This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Timeline of the history of Gibraltar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It may have had a POV label but the justification for labelling that as "POV" has never been provided. The material is relevant and cited so I have restored it. Justin talk 19:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
To repeat from above, I suggest that we should look at each individual point, decide whether it's really relevant and notable (and only the GoG and GoS positions strike me as really relevant to the History of Gibraltar, the rest deserve at the very most a small quotation in the reference), find good secondary references for each one (or primary references consisting of organizations stating their own positions), and write some good referenced encyclopedic prose which summarizes the controversy very briefly.
In the meantime I will shortly remove the text: "The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar citation needed, since there are other environmental problems in the Bay [1] and the base located in Rota [2], Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines) [3] without any official complaint. Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar. citation needed However, Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida [4] and Ecologistas en Acción [5], have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way."
I would also suggest drafting on this page first. Perhaps "The Government of Gibraltar and other organizations complained that the Spanish government's attitude was inconsistent with its acceptance of US nuclear warships being serviced in Rota." plus references as appropriate? Even that seems excessive for a Timeline article, but I'd really like to achieve consensus if at all possible. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I see you've created a new section instead of using the existing one. I've written a comment there. However, in order to move forward, I'll list here the points I think you're trying to introduce in the current article:
Is that correct? If that's the case, please provide reliable sources both related to the Tireless issue and backing those statements up. Cremallera ( talk) 16:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
If it's all sourced, please copy here the links leading to the references so we can take a look at them. Concerning the alleged changes to the article, I've just restored the existing stable version prior to your intervention and subsequent controversy, which is pretty much a standard procedure. Here's the diff. Now let's take a look at those sources, huh? Cremallera ( talk) 21:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the analysis. Here's mine:
I fully understand what WP:OR is. All the sources bar one refer to subjects not related with the repair of HMS Tireless. The connection is made outside the sources' content and thus, it constitutes original research. Quoting the WP:SYN policy: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. This text, which you advocate for:
“ | The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are other environmental problems in the Bay and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines) without any official complaint. Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar. However, Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way. | ” |
Is a perfect example of what this policy is about. To begin with you've got no reference for this statement "The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar". Then it follows the sentence "since there are other environmental problems in the Bay", whose reference is no longer available and -additionally- bears no relation at all with the Tireless incident.
Also, the inclusion of "the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines)" is completely unwarranted because the author of the source provided does not include a single reference to Gibraltar, the Tireless or something even tangentially related to this issue. The fact that the U.S. Sixth Fleet "includes nuclear submarines" was stressed by the editor and not the source, whilst the statement that "this does not raise official complaints" is a conclusion made by that editor as well. Of course, Spanish-American military cooperation is constrained by bilateral agreements, so there are no complaints in principle because it's all agreed upon. However, what the editor does not state is that since the
1975
treaty there have been no major repairs in Rota, such as refitting the cooling system of a nuclear reactor for a whole year. Not that Rota's activity has something to do with Gibraltar's anyway.
But it does not end here, the following text is also unreferenced "Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar". "However, Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida" (here, the reference is a dead link) "and Ecologistas en Acción, have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way". Rhetorics aside (X and Y "have also accused", when X and Y are the lone accusers, for instance or the fact that the Spanish Government did not protest because the Tireless docked in Gibraltar -several nuclear submarines visit Gibraltar every year unmolested- but because a major repair was conducted), the last phrase is the only one supported by a source. We can discuss that source whenever you want, but I am still waiting for a proper explanation of the aforementioned text and the suitable references relating all this with the Tireless issue. Thanks in advance.
Cremallera (
talk)
12:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — Following an incident whilst underway, the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was subsequently repaired in Gibraltar on safety grounds causing diplomatic tension with Spain. Addressing concerns regarding future nuclear repair operations in Gibraltar, the Government of Gibraltar declared "the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar to be an isolated and exceptional case that creates no precedent"[68]. Before allowing any repairs to HMS Tireless, the Gibraltar Government commissioned a full safety assessment which concluded that there was no significant risk to the public[68] and that sufficient contingency in terms of emergency planning was provided by the means of the Gibraltar Public Safety Scheme (GIBPUBSAFE booklet[79]). Complaints by citizens and Spanish Environmental groups led to the the Commission of the European Communities filing various complaints to the European Court of Justice on the grounds of the existing Council Directives on radiological emergencies. Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida[72] and Ecologistas en Acción[73], have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way. | ” |
The declarations of the opposition party of Gibraltar are not in my top 10 of sources I'd check to know what the "Spanish officials" say in any given time but, specifically, in August 2004 Gibraltar celebrated the "tercentenary", with the visit of Princess Anne of England and -you name it- the submarine HMS Tireless a few days before that. The context is relevant to understand all that jazz because, in the end, it had nothing to do with submarines and everything to do with the ongoing political conflict. Again, this wasn't a routine visit as it was a political statement. Therefore it got a political answer. Cheers. Cremallera ( talk) 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — Following an incident at sea the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar causing diplomatic tension with Spain.(refs) Complaints led to the Commission of the European Communities filing various complaints to the European Court of Justice on the grounds of the existing Council Directives on radiological emergencies.(refs including to the eventual ECJ ruling) The Government of Gibraltar declared "the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar to be an isolated and exceptional case that creates no precedent"[68] and concluded that there was no significant risk to the public[68] and emergency planning was sufficient.(ref to GIBPUBSAFE) Spanish groups have continued to make adverse comment on nuclear-powered ships visiting Gibraltar.(refs Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, any GoS comments on the 2004 visit, plus possibly others) | ” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 08:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Chronological order is usually good, here's the revised version:
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — Following an incident at sea the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar causing diplomatic tension with Spain.(refs) The Government of Gibraltar declared "the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar to be an isolated and exceptional case that creates no precedent"[68], concluding that there was no significant risk to the public[68] and emergency planning was sufficient.(ref to GIBPUBSAFE) Complaints led to the Commission of the European Communities filing various complaints to the European Court of Justice on the grounds of the existing Council Directives on radiological emergencies.(refs including to the eventual ECJ ruling) Spanish groups have continued to make adverse comment on nuclear-powered ships visiting Gibraltar.(refs Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, any GoS comments on the 2004 visit, plus possibly others, opposition parties etc) | ” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
And something along these lines?
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — Following an incident at sea the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) docked at Gibraltar where major repairs were conducted causing diplomatic tension with Spain.(refs) The Government of Gibraltar declared the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar to be an "isolated case" and concluded that there was "no significant risk to the public" [68] by the means of sufficient emergency planning.(ref to GIBPUBSAFE) Spanish environmentalist groups capitalised the issue and their protests led to the Commission of the European Communities filing various complaints on the grounds of the existing Council Directives on radiological emergencies to the European Court of Justice, which resolved that the Directives were not fully upheld.(refs including to the eventual ECJ ruling) Spanish groups have continued to criticise nuclear-powered ships visits.(refs Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, any GoS comments on the 2004 visit, plus possibly others, opposition parties etc) | ” |
Cremallera ( talk) 10:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — Following an incident at sea the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar causing diplomatic tension with Spain.(refs) Before consenting to the repair, the Government of Gibraltar insisted on a full safety assessment, declaring "the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar to be an isolated and exceptional case that creates no precedent"[68] and concluding that there was no significant risk to the public[68] and emergency planning was sufficient.(ref to GIBPUBSAFE) Complaints led to the Commission of the European Communities filing a case with the European Court of Justice on the grounds of the existing Council Directives on radiological emergencies.(refs including to the eventual ECJ ruling) Spanish groups have continued to make adverse comment on nuclear-powered ships visiting both Gibraltar and the Spanish naval station at Rota.(refs Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, any GoS comments on the 2004 visit, plus possibly others, opposition parties etc) | ” |
Justin talk 11:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright, this is a timeline, so let's try a different scope. Something short and basic:
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — The nuclear submarine HMS Tireless saw major repairs in Gibraltar causing diplomatic tension with Spain. A case was filed to the European Court of Justice, which concluded that the existing Council Directives on radiological emergencies were not fully upheld. | ” |
Other relevant information in the footnotes. Cremallera ( talk) 11:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a timeline, rather than a full account of a tiresome wrangle, and it now seems to me that we would need to put in an excessive number of things to achieve consensus. A NPOV blow-by-blow account of the whole thing, including the GoG appraisals, ECJ stuff, other ports, and so on, just seems too much for an incident in a timeline. Personally I'd go for the first sentence only of Cremallera's latest version, with lots of references, and a link to the relevant bit of Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar which itself might benefit from some of the references here. Humbly Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — Following an incident at sea the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar causing diplomatic tension with Spain.(refs) Before consenting to the repair, the Government of Gibraltar insisted on a full safety assessment, declaring "the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar to be an isolated and exceptional case that creates no precedent"[68]. | ” |
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — Following an incident at sea the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar causing diplomatic tension with Spain.(refs) | ” |
It is the right length for a timeline article, leaves all the points that could possibly irritate one side or another for references or for another more appropriate place, and it is unambiguously true and referenceable. Do others, especially Atama, have any comment? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 15:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) I too will wait for comments. However, I feel that one sentence is better for a Timeline article, and that the entire issue would be better addressed within the Disputed status of Gibraltar article where it can reasonably have a full section, to include all the points that are felt to be notable. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Neanderthal child.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Timeline of the history of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Timeline of the history of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Timeline of the history of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Timeline of the history of Gibraltar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It may have had a POV label but the justification for labelling that as "POV" has never been provided. The material is relevant and cited so I have restored it. Justin talk 19:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
To repeat from above, I suggest that we should look at each individual point, decide whether it's really relevant and notable (and only the GoG and GoS positions strike me as really relevant to the History of Gibraltar, the rest deserve at the very most a small quotation in the reference), find good secondary references for each one (or primary references consisting of organizations stating their own positions), and write some good referenced encyclopedic prose which summarizes the controversy very briefly.
In the meantime I will shortly remove the text: "The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar citation needed, since there are other environmental problems in the Bay [1] and the base located in Rota [2], Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines) [3] without any official complaint. Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar. citation needed However, Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida [4] and Ecologistas en Acción [5], have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way."
I would also suggest drafting on this page first. Perhaps "The Government of Gibraltar and other organizations complained that the Spanish government's attitude was inconsistent with its acceptance of US nuclear warships being serviced in Rota." plus references as appropriate? Even that seems excessive for a Timeline article, but I'd really like to achieve consensus if at all possible. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I see you've created a new section instead of using the existing one. I've written a comment there. However, in order to move forward, I'll list here the points I think you're trying to introduce in the current article:
Is that correct? If that's the case, please provide reliable sources both related to the Tireless issue and backing those statements up. Cremallera ( talk) 16:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
If it's all sourced, please copy here the links leading to the references so we can take a look at them. Concerning the alleged changes to the article, I've just restored the existing stable version prior to your intervention and subsequent controversy, which is pretty much a standard procedure. Here's the diff. Now let's take a look at those sources, huh? Cremallera ( talk) 21:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the analysis. Here's mine:
I fully understand what WP:OR is. All the sources bar one refer to subjects not related with the repair of HMS Tireless. The connection is made outside the sources' content and thus, it constitutes original research. Quoting the WP:SYN policy: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. This text, which you advocate for:
“ | The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are other environmental problems in the Bay and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines) without any official complaint. Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar. However, Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way. | ” |
Is a perfect example of what this policy is about. To begin with you've got no reference for this statement "The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar". Then it follows the sentence "since there are other environmental problems in the Bay", whose reference is no longer available and -additionally- bears no relation at all with the Tireless incident.
Also, the inclusion of "the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines)" is completely unwarranted because the author of the source provided does not include a single reference to Gibraltar, the Tireless or something even tangentially related to this issue. The fact that the U.S. Sixth Fleet "includes nuclear submarines" was stressed by the editor and not the source, whilst the statement that "this does not raise official complaints" is a conclusion made by that editor as well. Of course, Spanish-American military cooperation is constrained by bilateral agreements, so there are no complaints in principle because it's all agreed upon. However, what the editor does not state is that since the
1975
treaty there have been no major repairs in Rota, such as refitting the cooling system of a nuclear reactor for a whole year. Not that Rota's activity has something to do with Gibraltar's anyway.
But it does not end here, the following text is also unreferenced "Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar". "However, Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida" (here, the reference is a dead link) "and Ecologistas en Acción, have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way". Rhetorics aside (X and Y "have also accused", when X and Y are the lone accusers, for instance or the fact that the Spanish Government did not protest because the Tireless docked in Gibraltar -several nuclear submarines visit Gibraltar every year unmolested- but because a major repair was conducted), the last phrase is the only one supported by a source. We can discuss that source whenever you want, but I am still waiting for a proper explanation of the aforementioned text and the suitable references relating all this with the Tireless issue. Thanks in advance.
Cremallera (
talk)
12:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — Following an incident whilst underway, the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was subsequently repaired in Gibraltar on safety grounds causing diplomatic tension with Spain. Addressing concerns regarding future nuclear repair operations in Gibraltar, the Government of Gibraltar declared "the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar to be an isolated and exceptional case that creates no precedent"[68]. Before allowing any repairs to HMS Tireless, the Gibraltar Government commissioned a full safety assessment which concluded that there was no significant risk to the public[68] and that sufficient contingency in terms of emergency planning was provided by the means of the Gibraltar Public Safety Scheme (GIBPUBSAFE booklet[79]). Complaints by citizens and Spanish Environmental groups led to the the Commission of the European Communities filing various complaints to the European Court of Justice on the grounds of the existing Council Directives on radiological emergencies. Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida[72] and Ecologistas en Acción[73], have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way. | ” |
The declarations of the opposition party of Gibraltar are not in my top 10 of sources I'd check to know what the "Spanish officials" say in any given time but, specifically, in August 2004 Gibraltar celebrated the "tercentenary", with the visit of Princess Anne of England and -you name it- the submarine HMS Tireless a few days before that. The context is relevant to understand all that jazz because, in the end, it had nothing to do with submarines and everything to do with the ongoing political conflict. Again, this wasn't a routine visit as it was a political statement. Therefore it got a political answer. Cheers. Cremallera ( talk) 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — Following an incident at sea the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar causing diplomatic tension with Spain.(refs) Complaints led to the Commission of the European Communities filing various complaints to the European Court of Justice on the grounds of the existing Council Directives on radiological emergencies.(refs including to the eventual ECJ ruling) The Government of Gibraltar declared "the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar to be an isolated and exceptional case that creates no precedent"[68] and concluded that there was no significant risk to the public[68] and emergency planning was sufficient.(ref to GIBPUBSAFE) Spanish groups have continued to make adverse comment on nuclear-powered ships visiting Gibraltar.(refs Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, any GoS comments on the 2004 visit, plus possibly others) | ” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 08:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Chronological order is usually good, here's the revised version:
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — Following an incident at sea the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar causing diplomatic tension with Spain.(refs) The Government of Gibraltar declared "the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar to be an isolated and exceptional case that creates no precedent"[68], concluding that there was no significant risk to the public[68] and emergency planning was sufficient.(ref to GIBPUBSAFE) Complaints led to the Commission of the European Communities filing various complaints to the European Court of Justice on the grounds of the existing Council Directives on radiological emergencies.(refs including to the eventual ECJ ruling) Spanish groups have continued to make adverse comment on nuclear-powered ships visiting Gibraltar.(refs Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, any GoS comments on the 2004 visit, plus possibly others, opposition parties etc) | ” |
Richard Keatinge ( talk) 09:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
And something along these lines?
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — Following an incident at sea the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) docked at Gibraltar where major repairs were conducted causing diplomatic tension with Spain.(refs) The Government of Gibraltar declared the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar to be an "isolated case" and concluded that there was "no significant risk to the public" [68] by the means of sufficient emergency planning.(ref to GIBPUBSAFE) Spanish environmentalist groups capitalised the issue and their protests led to the Commission of the European Communities filing various complaints on the grounds of the existing Council Directives on radiological emergencies to the European Court of Justice, which resolved that the Directives were not fully upheld.(refs including to the eventual ECJ ruling) Spanish groups have continued to criticise nuclear-powered ships visits.(refs Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, any GoS comments on the 2004 visit, plus possibly others, opposition parties etc) | ” |
Cremallera ( talk) 10:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — Following an incident at sea the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar causing diplomatic tension with Spain.(refs) Before consenting to the repair, the Government of Gibraltar insisted on a full safety assessment, declaring "the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar to be an isolated and exceptional case that creates no precedent"[68] and concluding that there was no significant risk to the public[68] and emergency planning was sufficient.(ref to GIBPUBSAFE) Complaints led to the Commission of the European Communities filing a case with the European Court of Justice on the grounds of the existing Council Directives on radiological emergencies.(refs including to the eventual ECJ ruling) Spanish groups have continued to make adverse comment on nuclear-powered ships visiting both Gibraltar and the Spanish naval station at Rota.(refs Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, any GoS comments on the 2004 visit, plus possibly others, opposition parties etc) | ” |
Justin talk 11:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright, this is a timeline, so let's try a different scope. Something short and basic:
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — The nuclear submarine HMS Tireless saw major repairs in Gibraltar causing diplomatic tension with Spain. A case was filed to the European Court of Justice, which concluded that the existing Council Directives on radiological emergencies were not fully upheld. | ” |
Other relevant information in the footnotes. Cremallera ( talk) 11:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a timeline, rather than a full account of a tiresome wrangle, and it now seems to me that we would need to put in an excessive number of things to achieve consensus. A NPOV blow-by-blow account of the whole thing, including the GoG appraisals, ECJ stuff, other ports, and so on, just seems too much for an incident in a timeline. Personally I'd go for the first sentence only of Cremallera's latest version, with lots of references, and a link to the relevant bit of Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar which itself might benefit from some of the references here. Humbly Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — Following an incident at sea the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar causing diplomatic tension with Spain.(refs) Before consenting to the repair, the Government of Gibraltar insisted on a full safety assessment, declaring "the repair of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar to be an isolated and exceptional case that creates no precedent"[68]. | ” |
“ | 2000 May - 2001 May — Following an incident at sea the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless (S88) was repaired in Gibraltar causing diplomatic tension with Spain.(refs) | ” |
It is the right length for a timeline article, leaves all the points that could possibly irritate one side or another for references or for another more appropriate place, and it is unambiguously true and referenceable. Do others, especially Atama, have any comment? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 15:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) I too will wait for comments. However, I feel that one sentence is better for a Timeline article, and that the entire issue would be better addressed within the Disputed status of Gibraltar article where it can reasonably have a full section, to include all the points that are felt to be notable. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Neanderthal child.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Timeline of the history of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Timeline of the history of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Timeline of the history of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)