This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of La Línea de la Concepción from es.wikipedia. Much has been machine translated from Google Translate. |
Linenses have never been known as piojosos in my experience. Am I wrong or is this a windup? I have heard them called 'Los Especiales'.
..my knowlege on this is because I lived in the area for a long sixteen years... Kbservices 11:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Should the accidental "invasion" of La Línea by British Royal Marines in 2002 [1] be mentioned in the article? Redxiv 05:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I see a lot of assumptions about La Linea without references, including an absurd allegation that the British were attempting to encroach on the Isthmus where in fact it was cleared as a neutral ground (DMZ) to prevent the Spanish attacking Gibraltar, contrary to the treaties they signed and reneged on, a common practice it seems. -- Gibnews ( talk) 23:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
“ | British title to the Rock of Gibraltar is based on Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht, signed in 1713. Our title to the southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to Spain is based on continuous possession over a long period. | ” |
Well, RedCoat, I must say that your statements are, although possibly done in good faith, totally misinformed.
You're possibly aware of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Is your "source" a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? It seems it's none of them. Let's see. Is the "Europa Historical Society" referenced by anyone? Well, a quick check to Google Scholar shows no mention. I've carefully read through the bibliography of my extensive Gibraltar-related library and no mention to such a prestigious "historical society". No mentions to it in google besides directories and the like. The Friends of Gibraltar Heritage Society does not mention them ever. Although it's pretty simple to collect a group of guys and pretend they're more than that, a group of friends. So, it's unknown whether it's "reliable" (nobody is able to provide any assessment), it's not a "third-party" source, it's unknown whether it has "published" anything ever, and it has no "reputation" since nobody in the "business" is aware of its existence.
However, it could be possible that what they say were useful or at least sensible. However, that's also again wishful thinking. The main "finding" of the analysis is some agreement in the Treaty of Seville. Unfortunately, without resorting to proper secondary sources, it is nowadays possible to access the text of the Treaty of Seville (see here) and, unfortunately Gibraltar is not even mentioned not only in the text of the Treaty but in the Preliminaries (the immediately previous text). So, we have inter alia, an unknown "historic society" that is unable to fulfill at least one of the requirements to be considered a reliable source. Given the invention of the contents of the Treaty of Seville, it cannot described as having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". On the contrary.
Finally, you talk about original research. Well, the fact that you don't understand what I say is not necessarily my fault. It could be better explained if we consider that here we're talking about Public International Law (and not a pub chat). I'm not an expert, but I try to document and source whatever I say in wikipedia. You can have a look at this book: International law. It talks about the ways to acquire a territory. Besides "cession" (page 420), which is what the Treaty of Utrecht is, you can see that the classical ways of such an acquisition are mainly "the exercise of effective control" (what UK claims for the isthmus). If you read carefully the chapter (page 424), you'll see that it has two variations: occupation and prescription. The former relates to the occupation of res nullius, while the latter does not apply to res nullius. Considering that primary sources may be used a "only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any educated person without specialist knowledge" and that I think I'm an educated person, noting that "continuous possession over a long period" and "the exercise of effective control" are the same thing (since no other categories in International Law exist when it comes to acquisition of territory) and that only one of the two variations (prescription) is valid since the other applies to res nullius, where is the original research? Not knowing anything about International Law does not involve that the ones that do know about it are doing original research when they talk about issues related to International Law. -- Ecemaml ( talk) 23:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The fourth geographical aspect concerns the fact that there are really two separate areas that are under negotiation: the town and the Rock on the one hand, and the isthmus that connects the Rock to the Spanish mainland on the other. The isthmus is territory that has been occupied by Britain since 1814 but it is not covered by the Treaty of Utrecht, so that whereas Britain can use de jure arguments in relation to the promontory, it has to rely on the more contentious de facto arguments of possession by prescription in relation to the isthmus and the airport that has been built upon it. As a consequence Spain has often seen the isthmus as more fruitful territory for negotiation, and at times British Governments have felt more vulnerable in relation to it, although the Gibraltarians consider it to be as much part of their territory as any other.
I question whether every article needs to be turned into a battleground over the Spanish claim to Gibraltar. Although its interesting in the history of La Linea to note its origin, the town has no particular relevance to the sovereignty claim or the Treaty of Utrecht. Similarly the section on 'modern confrontations with Gibraltar' these are not La Linea specific, as the only recent dispute has been with the late mayor's traffic plans, the fishing dispute was with Algeciras and the other items with The Campo and not La Linea, which tends not to bite the hand that feeds it. -- Gibnews ( talk) 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
@
Scu ba: Is there an established English-language placename other than 'La Línea' or 'La Línea de la Concepción' for this place? Being next to an English-language speaking place, I would be persuaded to think that perhaps there is. But that should be attested with quality sources (source provided
here is neither a "quality source" nor a proper way to establish an alternative English-language placename, but a translation).
WP:NCPLACE does not exactly endorse that "Use English" means "translate placenames" but When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.
. The translation of the placename without attesting actual usage/track of the translation as a way to refer to the place is a different issue, much less important and perhaps not even worth of mentioning in the lead (but in a placename toponymical section). There are reasons about why translations of placenames are not particularly common across introductory sections of Wikipedia articles (as in the likes of mentioning that "New Town of the Blunderbuss" is a possible translation for
Villanueva del Trabuco).--Asqueladd (
talk) 07:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Not sure why you don't believe that "the Line" is used by English speakersIt's not I don't "believe" it. I am agnostic on that matter, and as I have written before, I was slightly
persuaded to think that perhaps there isan alternative placename given the proximity of an English-speaking territory. It's more like you did not demonstrate the use of The Line as a common placename in English literature, and you have not demostrate it now, as both new sources ("britannica" and an "El País" news report about drug trafficking) actually use "La Línea" as the default placename. Similarly, pardon my English, the gibraltarinfo website mentions
"THE TOWN SITUATED JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BORDER IN SPAIN IS CALLED LA LÍNEA DE LA CONCEPCIÓN – YOU MAY HAVE COME THROUGH LA LÍNEA ON YOUR WAY TO GIBRALTAR".. Bluntly speaking the crux of the matter is that so far, the sample of English-language sources actually use La Línea or La Línea de la Concepción as the placename, only subsidiarily and one-off mentioning what does it translate to. Shall that situation (absence of English-language literature consistently referring to the place as The Line) continue, that factoid would not require bold text and, ideally, it might be better served in a proper placename section than in the opening statement. The WP:ONUS is still on you to demonstrate it otherwise.--Asqueladd ( talk) 16:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of La Línea de la Concepción from es.wikipedia. Much has been machine translated from Google Translate. |
Linenses have never been known as piojosos in my experience. Am I wrong or is this a windup? I have heard them called 'Los Especiales'.
..my knowlege on this is because I lived in the area for a long sixteen years... Kbservices 11:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Should the accidental "invasion" of La Línea by British Royal Marines in 2002 [1] be mentioned in the article? Redxiv 05:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I see a lot of assumptions about La Linea without references, including an absurd allegation that the British were attempting to encroach on the Isthmus where in fact it was cleared as a neutral ground (DMZ) to prevent the Spanish attacking Gibraltar, contrary to the treaties they signed and reneged on, a common practice it seems. -- Gibnews ( talk) 23:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
“ | British title to the Rock of Gibraltar is based on Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht, signed in 1713. Our title to the southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to Spain is based on continuous possession over a long period. | ” |
Well, RedCoat, I must say that your statements are, although possibly done in good faith, totally misinformed.
You're possibly aware of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Is your "source" a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? It seems it's none of them. Let's see. Is the "Europa Historical Society" referenced by anyone? Well, a quick check to Google Scholar shows no mention. I've carefully read through the bibliography of my extensive Gibraltar-related library and no mention to such a prestigious "historical society". No mentions to it in google besides directories and the like. The Friends of Gibraltar Heritage Society does not mention them ever. Although it's pretty simple to collect a group of guys and pretend they're more than that, a group of friends. So, it's unknown whether it's "reliable" (nobody is able to provide any assessment), it's not a "third-party" source, it's unknown whether it has "published" anything ever, and it has no "reputation" since nobody in the "business" is aware of its existence.
However, it could be possible that what they say were useful or at least sensible. However, that's also again wishful thinking. The main "finding" of the analysis is some agreement in the Treaty of Seville. Unfortunately, without resorting to proper secondary sources, it is nowadays possible to access the text of the Treaty of Seville (see here) and, unfortunately Gibraltar is not even mentioned not only in the text of the Treaty but in the Preliminaries (the immediately previous text). So, we have inter alia, an unknown "historic society" that is unable to fulfill at least one of the requirements to be considered a reliable source. Given the invention of the contents of the Treaty of Seville, it cannot described as having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". On the contrary.
Finally, you talk about original research. Well, the fact that you don't understand what I say is not necessarily my fault. It could be better explained if we consider that here we're talking about Public International Law (and not a pub chat). I'm not an expert, but I try to document and source whatever I say in wikipedia. You can have a look at this book: International law. It talks about the ways to acquire a territory. Besides "cession" (page 420), which is what the Treaty of Utrecht is, you can see that the classical ways of such an acquisition are mainly "the exercise of effective control" (what UK claims for the isthmus). If you read carefully the chapter (page 424), you'll see that it has two variations: occupation and prescription. The former relates to the occupation of res nullius, while the latter does not apply to res nullius. Considering that primary sources may be used a "only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any educated person without specialist knowledge" and that I think I'm an educated person, noting that "continuous possession over a long period" and "the exercise of effective control" are the same thing (since no other categories in International Law exist when it comes to acquisition of territory) and that only one of the two variations (prescription) is valid since the other applies to res nullius, where is the original research? Not knowing anything about International Law does not involve that the ones that do know about it are doing original research when they talk about issues related to International Law. -- Ecemaml ( talk) 23:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The fourth geographical aspect concerns the fact that there are really two separate areas that are under negotiation: the town and the Rock on the one hand, and the isthmus that connects the Rock to the Spanish mainland on the other. The isthmus is territory that has been occupied by Britain since 1814 but it is not covered by the Treaty of Utrecht, so that whereas Britain can use de jure arguments in relation to the promontory, it has to rely on the more contentious de facto arguments of possession by prescription in relation to the isthmus and the airport that has been built upon it. As a consequence Spain has often seen the isthmus as more fruitful territory for negotiation, and at times British Governments have felt more vulnerable in relation to it, although the Gibraltarians consider it to be as much part of their territory as any other.
I question whether every article needs to be turned into a battleground over the Spanish claim to Gibraltar. Although its interesting in the history of La Linea to note its origin, the town has no particular relevance to the sovereignty claim or the Treaty of Utrecht. Similarly the section on 'modern confrontations with Gibraltar' these are not La Linea specific, as the only recent dispute has been with the late mayor's traffic plans, the fishing dispute was with Algeciras and the other items with The Campo and not La Linea, which tends not to bite the hand that feeds it. -- Gibnews ( talk) 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
@
Scu ba: Is there an established English-language placename other than 'La Línea' or 'La Línea de la Concepción' for this place? Being next to an English-language speaking place, I would be persuaded to think that perhaps there is. But that should be attested with quality sources (source provided
here is neither a "quality source" nor a proper way to establish an alternative English-language placename, but a translation).
WP:NCPLACE does not exactly endorse that "Use English" means "translate placenames" but When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.
. The translation of the placename without attesting actual usage/track of the translation as a way to refer to the place is a different issue, much less important and perhaps not even worth of mentioning in the lead (but in a placename toponymical section). There are reasons about why translations of placenames are not particularly common across introductory sections of Wikipedia articles (as in the likes of mentioning that "New Town of the Blunderbuss" is a possible translation for
Villanueva del Trabuco).--Asqueladd (
talk) 07:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Not sure why you don't believe that "the Line" is used by English speakersIt's not I don't "believe" it. I am agnostic on that matter, and as I have written before, I was slightly
persuaded to think that perhaps there isan alternative placename given the proximity of an English-speaking territory. It's more like you did not demonstrate the use of The Line as a common placename in English literature, and you have not demostrate it now, as both new sources ("britannica" and an "El País" news report about drug trafficking) actually use "La Línea" as the default placename. Similarly, pardon my English, the gibraltarinfo website mentions
"THE TOWN SITUATED JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BORDER IN SPAIN IS CALLED LA LÍNEA DE LA CONCEPCIÓN – YOU MAY HAVE COME THROUGH LA LÍNEA ON YOUR WAY TO GIBRALTAR".. Bluntly speaking the crux of the matter is that so far, the sample of English-language sources actually use La Línea or La Línea de la Concepción as the placename, only subsidiarily and one-off mentioning what does it translate to. Shall that situation (absence of English-language literature consistently referring to the place as The Line) continue, that factoid would not require bold text and, ideally, it might be better served in a proper placename section than in the opening statement. The WP:ONUS is still on you to demonstrate it otherwise.--Asqueladd ( talk) 16:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)