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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the History section state that before the occupation of Gibraltar in 1704 there were about 4,000 Spanish inhabitants there, and after it only 70 or so remained, most of the others settling in the surrounding campo, especially in San Roque, Cádiz? Scolaire ( talk) 12:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I am deliberately not placing an RfC template or a short and simple statement on this at the moment. If there is a speedy resolution of the discussion it will not be necessary; if not, everything that follows will be part of the RfC.
I found this discussion via the request at
ARCA, which is now closed (I was commenting on a separate request at the time). I have no previous input into this article, and very little knowledge of the history of Gibraltar. I was amazed to find more than 20,000 words of discussion over what seems to be a short, factual sentence. As far as I can see, the fact at issue is that before the occupation of the town there were about 4,000 Spanish inhabitants there, and after it only 70 or so remained, most of the others settling in the surrounding campo, especially in
San Roque, Cádiz. If this is true, it is a fascinating fact, which greatly adds to the "Modern era" section of the article. And it does seem to be true, as it is stated in both the San Roque and the
History of Gibraltar articles, and in a number of books cited on this talk page. The only reason I can see for its exclusion is "too much detail", but one short sentence in an article of over 100 kb is hardly undue weight! So my question is, is there any rational, policy-based reason to exclude this fact?
Scolaire (
talk)
10:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Kahastok, Imalbornoz, Wee Curry Monster, Apcbg, Giraffedata, Thomas.W, and IdreamofJeanie: and apologies if I've missed anybody. Scolaire ( talk) 10:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
[Please limit your post here to a "support" or "oppose" !vote, followed by a BRIEF, policy-based rationale. Extended discussion can go in the Discussion section below]
“ | Subsequently most of the population left the town with many settling nearby. | ” |
[Please limit your posts here to content- and policy-based arguments, and refrain from commenting on other editors]
“ | Subsequently most of the population left the town with many settling nearby. | ” |
When I commented above I was responding in good faith to what was proposed as a question. In good faith I assumed that Scolaire was seeking to mediate. Since, the talk page has been edited to given the misleading impression I was commenting on the RFC and the OP is now saying some of the things I said did not address the RFC. No surprise there, since I wasn't commenting on an RFC.
The question he is asking is frankly stupid deeply flawed, no one has suggested that this isn't mentioned. No one is suggesting that a brief sentence is inappropriate. It's based on a flawed ARCA in which one editor presented diffs in a misleading way to claim other editors were excluding it. The truth of the matter is that the sentence was removed because one editor claimed it didn't have consensus. And that is the only reason.
W
C
M
email
13:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with WCM. The RFC makes no sense. I can't just "support" and I can't just "oppose" because it is not clear to me what either option means. Nobody has proposed or argued for zero text, the debate was over what the text should include. Kahastok talk 18:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
How about we stop repeating this discussion, and go with the text that had been agreed upon previously, with one dissenter. Restarting this discussion every few days is not concensus building, it is refusal to accept concensus. IdreamofJeanie ( talk) 23:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, any authoritative source backing up this statement currently in the lead (and if possible explaining it)? It's not like the Strait area is precisely a very settled thing in terms of maritime borders (but precisely because of this?), if the Ceuta's and Gibraltar's territorial waters are admitted (that's one POV), Gibraltar's would not border Morocco's. Not to say that in any case Gibraltar would also share a maritime border with Spain aside from that alleged maritime border with Morocco.--Asqueladd ( talk) 15:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
At the risk of sparking yet another discussion on San Roque:
I disagree with this edit and this revert.
This article is written in British English, yes, but that does not mean that it is solely aimed at British English speakers to the exclusion of others.
The page that the text links to and the tooltips over the letters give an explicit pronunciation system. In that system, /ər/ is the sound at the end of "letter" and /ə/ is the sound at the beginning of "about". You can see that explanation if you hover over the letters. In many English dialects, including British Received Pronunciation, these are identical (or, as near as makes no difference), but in many other places - including most North American, Scottish, Irish and, yes, Westcountry dialects - they are not. We have to respect these differences in our pronunciation guides.
In any case, as a rule, non-rhotic speakers will often leave the syllable-final /r/ off a word even if they are explicitly told that it is required or are speaking another language. If they're being told that it's an English word, as here, they're going to default to their native dialect rules. Kahastok talk 16:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
{{IPAc-en|dʒ|ɪ|ˈ|b|r|ɔː|l|t|ə(r)}}
just comes out as
/dʒɪˈbrɔːltər/.Note that place names are not generally exempted from being transcribed in this abstracted system, so rules such as the above must be applied in order to recover the local pronunciation. Examples include place names in much of England ending ‑ford, which although locally pronounced [‑fəd] are transcribed /‑fərd/. This is best practice for editors. However, readers should be aware that not all editors may have followed this consistently, so for example if /‑fəd/ is encountered for such a place name, it should not be interpreted as a claim that the /r/ would be absent even in a rhotic dialect.
@ Kahastok and Tammbeck: mind if I take the discussion up again? Why should we use {{ IPAc-en}} in a different way from how it is used in thousands of other articles, and differently from what is stated at the help? After all, I am pretty sure non-rhotic speakers would not pronounce that final /r/ anyway, no matter how you represent it. In any case, this is something that you either discuss for the system itself or just don’t, you cannot have a different usage according to case-to-case talks. イヴァンスクルージ九十八 (会話) 12:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Good Morning, As I wrote in the title, I would like to put the Spanish point of view, I find that the page is politicized in favor of the United Kingdom. For example, in the first paragraph it states that Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory, having to go down to the twenty-fourth paragraph to see that the UN included it in its list of Non-Self-Governing Territories pending decolonization. This fact gives more visibility to one point of view than another, omitting that Spain also considers Gibraltar as a colony. By the way, the term colony is omitted in the article, I do not know if it is appropriate, but they are things like these that under my point of view give the article a biased appearance.
Following in the same line, in the third paragraph, it is said that Spain claims Gibraltar, but that 2 referendums were made, rejecting by popular majority joining Spain. But it is omitted that these referendums were not legally recognized either by the UN or by Spain, since it is based on several principles, such as the General Assembly resolutions 2231 (XXI) [43] and 2353 (XXII) and it is given a status of self-government to the Gibraltarians, of which they do not possess, being a colony. They also find the principle of the unity and territoriality of a country, in this case Spain. There is more talk about referendums in the history section, but there is no talk of the lack of legality, "legitimizing" by omission for the casual and uninformed reader, who will read what is written and will think that the referendums were legal.
In addition, I find that the issue of referendums is given too much importance when included in the introduction, instead of that there are facts, such as the recognition of the UN as a colony to Gibraltar, which are much more important, since they condition the referendums that have taken place. and what there may be in the future.
There are more facts about the article that I do not agree with, such as the surface of Gibraltar, saying it is 6.7 km, but there are no mentions to the UN that officially recognizes 5.8, or to Spain, which recognizes 4.8 km, since it does not recognize as English territory the Isthmus, since according to the Hispanic country it was illegally occupied after the Treaty of Utrecht, and there are no mentions to this fact in the article. The article should include the 3 points of view, the English, administrative power, the UN, the most "objective" and without political points of view, and the one of Spain, the claimant power. As it is now I find that only the English vision is given a voice.
There are more things that could be discussed, but I will finish this message here, since with the aforementioned there is debate material, and once that is resolved, we can proceed to discuss the rest. Hombre Gancho ( talk) 11:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
If it is an article about Gibraltar as a whole, the term colony should be added in the introduction. Not only does the UN recognize Gibraltar as a colony, the European Union as well. As long as those organizations recognize it that way, referendums will never be recognized. It is a very important fact for it to be omitted, considering that there are claims for its sovereignty.
Kahastok, why do you say my proposal would be inappropriate? I'm just calling things by their name, Gibraltar overseas territory as recognized by the UK, and colony, as recognized by Spain and the UN; and everything that derives, sovereignty, territory, economy ... Hombre Gancho ( talk) 18:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
(ec) The United Nations does not call Gibraltar a "colony". And as a rule, it doesn't recognise anything as anything. Nor is the United Nations generally in the business of recognising referendums. Just about every referendum ever held has gone unrecognised by the United Nations.
Even if neither of those points were true, it is worth remembering that the United Nations is not some inherently neutral body. Shoot, the United Nations has fought wars in the past. It has a POV that may or may not be significant in any given situation.
Why would your text be inappropriate? Because as I said, it repeatedly and unquestioningly accepts pro-Spanish talking points as fact and in Wikipedia's voice, giving them vastly undue prominence and treating them as though they were neutral. Instead of a neutral point of view, you propose to use an explicitly pro-Spanish point of view. This is unacceptable. Kahastok talk 19:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The reason I find the reference to the referenda to be appropriate and neutral is that it isn't there to argue that the UK is right and Spain is wrong. It's there to answer the question that any reader upon finding out there's a dispute over who should control a place would ask: What do the people there think? Are there factions, constantly fighting like Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, or do they consider themselves an oppressed people like Estonians under the USSR, or is everything how they want it to be, like in Taiwan? The legal effect of the referenda (and there wasn't any -- nothing changed) isn't the point; it's a poll of the people.
If there is an identifiable international position on Spain's claim to Gibraltar that can be discerned from UN resolutions and succinctly stated, I would support adding that information to the article, summarized by one short sentence in the lead. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 01:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The Spanish position is that elgible votes were not allowed to vote while inligible voters were, according to their understanding of who the legitimate inhabitants are. That would be undemocratic, which of course was the accusation made in the Crimean referendum. Again, I am not defending the Spanish position merely stating that per policy it should be mentioned. I have posted a question about this at NPOVN. TFD ( talk) 19:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
"The Spanish position is that elgible votes were not allowed to vote while inligible voters were, according to their understanding of who the legitimate inhabitants are."
I find that the paragraph in the lead that mentions the referenda is neutral, because while saying the referenda went against Spain, it also says in the present tense that Spain asserts a claim, so obviously Spain didn't accept the referenda as dispositive.
The details in the history section are another matter. The chronology makes it sound like Spain asserted a claim, the residents voted against it, and that disposed of Spain's claim. (In fact, it talks about Spain closing the border, which is consistent with Spain recognizing Gibraltar as another country). If there are sources saying Spain maintained its claim in spite of the referenda, I think that ought to be mentioned at the proper place in that chronology, to maintain objectivity. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 02:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
“ | In the 1950s, Franco renewed Spain's claim to sovereignty over Gibraltar and restricted movement between Gibraltar and Spain. Gibraltarians voted overwhelmingly to remain under British sovereignty in the 1967 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, which led to the passing of the Gibraltar Constitution Order in 1969. In response, Spain completely closed the border with Gibraltar and severed all communication links.[38] The border with Spain was partially reopened in 1982 and fully reopened in 1985 before Spain's accession to the European Community. | ” |
References
I am not aware of any point at which the Spanish POV is actually missing from this page. The OP seems to be complaining about Spain's position being down in the 24th para, whilst Gibraltar's actual status (a British Overseas Territory) is mentioned in the first. This is for the very good reason that today, this is what Gibraltar is and is important for people to know about Gibraltar. Spain's continued claims to Gibraltar are mentioned in the 3rd para, which is basically the right place to put them. FOARP ( talk) 09:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The lead is fine as it is, but perhaps the body of the article could be improved. I think the explanation of the 2002 referendum in particular is a little confusing. Based on the sources in that section, my understanding of what happened is something like this: Britain and Spain negotiated between themselves a proposal where they would share sovereignty over Gibraltar. Gibraltar held a referendum on the proposal, and the population overwhelmingly rejected it, preferring the status quo. Britain committed to following the wishes of the population of Gibraltar when it came to issues of sovereignty. Maybe that section could be rewritten like this:
In the early 2000s, Spain and Britain attempted to settle the issue with an agreement which would result in the two nations sharing sovereignty over Gibraltar. The government of Gibraltar organized a referendum on the plan, and 99% of the population voted to reject it. [1] [2] The British government committed to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes. [3]
Additionally, the previous paragraph is a little unclear. In response, Spain completely closed the border with Gibraltar and severed all communication links.
In response to what? I think we could do a better job of explaining why the Spanish government closed the borders. Something simple could help, like Seeing the referendum and constitution as an obstacle to its claim, Spain responded by completely closing the border with Gibraltar and severing all communications links.
Or something along those lines. I don't think this is an issue of reporting each side's position, but rather just explaining the context surrounding these events a little more clearly.
Red Rock Canyon (
talk)
17:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
“ | Gibraltarians voted overwhelmingly to remain under British sovereignty in the 1967 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, which led to the passing of the Gibraltar Constitution Order in 1969. In response, Spain completely closed the border with Gibraltar and severed all communication links.[38] | ” |
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
I have read the recent dispute in the revision history about including the Arabic spelling of the name Gibraltar in the lead sentence of the article, next to the English and Spanish pronunciation keys, involving User:Splashthewhale020202029, User:Wee Curry Monster, and User:Asqueladd.
While I think Arabic's not being an official language has no bearing on the discussion, I do believe this is not appropriate material for the lead sentence.
It is bad enough that the lead sentence is broken up by pronunciation keys, but that is customary, so I'll accept that. However, there is no custom for putting historical and etymological details there.
Many Wikipedia articles about places have a section devoted to the name of the place - origin, history, and alternatives. I think we should put the Arabic material now in the lead sentence in such a section. The section could go inside the History section, but then would probably have to be written by someone who can add actual history information, such as User:Wee Curry Monster gives in the revision history. I, on the other hand, would be willing to create an independent name section myself.
Thoughts?
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 17:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Ed Davis is no longer the Governor of Gibraltar as he retired early this year.
Nick Pyle is currently the acting Governor until the arrival of Sir David Steel in June. - ( 124.197.55.28 ( talk) 06:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC))
I reckon the reference (142) is both outdated and incorrect.
Neither the link to Hansard nor the link to the wayback machine work. Having found the document in question on the new hansard website, the date is also incorrect. The reference is dated as the 9th of November 1999, but the conversation actually took place on the same date in 1998. The link to the modern hansard is https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1998-11-09/debates/900fbca6-7085-4803-bbc5-ee2ec86698a8/Gibraltar
I don't have the required experience to edit this semi-protected article. I would appreciate someone reviewing and implementing my edit or whatever.
Many thanks, Peter -- Ph1729 ( talk) 15:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion of average daily temperature in the body of this section does not agree with the table presented directly below. The text states the average overnight low temperature for the month of January is 11 °C (52 °F); however, the table lists the average low for January as 10.8 °C (51.4 °F). The text also gives a daily high temperature of 25 °C (77 °F) and overnight low of 20 °C (68 °F) for the month of August; yet, the table indicates the average daily high and low temperatures for the same month are 28.4 °C (83.1 °F) and 20.8 °C (69.4 °F), respectively. The same source—which summarizes climate data for the period between 1981 to 2010—is cited for both the body text and table data, but agrees with the tabular data only.
However, the aforementioned source of climate data is, in my opinion, unreliable. It is the personal website of an individual with an interest in climate data, but no authority in the subject. She describes herself in the following way (translated from French):
Let me introduce myself, I am Solenn Nadal alias Fantomon, passionate about the weather for a long time (Already at 2 years old I scrutinized the 32 ° C announced in the Camargue in the summer of 1994 in general and I understood. I am also an artist, in particular I love painting in watercolor or still take pictures of landscapes, I have been a vegetarian since my childhood (At 3 years old I discovered what meat was). I was born on April 6, 1992 but I still consider myself as a child, I "love everything childish. I am sprinkling I specify and I have always loved the numbers. You can find quite a few temperatures going back a long time on my site and statistics for meteorology. [1]
Moreover, this website is not the original source of the historic Gibraltar climate data, nor does the author cite the original source. For these reasons, the discussion of Gibraltar's climate should either be eliminated or more reliable data should be sourced. SparkleTaco ( talk) 18:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
References
There has been some reverting taking place on Gibraltar in the Schengen Area. This was already discussed at Talk:Schengen Agreement, but maybe good to state it here. I think we need to make clear that this is an arrangement not yet in force (as is clear from the Gibraltar statement sourced now), and that we don't know if Gibraltar (or the UK on behalf of Gibraltar) will be a member of Schengen, or whether it is a matter of moving the inner border of Schengen to Gibraltar under Spanish control. We also have no ideas what terms like border fluidity mean. Feel free to discuss here what should be in, but please don't reinstate things here after you have been reverted. Bring it here and discuss. L.tak ( talk) 20:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
On 31 January 2020, the UK left the European Union and as such, Gibraltar did also.(emphasis added) because it is ungrammatical.
but both sides aim to maintain fluidity of movement at the border(emphasis added) because it is not clear what it means. If the intent is to quote an individual, then we should be explicit that we are quoting an individual. We shouldn't write text in Wikipedia's voice that we don't understand.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gibraltar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Along side the mention of the Gibraltar Chronicle, the two main monthly print magazines should also be referenced: Gibraltar Insight and the Gibraltar Magazine. 2A02:C7E:FA1:CD00:11DC:6980:AF91:7BD4 ( talk) 11:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gibraltar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
is a disputed territory, considered a British Overseas Territory by the United Kingdom and a Non-Self-Governing Territory in process of decolonization by Spain and United Nations.
Gibraltar is a British overseas territory .Josh13211111 ( talk) 20:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
a territory under British sovereignty whose foreign relations are conducted by the United Kingdom., and only makes a sovereignty claim over the isthmus, which is what we we describe. It also ascribes pro-Spanish positions to the UN that go far beyond what a neutral analysis would allow.
Spain claims the sovereignty of Gibraltar by considering it illegal, a colony. The UN considers Gibraltar a Non-self-governing territory in the process of decolonization. The sources are quite clear, and the dispute between Spain and the United Kingdom for Gibraltar is more than evident.
I understand that you are British and it is difficult for you not to be biased, but it is the reality. Gibraltar is one of the seventeen territories in the world that is considered a Non-self-governing territory by the UN. Venezia Friulano ( talk) 00:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory 84.71.48.141 ( talk) 00:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I am a Gibraltarian we have a unique culture and love our land and it makes me sad to see people like you make us seem like we don’t have a land to call home Spain is in discussions with the UK and Gibraltar over a Brexit deal which Means Spain except Gibraltar‘s existence i’m sorry if you don’t understand it’s like where you come from being said it’s not a true place it would make you sad and I’m not being biased I’m just going off what my government says we’ve had two votes on it and voted to stay British 84.71.48.141 ( talk) 00:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon.
Lassa Oppenheim (30-03-1858 – 07-10-1919), an authority on international law [1]
I think it's time to stop the edit war and discussion via edit summary, so I am starting this section. It's not like we haven't been here before, but I guess every new challenge to the status quo deserves a hearing.
I'm also reverting the recent batch of changes emphasizing Spanish claim to Gibraltar and asserting a UN view on the matter because I believe the reliable sources, as understood by a consensus of editors, don't support them.
Ordinarily, I would try to preserve parts of the edit I think could be an improvement, but in this case I have a feeling that the time I spent editing would be lost in the middle of an edit war.
I don't believe there is any serious enough dispute over UK's sovereignty over Gibraltar to include it in the lead paragraph or short description.
I don't believe inclusion on the UN's list of non-self-governing territories means the UN believes Gibraltar is in the process of decolonization or that it should not be a British Overseas Territory, but if I missed that in the sources, someone please direct me to it.
I'd support some of the details about why Spain or the UN don't recognize the results of the sovereignty referenda in Disputed status of Gibraltar, but is too much detail for this article, and definitely too much for the lead. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 03:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The Spanish government source that Venezia Friulano cited actually lays this out quite clearly. If you read it, you will find that it does not anywhere claim, suggest, imply or otherwise indicate that Spain currently disputes the existence of British sovereignty in Gibraltar. On the contrary, it actually says explicitly that Gibraltar is under British sovereignty.
This is not some private organisation trying to explain a difficult situation and being clumsy. This is the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, directly discussing the dispute. Bluntly, if Spain were ever to go to an international court and suggest that they had always claimed Gibraltar, the British would be able to point to this document and refute that claim. If Spain did in fact claim Gibraltar in its entirety, publishing such a document would be a catastrophic blunder - possibly even terminal to Spain's chances of getting any international tribunal to accept that view. All I suggest is that we should believe it and not trying to second guess it with, effectively, yeah but what they really meant was....
Venezia Friulano's interpretation of the modern UN position is also inaccurate. The UN does not actually back Spain as Venezia Friulano argues. Venezia Friulano's edit presents only a Spanish POV of what the UN says, which is not the NPOV. I would note in this context that the Special Committee does not speak for the United Nations as a whole, and that the only body with the right to make decisions that are binding on states is the United Nations Security Council. I would also add that the UN is not, as a rule, in the business of recognising referendums and so the fact that it didn't recognise a particular referendum does not mean anything in particular.
I would add that The Four Deuces is mistaken in saying Spain and the UK disagreed over who the population was
. Spain argues that there is no population at all who has the right to determine the future of Gibraltar, because they argue that the principle of self-determination does not apply.
Kahastok
talk
17:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
the principle of self-determination is not applicable but rather that of restitution of the Spanish territorial integrity. Spain explicitly, directly and unambiguously argues that the principle of self-determination does not apply in this case at all. It is not possible to reconcile this with your claim that "Spain of course adheres to the principle of self-determination". No, it doesn't.
unproductive off-topic diversionary discussion concluded |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I recommend that we give very little to no mention of Spain's claims on Gibraltar. GoodDay ( talk) 17:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations, as Spain asserts a claim to the territory. [8] [9]but there is no explicit matching body content other than a reference in the Contemporary history section. I suppose what I'm looking for is a succinct summary of Status of Gibraltar that someone could find quickly and easily should there be an International Incident. (Oh wait, there is a 'full and frank exchange of views' going on there as well. Sigh.)
References
Maec
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This
edit request to
Gibraltar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Gibraltar is also a swear word meaning bozzer. Eg You are a bozzer.{ 92.28.73.100 ( talk) 09:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
At the time (1704) of the capture, the Kingdom of Great Britain did not exist. Yet. The Acts of Union 1707 were three years later. So surely "English capture" is the correct term to use in the infobox? Which (erroneous ) RSs say "British"? Do any say "English"?
[In an edit note, Wee Curry Monster says that this point has previously been debated, see archives. Sorry but I can't find it? ] 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I have just removed the following paragraph:
A majority of Gibraltar's workers are foreign: Private sector workers are mainly Spanish (37%), Gibraltarians (26%) and other British (21%); the public sector, on the other hand, employs mainly Gibraltarians (76%) and other British (14%). Nearly half (44%) of the total employment is covered by frontier workers (employees who are normally resident in Spain but are employed in Gibraltar). [1]
First, it is not clear where these numbers come from. Which table is it? What caveats are needed? Each of these tables have important caveats. For example, it seems to be mostly counting "employee jobs" - does that mean that it doesn't count people who are self-employed? Also, they note 2,009 out of the 2,902 known employers completing the questionnaire in respect of their employees and 889 registering a nil return.
There's nothing here to suggest that the filled-in returns are representative of the missing returns. And, if you add 2009 and 889, you don't get 2902 - there are four missing.
Second, looking at Table 1.1 of the source, my immediate conclusion is that the first claim is not clearly true. There were 30,403 employee jobs in Gibraltar, of which 11,240 were filled by "Gibraltarians" and 5,813 by "Other British". That's 56% of the workforce between these two groups. It is not clear that non-Gibraltarian British people should be considered "foreign" in this context. The document does not use the word "foreign" at all, and per as it is a primary source we should not interpret it per WP:PSTS.
The document also contains the footnote attached to the "Gibraltarians" and "Other British" categories:
This nationality split presents problems of accuracy. Some employers classify all their British employees, including Gibraltarians, under the Other British category and since no personal details are provided it is not possible to differentiate between the two categories. This would result in an understatement of the Gibraltarians in employment.
So even if we do count the "Other British" people as "foreign", it is not clear that Gibraltarians are not in the majority.
In brief, this paragraph is OR interpretation of a primary source per WP:PSTS and should not be included without a secondary source to back up the interpretation. Kahastok talk 17:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
With respect to the selection bias problem: What suggests (but doesn't prove) that the respondents to the poll are representative of the non-respondents is common sense and the fact that nothing suggests a correlation between responding to the survey and hiring foreigners., that's your interpretation, not backed up by any reliable source. We are not allowed to interpret primary sources like this.
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gibraltar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section International relations change
Since BREXIT, it is not part of the European Union, but is a participant in the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
To
Since Brexit, it is not part of the European Union, but is a participant in the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
Brexit shouldn't be stylized with majuscules. Tutature ( talk) 17:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The title King of Gibraltar is on Spanish King Felipe VI 81.40.173.9 ( talk) 11:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
There are some issues concerning the effect of the recent discovery that Gibraltar is a city on this article. There have been edits about this by User:Encyloedit, User:Anvib, User:Chrism, User:MaineCrab, User:Moondragon21, User:Asbtrl361442, and me.
Is the city considered contained by the British Overseas Territory, or is it a status accorded to the British Overseas Territory itself?
Has there been a town of Gibraltar recognized within the BOT before now?
Is the BOT now named City of Gibraltar?
I'm assuming that in any case, the BOT and city are coterminus (contain exactly the same territory). Otherwise, the issue is pretty trivial.
Judging from the published official list of cities, I would say City of Gibraltar is a city within a British Overseas Territory named Gibraltar. And that the BOT status of the region is more significant than the city status, making that the primary topic of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giraffedata ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gibraltar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Monarch of Gibraltar, Charles III was coronated as king of England, but the Title of King(Monarch) is on Spanish King Felipe VI on the Wikipedia page you can even see it. I request inmediate change due to Charles III not having the official title "King of Gibraltar" 81.40.173.9 ( talk) 11:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gibraltar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Britain" to "Great Britain" 82.14.214.59 ( talk) 19:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk)
19:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gibraltar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
editing required. 27.147.202.191 ( talk) 09:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The article doesn't say anything about citizenship? A note in the healthcare section refers to "local citizens and British citizens", that's it. Can Gibraltarians relocate and settle in the UK without question? Would someone rectify, please? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 09:26, 1 October 2023 (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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the History section state that before the occupation of Gibraltar in 1704 there were about 4,000 Spanish inhabitants there, and after it only 70 or so remained, most of the others settling in the surrounding campo, especially in San Roque, Cádiz? Scolaire ( talk) 12:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I am deliberately not placing an RfC template or a short and simple statement on this at the moment. If there is a speedy resolution of the discussion it will not be necessary; if not, everything that follows will be part of the RfC.
I found this discussion via the request at
ARCA, which is now closed (I was commenting on a separate request at the time). I have no previous input into this article, and very little knowledge of the history of Gibraltar. I was amazed to find more than 20,000 words of discussion over what seems to be a short, factual sentence. As far as I can see, the fact at issue is that before the occupation of the town there were about 4,000 Spanish inhabitants there, and after it only 70 or so remained, most of the others settling in the surrounding campo, especially in
San Roque, Cádiz. If this is true, it is a fascinating fact, which greatly adds to the "Modern era" section of the article. And it does seem to be true, as it is stated in both the San Roque and the
History of Gibraltar articles, and in a number of books cited on this talk page. The only reason I can see for its exclusion is "too much detail", but one short sentence in an article of over 100 kb is hardly undue weight! So my question is, is there any rational, policy-based reason to exclude this fact?
Scolaire (
talk)
10:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Kahastok, Imalbornoz, Wee Curry Monster, Apcbg, Giraffedata, Thomas.W, and IdreamofJeanie: and apologies if I've missed anybody. Scolaire ( talk) 10:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
[Please limit your post here to a "support" or "oppose" !vote, followed by a BRIEF, policy-based rationale. Extended discussion can go in the Discussion section below]
“ | Subsequently most of the population left the town with many settling nearby. | ” |
[Please limit your posts here to content- and policy-based arguments, and refrain from commenting on other editors]
“ | Subsequently most of the population left the town with many settling nearby. | ” |
When I commented above I was responding in good faith to what was proposed as a question. In good faith I assumed that Scolaire was seeking to mediate. Since, the talk page has been edited to given the misleading impression I was commenting on the RFC and the OP is now saying some of the things I said did not address the RFC. No surprise there, since I wasn't commenting on an RFC.
The question he is asking is frankly stupid deeply flawed, no one has suggested that this isn't mentioned. No one is suggesting that a brief sentence is inappropriate. It's based on a flawed ARCA in which one editor presented diffs in a misleading way to claim other editors were excluding it. The truth of the matter is that the sentence was removed because one editor claimed it didn't have consensus. And that is the only reason.
W
C
M
email
13:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with WCM. The RFC makes no sense. I can't just "support" and I can't just "oppose" because it is not clear to me what either option means. Nobody has proposed or argued for zero text, the debate was over what the text should include. Kahastok talk 18:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
How about we stop repeating this discussion, and go with the text that had been agreed upon previously, with one dissenter. Restarting this discussion every few days is not concensus building, it is refusal to accept concensus. IdreamofJeanie ( talk) 23:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, any authoritative source backing up this statement currently in the lead (and if possible explaining it)? It's not like the Strait area is precisely a very settled thing in terms of maritime borders (but precisely because of this?), if the Ceuta's and Gibraltar's territorial waters are admitted (that's one POV), Gibraltar's would not border Morocco's. Not to say that in any case Gibraltar would also share a maritime border with Spain aside from that alleged maritime border with Morocco.--Asqueladd ( talk) 15:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
At the risk of sparking yet another discussion on San Roque:
I disagree with this edit and this revert.
This article is written in British English, yes, but that does not mean that it is solely aimed at British English speakers to the exclusion of others.
The page that the text links to and the tooltips over the letters give an explicit pronunciation system. In that system, /ər/ is the sound at the end of "letter" and /ə/ is the sound at the beginning of "about". You can see that explanation if you hover over the letters. In many English dialects, including British Received Pronunciation, these are identical (or, as near as makes no difference), but in many other places - including most North American, Scottish, Irish and, yes, Westcountry dialects - they are not. We have to respect these differences in our pronunciation guides.
In any case, as a rule, non-rhotic speakers will often leave the syllable-final /r/ off a word even if they are explicitly told that it is required or are speaking another language. If they're being told that it's an English word, as here, they're going to default to their native dialect rules. Kahastok talk 16:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
{{IPAc-en|dʒ|ɪ|ˈ|b|r|ɔː|l|t|ə(r)}}
just comes out as
/dʒɪˈbrɔːltər/.Note that place names are not generally exempted from being transcribed in this abstracted system, so rules such as the above must be applied in order to recover the local pronunciation. Examples include place names in much of England ending ‑ford, which although locally pronounced [‑fəd] are transcribed /‑fərd/. This is best practice for editors. However, readers should be aware that not all editors may have followed this consistently, so for example if /‑fəd/ is encountered for such a place name, it should not be interpreted as a claim that the /r/ would be absent even in a rhotic dialect.
@ Kahastok and Tammbeck: mind if I take the discussion up again? Why should we use {{ IPAc-en}} in a different way from how it is used in thousands of other articles, and differently from what is stated at the help? After all, I am pretty sure non-rhotic speakers would not pronounce that final /r/ anyway, no matter how you represent it. In any case, this is something that you either discuss for the system itself or just don’t, you cannot have a different usage according to case-to-case talks. イヴァンスクルージ九十八 (会話) 12:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Good Morning, As I wrote in the title, I would like to put the Spanish point of view, I find that the page is politicized in favor of the United Kingdom. For example, in the first paragraph it states that Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory, having to go down to the twenty-fourth paragraph to see that the UN included it in its list of Non-Self-Governing Territories pending decolonization. This fact gives more visibility to one point of view than another, omitting that Spain also considers Gibraltar as a colony. By the way, the term colony is omitted in the article, I do not know if it is appropriate, but they are things like these that under my point of view give the article a biased appearance.
Following in the same line, in the third paragraph, it is said that Spain claims Gibraltar, but that 2 referendums were made, rejecting by popular majority joining Spain. But it is omitted that these referendums were not legally recognized either by the UN or by Spain, since it is based on several principles, such as the General Assembly resolutions 2231 (XXI) [43] and 2353 (XXII) and it is given a status of self-government to the Gibraltarians, of which they do not possess, being a colony. They also find the principle of the unity and territoriality of a country, in this case Spain. There is more talk about referendums in the history section, but there is no talk of the lack of legality, "legitimizing" by omission for the casual and uninformed reader, who will read what is written and will think that the referendums were legal.
In addition, I find that the issue of referendums is given too much importance when included in the introduction, instead of that there are facts, such as the recognition of the UN as a colony to Gibraltar, which are much more important, since they condition the referendums that have taken place. and what there may be in the future.
There are more facts about the article that I do not agree with, such as the surface of Gibraltar, saying it is 6.7 km, but there are no mentions to the UN that officially recognizes 5.8, or to Spain, which recognizes 4.8 km, since it does not recognize as English territory the Isthmus, since according to the Hispanic country it was illegally occupied after the Treaty of Utrecht, and there are no mentions to this fact in the article. The article should include the 3 points of view, the English, administrative power, the UN, the most "objective" and without political points of view, and the one of Spain, the claimant power. As it is now I find that only the English vision is given a voice.
There are more things that could be discussed, but I will finish this message here, since with the aforementioned there is debate material, and once that is resolved, we can proceed to discuss the rest. Hombre Gancho ( talk) 11:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
If it is an article about Gibraltar as a whole, the term colony should be added in the introduction. Not only does the UN recognize Gibraltar as a colony, the European Union as well. As long as those organizations recognize it that way, referendums will never be recognized. It is a very important fact for it to be omitted, considering that there are claims for its sovereignty.
Kahastok, why do you say my proposal would be inappropriate? I'm just calling things by their name, Gibraltar overseas territory as recognized by the UK, and colony, as recognized by Spain and the UN; and everything that derives, sovereignty, territory, economy ... Hombre Gancho ( talk) 18:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
(ec) The United Nations does not call Gibraltar a "colony". And as a rule, it doesn't recognise anything as anything. Nor is the United Nations generally in the business of recognising referendums. Just about every referendum ever held has gone unrecognised by the United Nations.
Even if neither of those points were true, it is worth remembering that the United Nations is not some inherently neutral body. Shoot, the United Nations has fought wars in the past. It has a POV that may or may not be significant in any given situation.
Why would your text be inappropriate? Because as I said, it repeatedly and unquestioningly accepts pro-Spanish talking points as fact and in Wikipedia's voice, giving them vastly undue prominence and treating them as though they were neutral. Instead of a neutral point of view, you propose to use an explicitly pro-Spanish point of view. This is unacceptable. Kahastok talk 19:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The reason I find the reference to the referenda to be appropriate and neutral is that it isn't there to argue that the UK is right and Spain is wrong. It's there to answer the question that any reader upon finding out there's a dispute over who should control a place would ask: What do the people there think? Are there factions, constantly fighting like Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, or do they consider themselves an oppressed people like Estonians under the USSR, or is everything how they want it to be, like in Taiwan? The legal effect of the referenda (and there wasn't any -- nothing changed) isn't the point; it's a poll of the people.
If there is an identifiable international position on Spain's claim to Gibraltar that can be discerned from UN resolutions and succinctly stated, I would support adding that information to the article, summarized by one short sentence in the lead. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 01:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The Spanish position is that elgible votes were not allowed to vote while inligible voters were, according to their understanding of who the legitimate inhabitants are. That would be undemocratic, which of course was the accusation made in the Crimean referendum. Again, I am not defending the Spanish position merely stating that per policy it should be mentioned. I have posted a question about this at NPOVN. TFD ( talk) 19:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
"The Spanish position is that elgible votes were not allowed to vote while inligible voters were, according to their understanding of who the legitimate inhabitants are."
I find that the paragraph in the lead that mentions the referenda is neutral, because while saying the referenda went against Spain, it also says in the present tense that Spain asserts a claim, so obviously Spain didn't accept the referenda as dispositive.
The details in the history section are another matter. The chronology makes it sound like Spain asserted a claim, the residents voted against it, and that disposed of Spain's claim. (In fact, it talks about Spain closing the border, which is consistent with Spain recognizing Gibraltar as another country). If there are sources saying Spain maintained its claim in spite of the referenda, I think that ought to be mentioned at the proper place in that chronology, to maintain objectivity. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 02:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
“ | In the 1950s, Franco renewed Spain's claim to sovereignty over Gibraltar and restricted movement between Gibraltar and Spain. Gibraltarians voted overwhelmingly to remain under British sovereignty in the 1967 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, which led to the passing of the Gibraltar Constitution Order in 1969. In response, Spain completely closed the border with Gibraltar and severed all communication links.[38] The border with Spain was partially reopened in 1982 and fully reopened in 1985 before Spain's accession to the European Community. | ” |
References
I am not aware of any point at which the Spanish POV is actually missing from this page. The OP seems to be complaining about Spain's position being down in the 24th para, whilst Gibraltar's actual status (a British Overseas Territory) is mentioned in the first. This is for the very good reason that today, this is what Gibraltar is and is important for people to know about Gibraltar. Spain's continued claims to Gibraltar are mentioned in the 3rd para, which is basically the right place to put them. FOARP ( talk) 09:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The lead is fine as it is, but perhaps the body of the article could be improved. I think the explanation of the 2002 referendum in particular is a little confusing. Based on the sources in that section, my understanding of what happened is something like this: Britain and Spain negotiated between themselves a proposal where they would share sovereignty over Gibraltar. Gibraltar held a referendum on the proposal, and the population overwhelmingly rejected it, preferring the status quo. Britain committed to following the wishes of the population of Gibraltar when it came to issues of sovereignty. Maybe that section could be rewritten like this:
In the early 2000s, Spain and Britain attempted to settle the issue with an agreement which would result in the two nations sharing sovereignty over Gibraltar. The government of Gibraltar organized a referendum on the plan, and 99% of the population voted to reject it. [1] [2] The British government committed to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes. [3]
Additionally, the previous paragraph is a little unclear. In response, Spain completely closed the border with Gibraltar and severed all communication links.
In response to what? I think we could do a better job of explaining why the Spanish government closed the borders. Something simple could help, like Seeing the referendum and constitution as an obstacle to its claim, Spain responded by completely closing the border with Gibraltar and severing all communications links.
Or something along those lines. I don't think this is an issue of reporting each side's position, but rather just explaining the context surrounding these events a little more clearly.
Red Rock Canyon (
talk)
17:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
“ | Gibraltarians voted overwhelmingly to remain under British sovereignty in the 1967 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, which led to the passing of the Gibraltar Constitution Order in 1969. In response, Spain completely closed the border with Gibraltar and severed all communication links.[38] | ” |
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
I have read the recent dispute in the revision history about including the Arabic spelling of the name Gibraltar in the lead sentence of the article, next to the English and Spanish pronunciation keys, involving User:Splashthewhale020202029, User:Wee Curry Monster, and User:Asqueladd.
While I think Arabic's not being an official language has no bearing on the discussion, I do believe this is not appropriate material for the lead sentence.
It is bad enough that the lead sentence is broken up by pronunciation keys, but that is customary, so I'll accept that. However, there is no custom for putting historical and etymological details there.
Many Wikipedia articles about places have a section devoted to the name of the place - origin, history, and alternatives. I think we should put the Arabic material now in the lead sentence in such a section. The section could go inside the History section, but then would probably have to be written by someone who can add actual history information, such as User:Wee Curry Monster gives in the revision history. I, on the other hand, would be willing to create an independent name section myself.
Thoughts?
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 17:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Ed Davis is no longer the Governor of Gibraltar as he retired early this year.
Nick Pyle is currently the acting Governor until the arrival of Sir David Steel in June. - ( 124.197.55.28 ( talk) 06:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC))
I reckon the reference (142) is both outdated and incorrect.
Neither the link to Hansard nor the link to the wayback machine work. Having found the document in question on the new hansard website, the date is also incorrect. The reference is dated as the 9th of November 1999, but the conversation actually took place on the same date in 1998. The link to the modern hansard is https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1998-11-09/debates/900fbca6-7085-4803-bbc5-ee2ec86698a8/Gibraltar
I don't have the required experience to edit this semi-protected article. I would appreciate someone reviewing and implementing my edit or whatever.
Many thanks, Peter -- Ph1729 ( talk) 15:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion of average daily temperature in the body of this section does not agree with the table presented directly below. The text states the average overnight low temperature for the month of January is 11 °C (52 °F); however, the table lists the average low for January as 10.8 °C (51.4 °F). The text also gives a daily high temperature of 25 °C (77 °F) and overnight low of 20 °C (68 °F) for the month of August; yet, the table indicates the average daily high and low temperatures for the same month are 28.4 °C (83.1 °F) and 20.8 °C (69.4 °F), respectively. The same source—which summarizes climate data for the period between 1981 to 2010—is cited for both the body text and table data, but agrees with the tabular data only.
However, the aforementioned source of climate data is, in my opinion, unreliable. It is the personal website of an individual with an interest in climate data, but no authority in the subject. She describes herself in the following way (translated from French):
Let me introduce myself, I am Solenn Nadal alias Fantomon, passionate about the weather for a long time (Already at 2 years old I scrutinized the 32 ° C announced in the Camargue in the summer of 1994 in general and I understood. I am also an artist, in particular I love painting in watercolor or still take pictures of landscapes, I have been a vegetarian since my childhood (At 3 years old I discovered what meat was). I was born on April 6, 1992 but I still consider myself as a child, I "love everything childish. I am sprinkling I specify and I have always loved the numbers. You can find quite a few temperatures going back a long time on my site and statistics for meteorology. [1]
Moreover, this website is not the original source of the historic Gibraltar climate data, nor does the author cite the original source. For these reasons, the discussion of Gibraltar's climate should either be eliminated or more reliable data should be sourced. SparkleTaco ( talk) 18:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
References
There has been some reverting taking place on Gibraltar in the Schengen Area. This was already discussed at Talk:Schengen Agreement, but maybe good to state it here. I think we need to make clear that this is an arrangement not yet in force (as is clear from the Gibraltar statement sourced now), and that we don't know if Gibraltar (or the UK on behalf of Gibraltar) will be a member of Schengen, or whether it is a matter of moving the inner border of Schengen to Gibraltar under Spanish control. We also have no ideas what terms like border fluidity mean. Feel free to discuss here what should be in, but please don't reinstate things here after you have been reverted. Bring it here and discuss. L.tak ( talk) 20:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
On 31 January 2020, the UK left the European Union and as such, Gibraltar did also.(emphasis added) because it is ungrammatical.
but both sides aim to maintain fluidity of movement at the border(emphasis added) because it is not clear what it means. If the intent is to quote an individual, then we should be explicit that we are quoting an individual. We shouldn't write text in Wikipedia's voice that we don't understand.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gibraltar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Along side the mention of the Gibraltar Chronicle, the two main monthly print magazines should also be referenced: Gibraltar Insight and the Gibraltar Magazine. 2A02:C7E:FA1:CD00:11DC:6980:AF91:7BD4 ( talk) 11:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gibraltar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
is a disputed territory, considered a British Overseas Territory by the United Kingdom and a Non-Self-Governing Territory in process of decolonization by Spain and United Nations.
Gibraltar is a British overseas territory .Josh13211111 ( talk) 20:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
a territory under British sovereignty whose foreign relations are conducted by the United Kingdom., and only makes a sovereignty claim over the isthmus, which is what we we describe. It also ascribes pro-Spanish positions to the UN that go far beyond what a neutral analysis would allow.
Spain claims the sovereignty of Gibraltar by considering it illegal, a colony. The UN considers Gibraltar a Non-self-governing territory in the process of decolonization. The sources are quite clear, and the dispute between Spain and the United Kingdom for Gibraltar is more than evident.
I understand that you are British and it is difficult for you not to be biased, but it is the reality. Gibraltar is one of the seventeen territories in the world that is considered a Non-self-governing territory by the UN. Venezia Friulano ( talk) 00:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory 84.71.48.141 ( talk) 00:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I am a Gibraltarian we have a unique culture and love our land and it makes me sad to see people like you make us seem like we don’t have a land to call home Spain is in discussions with the UK and Gibraltar over a Brexit deal which Means Spain except Gibraltar‘s existence i’m sorry if you don’t understand it’s like where you come from being said it’s not a true place it would make you sad and I’m not being biased I’m just going off what my government says we’ve had two votes on it and voted to stay British 84.71.48.141 ( talk) 00:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon.
Lassa Oppenheim (30-03-1858 – 07-10-1919), an authority on international law [1]
I think it's time to stop the edit war and discussion via edit summary, so I am starting this section. It's not like we haven't been here before, but I guess every new challenge to the status quo deserves a hearing.
I'm also reverting the recent batch of changes emphasizing Spanish claim to Gibraltar and asserting a UN view on the matter because I believe the reliable sources, as understood by a consensus of editors, don't support them.
Ordinarily, I would try to preserve parts of the edit I think could be an improvement, but in this case I have a feeling that the time I spent editing would be lost in the middle of an edit war.
I don't believe there is any serious enough dispute over UK's sovereignty over Gibraltar to include it in the lead paragraph or short description.
I don't believe inclusion on the UN's list of non-self-governing territories means the UN believes Gibraltar is in the process of decolonization or that it should not be a British Overseas Territory, but if I missed that in the sources, someone please direct me to it.
I'd support some of the details about why Spain or the UN don't recognize the results of the sovereignty referenda in Disputed status of Gibraltar, but is too much detail for this article, and definitely too much for the lead. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 03:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The Spanish government source that Venezia Friulano cited actually lays this out quite clearly. If you read it, you will find that it does not anywhere claim, suggest, imply or otherwise indicate that Spain currently disputes the existence of British sovereignty in Gibraltar. On the contrary, it actually says explicitly that Gibraltar is under British sovereignty.
This is not some private organisation trying to explain a difficult situation and being clumsy. This is the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, directly discussing the dispute. Bluntly, if Spain were ever to go to an international court and suggest that they had always claimed Gibraltar, the British would be able to point to this document and refute that claim. If Spain did in fact claim Gibraltar in its entirety, publishing such a document would be a catastrophic blunder - possibly even terminal to Spain's chances of getting any international tribunal to accept that view. All I suggest is that we should believe it and not trying to second guess it with, effectively, yeah but what they really meant was....
Venezia Friulano's interpretation of the modern UN position is also inaccurate. The UN does not actually back Spain as Venezia Friulano argues. Venezia Friulano's edit presents only a Spanish POV of what the UN says, which is not the NPOV. I would note in this context that the Special Committee does not speak for the United Nations as a whole, and that the only body with the right to make decisions that are binding on states is the United Nations Security Council. I would also add that the UN is not, as a rule, in the business of recognising referendums and so the fact that it didn't recognise a particular referendum does not mean anything in particular.
I would add that The Four Deuces is mistaken in saying Spain and the UK disagreed over who the population was
. Spain argues that there is no population at all who has the right to determine the future of Gibraltar, because they argue that the principle of self-determination does not apply.
Kahastok
talk
17:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
the principle of self-determination is not applicable but rather that of restitution of the Spanish territorial integrity. Spain explicitly, directly and unambiguously argues that the principle of self-determination does not apply in this case at all. It is not possible to reconcile this with your claim that "Spain of course adheres to the principle of self-determination". No, it doesn't.
unproductive off-topic diversionary discussion concluded |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I recommend that we give very little to no mention of Spain's claims on Gibraltar. GoodDay ( talk) 17:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations, as Spain asserts a claim to the territory. [8] [9]but there is no explicit matching body content other than a reference in the Contemporary history section. I suppose what I'm looking for is a succinct summary of Status of Gibraltar that someone could find quickly and easily should there be an International Incident. (Oh wait, there is a 'full and frank exchange of views' going on there as well. Sigh.)
References
Maec
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This
edit request to
Gibraltar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Gibraltar is also a swear word meaning bozzer. Eg You are a bozzer.{ 92.28.73.100 ( talk) 09:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
At the time (1704) of the capture, the Kingdom of Great Britain did not exist. Yet. The Acts of Union 1707 were three years later. So surely "English capture" is the correct term to use in the infobox? Which (erroneous ) RSs say "British"? Do any say "English"?
[In an edit note, Wee Curry Monster says that this point has previously been debated, see archives. Sorry but I can't find it? ] 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I have just removed the following paragraph:
A majority of Gibraltar's workers are foreign: Private sector workers are mainly Spanish (37%), Gibraltarians (26%) and other British (21%); the public sector, on the other hand, employs mainly Gibraltarians (76%) and other British (14%). Nearly half (44%) of the total employment is covered by frontier workers (employees who are normally resident in Spain but are employed in Gibraltar). [1]
First, it is not clear where these numbers come from. Which table is it? What caveats are needed? Each of these tables have important caveats. For example, it seems to be mostly counting "employee jobs" - does that mean that it doesn't count people who are self-employed? Also, they note 2,009 out of the 2,902 known employers completing the questionnaire in respect of their employees and 889 registering a nil return.
There's nothing here to suggest that the filled-in returns are representative of the missing returns. And, if you add 2009 and 889, you don't get 2902 - there are four missing.
Second, looking at Table 1.1 of the source, my immediate conclusion is that the first claim is not clearly true. There were 30,403 employee jobs in Gibraltar, of which 11,240 were filled by "Gibraltarians" and 5,813 by "Other British". That's 56% of the workforce between these two groups. It is not clear that non-Gibraltarian British people should be considered "foreign" in this context. The document does not use the word "foreign" at all, and per as it is a primary source we should not interpret it per WP:PSTS.
The document also contains the footnote attached to the "Gibraltarians" and "Other British" categories:
This nationality split presents problems of accuracy. Some employers classify all their British employees, including Gibraltarians, under the Other British category and since no personal details are provided it is not possible to differentiate between the two categories. This would result in an understatement of the Gibraltarians in employment.
So even if we do count the "Other British" people as "foreign", it is not clear that Gibraltarians are not in the majority.
In brief, this paragraph is OR interpretation of a primary source per WP:PSTS and should not be included without a secondary source to back up the interpretation. Kahastok talk 17:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
With respect to the selection bias problem: What suggests (but doesn't prove) that the respondents to the poll are representative of the non-respondents is common sense and the fact that nothing suggests a correlation between responding to the survey and hiring foreigners., that's your interpretation, not backed up by any reliable source. We are not allowed to interpret primary sources like this.
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gibraltar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section International relations change
Since BREXIT, it is not part of the European Union, but is a participant in the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
To
Since Brexit, it is not part of the European Union, but is a participant in the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
Brexit shouldn't be stylized with majuscules. Tutature ( talk) 17:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The title King of Gibraltar is on Spanish King Felipe VI 81.40.173.9 ( talk) 11:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
There are some issues concerning the effect of the recent discovery that Gibraltar is a city on this article. There have been edits about this by User:Encyloedit, User:Anvib, User:Chrism, User:MaineCrab, User:Moondragon21, User:Asbtrl361442, and me.
Is the city considered contained by the British Overseas Territory, or is it a status accorded to the British Overseas Territory itself?
Has there been a town of Gibraltar recognized within the BOT before now?
Is the BOT now named City of Gibraltar?
I'm assuming that in any case, the BOT and city are coterminus (contain exactly the same territory). Otherwise, the issue is pretty trivial.
Judging from the published official list of cities, I would say City of Gibraltar is a city within a British Overseas Territory named Gibraltar. And that the BOT status of the region is more significant than the city status, making that the primary topic of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giraffedata ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gibraltar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Monarch of Gibraltar, Charles III was coronated as king of England, but the Title of King(Monarch) is on Spanish King Felipe VI on the Wikipedia page you can even see it. I request inmediate change due to Charles III not having the official title "King of Gibraltar" 81.40.173.9 ( talk) 11:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gibraltar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Britain" to "Great Britain" 82.14.214.59 ( talk) 19:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk)
19:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gibraltar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
editing required. 27.147.202.191 ( talk) 09:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The article doesn't say anything about citizenship? A note in the healthcare section refers to "local citizens and British citizens", that's it. Can Gibraltarians relocate and settle in the UK without question? Would someone rectify, please? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 09:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)