focus on university level textbooks, overviews from reliable secondary sources, and similar references that are likely provide a good overview of the general consensus view. Outside sources such as French, American, or German scholars and textbooks would be ideal. Please leave out any discussion of how the section should be written. Stay focused on finding and discussing the reliable sources and what they say. Vassyana ( talk) 20:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Please include brief (one to two paragraph) quotations below, including citation information. Please cite reputable, independent sources that provide a good summary overview of the matter.
Most recent archive: 15:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
“ | However, the United Nations has indicated in a number of other cases that historical title can oust the right of self-determination, for example in the cases of Gibraltar and the Falkland islands.
Gibraltar was ceded to the United Kingdom by Spain in the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713. Article of the treaty declared that Spain would yield to the United Kingdom ‘the full and entire propriety [sic] of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications and forts thereunto belonging’. It also stipulated that, should the United Kingdom by any means ‘alienate’ Gibraltar, ‘the preference of having the same shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others’. Spain maintains that Article X creates a right of retrocession which, because it predates the development of the right of self-determination, must take precedence over that right, and must therefore apply to Gibraltar. Gibraltar cannot attain independence through exercising a right of self-determination, but must simply revert to Spain by virtue of Article X. This reversionary right under Article X is, according to Spain, reinforced by paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514(XV). (…) In the cases of both Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, the Assembly has decided that the territories in question should be returned to the claimant states, without the inhabitants of those territories being permitted to exercise the right of self-determination. (…) The General Assembly’s position with regard to the Falkland Islands appears to have been reached, as in the case of Gibraltar, largely on the basis that the Falkland Islanders are a ‘settler population’ occupying territory of a colonial power. Not being ‘indigenous’ to the territory they cannot be considered a ‘people’, and are therefore not entitled to self-determination as provided in paragraph 2 of Resolution 1514(XV). (…) With regard to Gibraltar, the General Assembly concluded that 250 years of habitation was insufficient to establish the indigenous character of the territory’s inhabitants. |
” |
These paragraphs have been extracted from a text that deals with several cases regarding self-determination and soverignty disputes. It deals with the cases of Falklands and Gibraltar (as an exception in UN policy to the principle of self-determination) for about 10 pages. I have cited paragraphs from the introduction and the conclusion to those two cases. Unfortunately, the 3 pages specifically regarding Gibraltar are not viewable in Google Books. I have asked my local public library for a copy of these pages (but I don't know how long it will take). If someone has access to those pages, could they please share them and/or tell me? Thanks. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 13:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Could I request that the source of the material highlighted be clarified in bold. I cannot find this text in the book quoted. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a quite crucial passage discussing territorial integrity in Musgrave's work:
(p239)
“ | Since the Second World War a number of states have laid claim to territories which they allege to have been detached from them as a result of colonisation. As legal justification for such claims Paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514(XV) has been cited. Paragraph 6 provides that any attempt "aimed at partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter". This paragraph it is argued, applies to situations in which the territorial integrity of a state has been disrupted as a result of colonisation, so that a return of the territory in question simply restores the state to its original condition. This means that the inhabitants of a territory claimed on the basis of historical title are precluded from exercising a right to self-determination...Although Paragraph 2 of Resolution 1514 (XV) provides that "all peoples have the right to self-determination", in cases of historical title paragraph 6 would pre-empt paragraph 2....
Many states reject this interpretation, arguing that paragraph 6 cannot be read to justify territorial claims. The purpose of paragraph 6 they contend was simply "to ensure that acts of self-determination occur within the established boundaries of colonies, rather than within sub-regions". This is the position, for example, of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has pointed out that the use of the word "attempt" in paragraph 6 connotes future action, and that paragraph 6 cannot therefore be construed to justify territorial redress for past actions. Its aim is rather to protect "colonial territories or countries that have recently become independent against attempts to divide them...at a time which they are least able to defend themselves. This interpretation makes paragraph 6 subordinate to paragraph 2, so that the right of self-determination remains available to the inhabitants of all non-self-governing territories without exception. |
” |
The above quote demonstrates that the interpretation of territorial integrity clauses are not straight forward. Further that the principle used by Spain is not universally accepted and flatly rejected by others. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd deal with Imalbornoz's final paragraph above, and would invite editors to compare the tone and implication of that quote with the tone and implication of the paragraph from which it was drawn:
“ | But, if 'indigenousness' is now being used by the General Assembly as a criterion to determine whether a population is entitled to self-determination, it has never been defined by the General Assembly, nor has it been applied by the Assembly in any consistent manner. With regard to Gibraltar, the General Assembly concluded that 250 years of habitation was insufficient to establish the indigenous character of the territory's inhabitants. Yet the General Assembly refused to draw any distinction based on indigenousness between the native Fijian and immigrant Indian communities, insisting that independence should be attained on the basis of 'one man, one vote'. Nor did the Assembly take into account the notion of indigenousness in the case of Belize. Forty per cent of the population of Belize was made up of Guatemalan Mayan Indians, the remaining 60 per cent had come to Belize from neighbouring Caribbean islands. Yet when Guatemala attempted to argue that this 60 per cent of Belize's population were non-indigenous to the territory, the General Assembly not only made no mention of this issue but, in Resolution 35/20 of 11 November 1980, reaffirmed 'the inalienable right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity'. If 'indigenousness' has been a factor in the General Assembly's decisions with regard to self-determination, it has been applied by the Assembly in a highly selective and far from uniform manner. However, the Assembly has never explicitly indicated that it does take 'indigenousness' into consideration in deciding whether a particular population is a people with a right of self-determination. | ” |
I would suggest that this makes it clear that the quote is discussing the UNGA, not the Gibraltar dispute. Pfainuk talk 16:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#Theoretical Question on Sources - Related to Gibraltar Sovereignty Dispute
Original German-language quote
| |||
---|---|---|---|
|
“ | For centuries, Britain was Spain’s arch rival. The victory over the powerful Spanish Armada opened the way to the United Kingdom Commonwealth. Even if the new European realities, especially those of the EU and NATO, Spain and the UK, as occasionally as a partner and in close political proximity (especially when it comes to fight off German-French ideas and initiatives), there remains a relic from colonial times, the crucial issue between the two countries: the rock of Gibraltar. The Spanish Government has repeatedly asked a return of Gibraltar, which stands for the Peace of Utrecht in 1713, which ended the War of Spanish Succession (1701-1713/14, 1704 capture of the Rock by the British), under British sovereignty. The territory of only 6.5 sq km and about 27 600 inhabitants in 2001, Crown Colony since 1830. Since the Constitution of 1969, it enjoys internal autonomy while the defense and foreign policy and domestic security and (in part) constitutional issues is still Great Britain. At the same time, Gibraltar is a nuclear base of the British military in the geo-strategically important straits at the exit of the Mediterranean.
Great Britain’s strict refusal to recognize, in spite of UN pressure (resolution 2070 of 1965), the question of sovereignty over Gibraltar as a subject of negotiations, was answered by Franco with various counter-reactions. They culminated in the fact that Spain closed its border with Gibraltar in 1969. As early as 1967, Britain held a referendum in which 95.8% of voters voted Gibraltar to remain in the UK and only 44 voters for the connection to Spain. The re-democratization of Spain and the new context of EU accession and NATO membership have made certain changes in the Gibraltar issue. Spain opened in 1982 and 1985, partially complete the crossing. A significant progress in December 1984 yielded the agreement reached in Brussels, in which the British government for the first time since the Peace of Utrecht declared willing to clarify through negotiations the existing differences between Britain and Spain over the sovereignty of Gibraltar. Fruit of this approach was the early December 1987 Spanish-British agreement reached on the joint use of Gibraltar airport. In Gibraltar, even this was only little support. In protest came from Gibraltar's then Prime Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, the same month back. The anti-Spanish Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party (GSLP), led by Joe Bossano, also won the parliamentary elections in Gibraltar on 24 March 1988, by an absolute majority. On the basis of the Brussels Convention, it came in the 1990s to a more advanced cooperation in economic, cultural and tourism issues on the central question of the sovereignty of Gibraltar, however, the legal positions remain unchanged opposite. Spain considered Gibraltar as a colonial relic, whose future is ultimately the re-integration into the Spanish territory. The arguments for this are the fact that the UN General Assembly on the recommendation of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee has repeatedly made (most recently in December 1995) decisions on the solution to the Gibraltar problem, on the other hand, the Treaty of Utrecht, in the the case of a sale or other types of disposal of Gibraltar by the British crown explicitly the right of first option, Spain mentioned. UK, however, always insisted that without the will of the people of Gibraltar a return to Spain is not an option. Only in July of 2002, after protracted negotiations, Great Britain and Spain reached a degree of convergence of their views on the future of Gibraltar, when they were on the proposal of a condominium, that had a future agreement between the two countries shared sovereignty. UK entrenched itself no longer behind the argument that under the Constitution of Gibraltar's status can be changed without the prior consent of Gibraltar's population, but had to sign a condominium agreement ready, the practical implementation of course requires a posteriori a referendum of the Gibraltarians. On the other hand, Spain, whose ultimate goal the attainment of full sovereignty over Gibraltar is now willing to sign an agreement on shared sovereignty. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Peter Caruana, whose goal is through a constitutional reform to enshrine the right of Gibraltar to self determination, reacted with the holding of a referendum on 7th November 2002, not recognized by Britain nor Spain. In it 98.9% of votes rejected the proposal of shared sovereignty (only 187 for it). It is not evident, as can be resolved in the near or medium term future of the traditional dispute between the two countries. |
” |
This source comes from a third country and summarizes the sovereignty dispute. Even though the beginning is not too promising (a bit too literary IMHO), the rest is rather academically proficient. The publisher is quite serious. The approach is a bit chronological, and is dated before the new Constitution. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 20:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
UNINDENT Well, I hope that the answers to Wee's post at the RSN [23] settle the issue and we can consider this as an "acedamically proficient" source and move on. Just in case, please check the following:
Guys, you could have researched this yourselves before using expressions such as "demonstrably flawed", "to use a little common sense", "Disproving that claim is pretty trivial (though outside the scope of this process)", "riddled with factual errors"...
Again, I hope this settles the question. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 07:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The RSN noticeboard also pointed out this is an opinion piece and is not a neutral and objective summary as you claimed. In addition, it is not a reliable source for facts that are demonstrably in error. Semantic arguments don't change the latter and noting the former it should be acknowledged as an opinion piece if it is used at all. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
“ | Not a quote | ” |
I think a major point has been missed in the creation of this process. The primary point of disagreement is not so much the facts (though there is some dispute there) but the level of detail that should be included. This article is shorter than it used to be, but it's still overly long.
It's not as though we don't already have two articles on the dispute ( Disputed status of Gibraltar and Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain). Some might say that that is already one too many.
As such, it seems to me reasonable to point out that every section of this article is and should be in summary form. A complete overview of the sources is not appropriate here, but that's what this section appears to me to be encouraging. There will be significant points on both sides that will be and should be left out in our summary of the dispute - and I don't see why we should feel that there is anything wrong with that. Pfainuk talk 22:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask a couple of questions?
Is there a reason why the same source has been listed three times? Once by me and subsequently twice by Imalbornoz. See [24]. Would it not be better to group quotes in the same place?
Is it also not important to separate fact from opinion? For example when Spain claims that UN resolutions support its claim, that is an opinion of the Spanish Government. The facts are the resolutions call for negotiations. Nothing more. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
For the record, we did include text that summarises Spain's view on decolonisation. In a manner appropriate for an overview. 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing some sources to the table and for working with this approach. Let's get some more sources on the table, then we'll start talking about the sources before us. Sound good? -- Vassyana ( talk) 04:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
If we are going to quote sources, can we please use complete paragraphs and not cherry pick? It gives the appearance of selective quoting to misrepresent and it is academically bankrupt. While we are on the subject, there are plenty of good sources, lets please not use Lonely Planet. We are not so short we need to shove a small child into the barrel to get the dregs. -- Narson ~ Talk • 03:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:BOLD I have made a bold edit and removed all details from the article that are disputed per WP:NPOV, in doing so I have also removed the NPOV tag I placed earlier. If there is a serious intention to take this to MEDCOM, I believe this to be a sensible compromise. It means that no one has ownership of the current text in the article. I have to say though, the article is no poorer for its passing.
If this is maintained I will agree to take the case to MEDCOM, where hopefully there can be agreement reached. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have offered a compromise to remove disputed text, which doesn't actually affect the article at all. That is being rejected for an insistence on the status quo. Very well, I have reverted. My conduct was not disruptive and I ask that accusation is withdrawn. I also withdraw my consent to agree to MEDCOM. I am not prepared to enter into any form of mediation where there are preconditions attached. I do not agree to a moratorium on editing to maintain a preferred text that I consider at odds with NPOV. I will be considering my options and formulating a response to the criticism of my proposed edit presently. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
[25] This does not represent consensus, the last time there was any consensus over this passge was as the result of mediation led by User:Atama. The text you have reverted was not and still is not a consensus text. It was imposed over and above serious objections as to its neutrality and its cherry picking of facts to creat a misleading impression. It was imposed by weight of numbers not weight of argument. This wasn't even a revert, pointedly the {{POV}} tag was not restored. And where pray is the discussion following the revert? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The point of WP:BRD is that the discussion on the subject of the edit actually takes place, not that we instead discuss other things (as happened last time BRD was invoked on this particular topic). I do not see that it is unreasonable to suggest that the ed should be restored as a new consensus if no substantial objection is raised (the position we are currently in).
The current text, very clearly, does not currently have consensus. We should be aiming to reach a point where we can get a text that does have consensus.
So let me ask a question that is similar to Curry Monster's. The current text has a long list of what some call "atrocities" (a very POV term). I contend such a list is neither desirable nor useful in an overview of Gibraltar history, and that the article currently strongly overemphasises this point to the exclusion of other relevant points - points that could easily be mentioned in the brief space available, as Curry Monster demonstrates. What compromise is possible to achieve a more balanced text? Pfainuk talk 19:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Some guidelines from policy I'd like to draw to people's attention, see WP:CON:
“ | Consensus discussion have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic. It is useful to remember that consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia. It is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise - with the understanding that the article is gradually improving - than to try to fight to implement a particular 'perfect' version immediately. | ” |
Pfainuk raised a number of objections to this text at the time, the fact that he acquiesced finally with the current version of the text should not be taken as a definitive statement that he fully accepted it at the time. It was a less than perfect compromise, from my perspective a flawed compromise in that it gives undues weight to what is repeatedly referred to by editors as "atrocities", so I will again draw attention to policy guidelines WP:WORDS and WP:LABEL and ask editors to refrain from using emotive language in talk page discussions. Given the nature of the discussion in the talk page at the time, Pfainuk's position was entirely understandable. I note that there were several inflammatory comments raised at the time, so letting go on this defused tension. I can of course provide diffs to several offending comments but I don't see that dwelling on the past is either helpful or healthy.
“ | Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed. | ” |
Please note your objection, "this is consensus", without a clear policy based objective is not grounds or reason to reject my proposed edit.
“ | Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things. | ” |
Pfainuk is perfectly entitled to change his mind about the previous edit, a new proposal has been put forward, which I consider a better way of doing things. It appears that he agrees with me. I note also there appears to be no arguments for maintaining the status quo, this being the second "discussion", where no substantive policy based objection has been raised. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Even if it is generally accepted that the current text is the previous consensus, I see no particular reason why I should feel I have to "respect" that consensus when a proposal is made to change it and no-one voices any objection to it. Either you're invoking WP:BRD, which requires you to actually discuss why you reverted, or else you're not, in which case you have no business in reverting the edit.
You say that it leaves out point "very relevant to Gibraltar's history" - not really. In fact it adds information that is very relevant to Gibraltar's history, without removing very much at all: it gives a more rounded overview of the events surrounding the capture of Gibraltar without running across a POV minefield by going on and on and on about the details of one particular aspect of it. Both are advantages. Pfainuk talk 11:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
UNINDENT
I prefer the current text vis a vis Wee's edit because the latter removes certain facts that are very relevant to the History of Gibraltar: A) the episodes that happened during the capture and drove away the population of Gibraltar (rapes, plunder and desecrations) and B) the subsequent exile of the largest part of the population of Gibraltar to San Roque
They are very noteworthy therefore they should be briefly included in the article.
A) Regarding the abuses on the population:
“ | English authorities note with surprise, but without any explanation, that almost the entire population of Gibraltar fled from the town, though one of the articles of war specifically promised that 'the inhabitants, soldiers and officers who may choose to remain in Gibraltar shall be conceded the same privileges they had in the time of Carlos II, their religion and all the tribunals shall remain intact . . .' The truth would seem to be most discreditable to the English, and has therefore been suppressed in English books. | ” |
(G. T. Garratt (1939).
Gibraltar And The Mediterranean. Coward-Mccann, Inc. p. 40. {{
cite book}}
: External link in
(
help) (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
[27])
|title=
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |title=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |title=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |title=
(
help) (reedited in 2007 by Lightning Source Inc)
[28]
B) Regarding the exile to San Roque, it is very easy to check that it is noteworthy enough to be overwhelmingly covered by sources.
It is much more mentioned than other episodes that Wee and Pfainuk do not dispute in the article, so it's obvious that -following the standards set by themselves- "San Roque" is noteworthy enough to be mentioned:
compare with
I think these are enough reasons to satisfy Wee's and Pfainuk's question (even if they disagree with them). I agree with Richard that, in case anybody still wants to remove any mention of these facts in the overview article, we should discuss it after we get over with Vassyana's procedure regarding the sovereignty and territorial dispute. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 23:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Many of my points would be similar to Curry Monster's. I'm going to repeat them because they are important and we've gone off track.
(Incidentally, I note that no case accepted since last June has actually managed to proceed at Medcom. There are three requests that have been waiting for over three months and another that's nearly at that stage. I see no good reason to push this process back by the months or even years that it would take Medcom to get to it.)
The substance
So we now have a series of arguments against this change. None of them would seem to make any particularly good case against it, but they are there. This needs further discussion and I suggest that we start by sticking to the topic at hand: how best to handle these points in our article. Pfainuk talk 18:48, 10 January 2011 (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 these 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 above, which no doubt will satisfy no one but treat the incident in a neutral manner. As I have pointed out many times, I do not feel the article benefits from a pre-occupation with what I refer to as "atrocity tennis". | ” |
WP:MEDCOM Statistics
|
---|
|
Google books with "Gibraltar" in the title, and explicitly mentioning the exodus to San Roque in 1704
|
---|
|
Imalbornoz, I have asked you politely to stop referring to me in that manner. You promised to stop and then did it again.
I can't really add much to Pfainuk's comments but I will ask what do you actually hope to achieve with this wall of text? We're trying to have a meaningful discussion about depth of coverage suitable for an overview. There is no dispute about the events and you flooded the page with a huge wall of text to prove the events happened. This doesn't address the argument about depth of coverage at all.
Again no one disputes that the events of the take over were possibly a factor in the departure. But they weren't the only factor. Wikipedia NPOV policy requires we report all. Your insistence on only the one you favour is at odds with that policy.
You're reporting Garrat's opinion from 1939 as if it remains relevant, that it is irrelevant should be more than apparent from the number of English language texts you've just quoted. All too easily it can be taken to infer an oblique accusation against other editors are motivated by such sentiments. I see that Pfainuk independently identifed the same, that should tell you something.
You invoked WP:BRD, are you prepared to consider a compromise from the current text? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it fair to conclude from that response that you are not prepared to compromise on any point along the lines I suggested?
Equally when I have added details of equal and in some cases more significance and relevance to balance the text for NPOV, you have rejected those additions. It is fair to conclude that you are not prepared to allow those changes either?
You insist on using the loaded word "atrocity" to describe these events. They weren't atrocities, criminal certainly but not atrocities. An atrocity is an event like the Srebrenica massacre and to use that term here cheapens events like that. Its an adding an unnecessarily emotive aspect to the discussion. I note omitted from your list is the act of murder and there was no deliberate massacres of the population. In the opinion of some authors it was worse than the agreed 18th Century standard for rape and plunder, those are the author's opinions it is not a fact.
Equally you also insist on the word "descration", another loaded term. From the perspective of an 18th Century English protestant, the statue of the Virgin Mary was "pagan idolatory" and of itself a descration of the house of god.
In both cases, these are WP:WORDS that WP:LABEL and have no place in either the article or discussion. This form of language is at odds with wikipedia policies. I would strongly suggest that you stop using them if we are to have a reasonable discussion.
What words would you actually suggest, rather than simply rejecting what has been put forward? And please avoid WP:WORDS that WP:LABEL.
Another point to consider. Reading the article currently, we have no idea of the reasons for seizing Gibraltar, we have no idea of the campaign objectives and equally we have no idea of how events during the take over ultimately frustrated those objectives. But we do know that some women were raped, they smashed a statue and they pinched a few things. Is this educating our readers. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I go back to my previous points:
I note also that you're now citing WP:SYNTH and WP:OR because the text doesn't quote the source. The text does not and has never had to quote the source. It's no more a logical argument now than it was the first time you made it.
You ask why we should have change here. We should have change because the current wording is POV. It overemphasises the violence and fails to provide appropriate context. And I for one can't see any particular reason why events that have had no significant impact on any particular aspect of Gibraltar (such as the founding of a town several miles away) belong in an overview history of Gibraltar.
Now, the question I would ask is this. What compromises are you willing to make from the current text to allow us to achieve a consensus? Don't let's try and put it off to the never-never-land of a MEDCOM that might not be opened until June (or indeed much later at the rate it's currently going through cases). We can sort this. Pfainuk talk 19:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT
See [44], [45] and [46], nowhere are these events described as atrocities. Show me evidence per WP:V that in the historical perspective these events are described as "atrocities". Your sources do not back up this claim. This is entirely your WP:OR and I find this use of emotive language is inflaming tension and preventing a reasonable discussion. Please stop it.
Secondly, are you seriously claiming that the Battle of Trafalgar and the threat to Gibraltar in WW2 is less notable than these events? Is that really your argument? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I think all of us agree that when one of us makes a question in an outside noticeboard, it is very annoying to see other inside editors starting to hijack the discussion with walls of text. On the other hand, I understand that when one of us sees a question posted by someone else who misses some crucial point, the urge to make the question more neutral or complete is irresistible.
Maybe a good solution could be that all of us agree in a brief exposition of our dispute and then post it in the noticeboard with the compromise not to disturb the discussion with our comments. We could give it a try in the current post started by Wee (and collapse the current walls of text there). Otherwise, I'm afraid we will keep dissuading outside editors from commenting (once more).
One simple way to do it could be to agree t summarize the position for and against some edit (e.g. mentioning the atrocities and the exodus to San Roque) in -say- 100 words for and 100 words against (this is open to suggestions). One side of the discussion (say, Wee and Pfain) could take care of the for (or against) part and the other side (me and whoever else agrees with me) could fill the other part. We would first agree on the question and pro/con part here in the talk page and then we would post it in the noticeboard.
What do you think? -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 18:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
On every single occasion we have sought outside opinion it has been deterred by walls of text. Consistently anyone who expresses an opinion is immediately lobbied to support a particular position. Secondly, when there have been comments on edits, they have not explained the merits of an individual contribution rather undermined other contributions.
Again I make the point that text should stand on its own, supported by inline citations. I will re-iterate that I'm prepared to allow the community to judge on merit and will accept any outcome from that process. Are you prepared to do the same? A simple yes/no will suffice. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There's been a far amount of snark and rudeness in my absence. Keep it toned down, please. Continued insults, hostile attitudes, personal insinuations, or any other kind of talk page disruption will be stopped cold.
If you cannot control yourself in this topic area, you have a choice to bow out gracefully or be forced from the topic area in order to remove the disruption. Enough is enough. No more warnings. No more pleas for basic, civil working attitudes. If you disrupt discussions about Gibraltar further, you will be banned from this entire topic area, including discussions. -- Vassyana ( talk) 19:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello! A case is now pending before the Mediation Cabal that lists this article as a site of the dispute. All interested editors are welcome to participate in the mediation process which is here. I ask that all named parties and all interested parties indicate their acceptance of mediation below my initial statement on the case page. Until mediation concludes, I invite all editors to take a break from editing of this page, in an effort to cool down. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 20:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The mediation process is now starting. The first phase starts here. -- Lord Roem ( talk) 12:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Process:
Conditions:
What do you think of the proposed process? What about the conditions? Let's see out a clear road and clear conditions. -- Vassyana ( talk) 19:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we should be able to find a reasonable summary, despite the source length. We regularly create few paragraph summaries for sub-topics that have more written about them than the entirety of Gibraltar subjects.
Do you have an alternative suggestion for ensuring a short summary? For example, Richard suggests below that I be permitted to unilaterally cut things down. Another alternative might be having me invite outside GA/FA editors to do it. You thoughts?
On the general process, I truly believe in the high value of the working experience. Solving long-standing disagreements usually leads to a much better editing environment and working relationships. The value of solving the dispute, in my years of DR experience, is not so much its relation to the broader topic but rather the prominence in conflicts and discussion. While future discussions need not be so restricted or lengthy, it also provides a real working example of going from source collection to summarized article text. Think of it like learning a subject; the initial exposure is always more lengthy and tedious than practicing the discipline going forward. -- Vassyana ( talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Points noted above. Are these acceptable to everyone involved? -- Vassyana ( talk) 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I am heading out for the morning and afternoon, but I will return later today. I will put up a post to get the ball rolling on sorting out the modern political dispute. Just wanted to make sure you knew that I didn't forget you during my wiki-absence. Cheers! -- Vassyana ( talk) 10:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a suggestion:
I don't know whether members of the British armed forces in Gibraltar are exlusively men or include servicewomen too. Footnote number three on the Gibraltar page mentions that the population figure quoted does not include British Servicemen and their wives and families. Would it be more correct to say instead that it 'does not include British service men and women or their families' (no need to mention spouses separately as the term 'family' encompasses both spouses and children) Ulysses Elias 31.01.11
All, I have my own panoramic photo of the airport, bay and La Linea uploaded, let me know if you think this would make a nice addition to the article.
Lipatden ( talk) 14:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a nice image. I'd just suggest that, before you make a bold edit, that you check the opinions of the Good Article reviewer at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gibraltar/GA1, who said: There's three images of the Rock of Gibraltar in the geography section -- two on the left and one on the right with the map beneath it. This seems like a tad overkill. I'd pick one of those images and leave the rest in the Rock of Gibraltar article." Go for it! Richard Keatinge ( talk) 15:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I have seen that Wee Curry Monster has returned the article to his preferred version of an episode under discussion (removing the atrocities during the capture and the reference to the exodus to San Roque), without consulting the mediator or other editors. I kindly ask him and others to return to the discussion. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 17:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
So the position is, Imalbornoz is not willing to make any compromises to resolve this point and is instead going to insist that we give massively undue weight to one particular point, regardless of the weight it is given by the sources?
We need compromise from you here, Richard and Imalbornoz. If you want to reach a solution, we need to see how you're willing to do it. Don't keep asking us to come up with the suggestions: you know what the objections are, how do you intend to address them. Pfainuk talk 19:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Richard: Curry Monster and I have both made proposals, and you have rejected them - but I for one am not at all clear as to why you in particular rejected them. Could you detail your objection to the texts proposed here - and in particular the text proposed here - please? Note that I would like more than vague references to previous discussions. This discussion has been so long that I would consider it unreasonable to expect any editor to trawl through the archives for objections made texts other than those being proposed.
Also, since we're all working toward a common consensus here, I believe that it would be useful for you to come up with proposals as to how you think we can most easily come to a consensus. The objections to the current wording that need to be addressed are described in some detail here, so there should be no problem in determining the issues that you need to consider. Your providing a text that attempts to address these objections would improve our situation by giving us all a greater understanding as to your view as to what the most appropriate text would be, potentially allowing for progress on our sticking points here.
If no reasoned objections to my proposed edit - as included by Curry Monster per WP:BOLD - are forthcoming, then I will reinstate it on the basis that no objection of substance appears to have been made against it. Simply saying that it needs to be discussed is inadequate unless you are actually willing to engage in discussion - discussion about the specific point. It is not appropriate behaviour on Wikipedia to revert solely on the basis that you claim no consensus. Pfainuk talk 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It's really hard to imagine how we might proceed constructively. Trying to force in an edit that has been repeatedly rejected probably isn't a good approach. But we could, as Vassyana suggests, start by listing the points that the sources make. Or we could start at the other end, by suggesting a text, preferably one that takes into account suggestions and discussion already available at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-14/Gibraltar and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 18. An idea that begins to look quite attractive is for all four of us to take a year's break from Gibraltar and related articles, so that we can use out talents more constructively elsewhere. Thoughts? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 21:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)