Talk:Gibraltar

Article Overhaul

Before somebody arbitrarily decided to archive the discussion page (July 09 - Aug 09) we were discussing how this article needs a major revision and reassessment, if not complete overhaul. It is written in a completely pro-British and anti-Spanish style and thus violates the Wikipedia principle of neutrality: WP:NPOV. Some good editors have tried to improve it by proposing small changes and additions to the article in the recent months, even years. However, their contributions have been repeatedly rejected and obstructed by some editors with an obvious pro-British bias. They impose their one-sided point of view with dishonesty, cynicism and even sarcasm. They prevent the article from being neutral and balanced by shoving aside constructive opinions and contributions. The result is a biased article which only reflects the British point of view.

For example, the British arguments in the sovereignty dispute are clearly presented at the top of the article. But there is no mention of the other side's point of view. It reads: "The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this [reunification with Spain] along with any proposal of shared sovereignty. The British government has stated that it is committed to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes." But then no mention of the basis of the Spanish claims: 1) territorial integrity, 2) UN Resolutions mandating decolonization, or 3) the debate about the "transfer of sovereignty" under the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, by which property of the territory was transferred (real estate) not sovereignty.

In the latter part of the article, there is no mention either of the UN Resolution against the Referendum of 1967, or of the dispute on territorial waters, the shifting of the border by Britain, or the ilegal trafficking. But then, irrelevant information like the "Jane’s Country Risk" study is rammed into the Main Page (it helps create a positive impression of the colony) when no other country or region article in Wikipedia has this on their main page. The whole thing is so blunt in its pro-British bias it is ridiculous. Complete, neutral, verifiable information should be presented in this article, not selective facts that fit people's political points of view. Important facts like the Non-Self Governing status of Gibraltar, or the basis for Spain's claims should be included immediately to stop this bias and provide some neutrality to the article. JCRB (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please desist from using insulting language referring to Gibraltar as 'a colony; is legally incorrect and most offensive. The article is about Gibraltar not a Spanish obsession. There is an article which deals with the dispute. It is not appropriate here. --Gibnews (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The UN Decolonisation Committee is in fact discussed in this article. Nationalist rants merely confirm your own bias and lets be honest here, you and your sockpuppet MEGV tried and failed to introduce your edit last time. The IP sock puppet you appear to be using is unhelpful. Discuss your proposed edits in a reasonable manner, without the accusations of bias and you may get somewhere. But if you plan to spam the page with tendentious arguments as you did the last time you will get nowhere. Justin talk 08:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is amongst the most blatantly biased ones in all Wikipedia, along with those devoted to the History of Gibraltar, Gibraltarian people and the Great Siege of Gibraltar. Give us a rest, you lot. And what JCRB says is true: why exactly a the "Jane’s Country Risk" ranking are placed in the lead section? Please, see WP:LEAD: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.39.103 (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Commenting on the OP, the talk page was archived, any discussion can be readily retrieved at any time. The bad faith accusation inherent in that comment was unhelpful.

To the IP above, will you please cease with the accusations of bias. You are welcome to discuss changes in the article, not to indulge in bad faith attacks on editors. Justin talk 10:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. We are so welcome to discuss changes. But they'll never make it to the article, and will stay in the talk pages 'till the end of times. Or until you censor them, that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.39.103 (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right, you got me, I'm on a mission to abolish Spain from Wikipedia 'cos I hate it so much. Except I'm half-Spanish and you're just trolling to get a rise. I suggest you might think about coming back when you grow up. Justin talk 11:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wich does not change the fact that you've censored a comment just because it was displeasant to you. That is so mature... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.39.103 (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No posting the bad faith attack (which you just admitted to) was the immature act, as is trolling a talk page to get a rise. I suggest you grow up. Justin talk 11:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments? I love them, Justin. Now, do you have something related to the article to say like why is Jane's Review relevant enough to stay in the lead section, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.39.103 (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How about the fact that its relevant and why would you wish to expunge it? Justin talk 11:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Expunge it? Not really, but it should be relocated to the Economy section where it belongs. The lede is not the place for such statements as per WP:LEAD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.39.103 (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]Gibraltar is a British Territory and its notable that it was rated higher than any other, including the UK by a prestigious and respected organisation. This seems to upset some editors. By way of contrast I saw that the Spanish wikipedia leads with a reference showing the Gibraltarians produce more Co2 per head than anyone else, and which has been used claim we are polluting the planet.

IF the article were so 'blatently biased' I expect someone impartial would have edited it by now, but its very factual. There are indeed people living in Gibraltar who's families had to leave when it was forcibly taken from Britain despite Article XI of the Treaty of Utrecht. But lets find some references to that instead of denying it happened. Gibraltar is not reverting to Spain any time soon, and rewriting articles on wikipedia, although preferable to firing cannon balls is much the same. --Gibnews (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If the Spanish wikipedia is wrong, be bold and edit there. You are welcome. But two wrongs don't make a right. As for the blatant bias and "no impartials editing", you've got a 13 talk pages archive... For god's sake... Anyway, the fact that you can't consider yourself impartial it's enlightening. A very touching revelation indeed.

PS: and it's blatant, not blatent. Have a nice and british day.

I suggest you try and edit on the Spanish wikipedia to correct the content, you'll find it illuminating. Its patrolled by an admin who was blocked on the English wikipedia for edit warring on Gibraltar. I note you're now in violation of 3RR but no one is rushing to report you. The reason we have a 13 page archive is due to the tendentious edits of ardent Spanish nationalists who have sought to overturn the balance of the present article. Oh and the lede is perfectly valid as is and in line with policy. So again why do you wish to remove material?

And while we're on the subject do you really think such a confrontational attitude is conducive towards convincing people of your argument? Justin talk 12:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Justin, dear, you are also in violation of 3RR and I'm not rushing to report you either. On the other hand, it's also revealing (as it was in Gibnews' case) that you deem as "ardent Spanish nationalism" absolutely every content in the talk pages that does not fit into your own point of view (sorry, you were speaking about "overturning the balance of the present article"). And, again, I'm not advocating for removing material, but to include it in the correct section which is *not* the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.39.103 (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually no I'm not, adding incorrect information is vandalism and reverting it does not count toward 3RR. In each case I suggested you take the point to talk and to de-escalate the conversation by removing talk of bias. I disagree that the material doesn't belong in the lead, its perfectly relevant. JCRB's justification is that its an attempt to portray a positive image of the "colony". Mmm, lets see using a term that is known to be offensive really helps doesn't it? Justin talk 13:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are. I could use your very own argument to defend myself, as you are the one who in the first place reverted my edits pretending to defend the "neutral point of view". You can't be serious when stating that you tried "to de-escalate the conversation", when your textual words have been take it to talk and pls do not make POV accusations to the mere addition of a citation needed tag.

Sigh, whatever, if you merely wish to be unnecessarily confrontational you will get nowhere. You know full well I was referring to your talk page comments. If you think that saying please is confrontational there is little hope for you. Describing the Spanish residents of Minorca as British colonists was incorrect, you added an edit that you either knew to be incorrect or merely added a provocative POV edit for you own POV reasons in ignorance of the facts. Either way you don't come across as a positive contributor. Adding a citation tag where it is unnecessary is pointy, you're disrupting the article to make a point. Justin talk 14:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Calling "POV accusations" to a request for sources, is not only confrontational, but shows a real lack of understanding of what neutrality means. And if you want to speak about the Minorca bits, we could write a book on it:

1- Original sentence, which I am sure that will be displayed in the article for a long time (and which is incidental at most in the topic dealt with in the "nationality of Gibraltarian people" section): "Other groups include Minorcans (forced to leave their homes when Minorca was returned to Spain in 1802)".

2- Fact tag added to the phrase "forced to leave their homes" (a funny statement indeed, since the same article just says "the Spanish left" when those gentle British and Dutch soldiers were invited into Gibraltar).

3- Plain reverts without substantiating.

4- Then you add two sources. Namely:

- Britain’s Last Conquest of Menorca 1798 - 1802.

- Minorca, the illusory prize : a history of the British occupations of Minorca between 1708 and 1802.

5- To which I add that the last occupation of Minorca lasted for only 4 years, and that people expelled from the former British colony were British colonists.

6- At this point, you revisit my edition by stating that the information is incorrect as "they" were "Spanish people who feared reprisals from the Spanish Government".

7- "So they weren't forced" Oddly, subconscious mind can be so treacherous. You contradict yourself, which brings up the question of what exactly say the references you've provided?". I'm still waiting for an explanation, but I do know what you are going to say anyway: Yes... I am disrupting the article to make a point. Good afternoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.56.185 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have made your point. Be aware that dissruption articles and wasting everyones time is pretty pointless. There must be something better to do that continually attack articles about Gibraltar because they don't reflect your view of the world. --Gibnews (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see continuing with the bad faith accusations. My comments simply related to your earlier comments on the talk page. As regards the article in its current state, were you to make a reasonable suggestion as to a sensible alternative I'd happily consider it. Personally I think it could be better written, your edits showed no desire to provide something better. If thats what you expected, I'm sure you will be very happy. There is nothing subconscious in anything I've written, I didn't write that particular sentence anyway. Regards. Justin talk 19:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>Guys, I am failing to see the virtue of this debate. No-one is getting anything from it, so why continue? Lets all just walk away for a couple of days. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Narson, but if this debate is not conducting anywhere is because you don't want it. Stating that some population just left while other was forced to leave in quite similar situations is showing a double standard. I have exposed this case in the Gibraltarian people article and, incidentally, also here as this article uses the same wording. The change has been reverted several times, so the use of such loaded terms is intentional.

And Justin, perhaps you didn't write that particular sentence, but you edited the text at least 8 times to keep it. Regards.

Huh? I'm assuming that the first sentence was meant to be 'If this debate is not going anywhere, it is because you don't want it to'? All I was saying was that the atmophere at the moment is combative which means nothing will be achieved, so everyone getting some time off and then coming back and seeing if there is still an issue would be a good idea. Wikipedia is about working together, and attacking /everyone/ on a talk page even if they havn't offered an opinion on the debate in hand is not going to win you support. Please take a couple of days, read some wikipolicies (WP:AGF appears to have died off on this page, on all sides. Also WP:CONSENSUS is a good one) and lets all remember this is not a battleground. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Err no, WP:AGF certainly hasn't died off as far as I'm concerned. I'm still prepared to listen to an alternative but do note that you sought to introduce a POV text, which was got reverted. You also introduced erroneous material. So once again, you are welcome to make suggestions, cut out the bad faith accusations and discuss it rationally and you may get somewhere. BTW technically you're blocked at the moment, I presume you're using another IP, so technically that is sockpuppetry and using it to continue with personal attacks is not conducive to going somewhere. Try talking to people, you might be surprised. Justin talk 13:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Justin, stop behaving like the owner of this articles... "I'm still prepared to listen to an alternative but do note that you sought to introduce a POV text, which was got reverted". And you do note that the first additions to the text were citation needed tags which you reverted over and over. Your definition of "POV text" is certainly weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.58.247 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making accusations, and read up on Wikipedia behavioural guidelines such as WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You've been pointed at them several times because you are not following them.

Arguing over past actions does not improve your chances of persuading other editors to accept changes that you would like to see. Remember that changes to this and other articles require a consensus of editors, and that if you are not willing to assume good faith in others, it will be impossible for such a consensus to form. If there is no consensus for change, there is no change. Pfainuk talk 15:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That editor has a point regarding the bias in "most of the population chose to leave Gibraltar peacefully" but again the usual editors reject a reasonable contribution. This is yet another example of the outrageously pro-British bias by those who repeatedly block good suggestions and contributions to this article. We argued this matter before and somebody produced verifable sources indicating that the Gibraltar population did not leave peacefully but in fact was forced to leave due to their fear of the British forces. This was actually justified as the town was later plundered by the Dutch and British soldiers. So for a change, stop obstructing verifiable information. JCRB (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We did discuss it before. The text that I proposed at the end of that discussion was:

Terms of surrender were agreed upon, and much of the population chose to leave Gibraltar fearing reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch soldiers. Parts of the town were then plundered by the occupying forces.

You'll note that that's entirely sourced. I'm still willing to accept this. I'm still willing to accept it without the words fearing reprisals if that will get consensus. But if you are, as then, unwilling to accept that the words:

Many bloody reprisals were taken by the inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen were thrown down wells and cesspits.

state or at least very strongly imply that the murder of Englishmen and Dutchmen occurred before the inhabitants left the town, then consensus is plainly impossible. Without consensus, there is no change.

On a separate point, you're still failing to assume good faith. Please reread WP:AGF. Pfainuk talk 17:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That is pretty much my recollecion Pfain. But then, it does not quite fall into the black and white that some editors prefer. Lets not revisit past subjects though without something new, we don't need to waste the bandwidth. JCRB? Please cut the hyperbole. It only serves to polarise things even more. IP? Please do read the policies, especially those on blocking policy and blocking evasion, as well as those mentioned above. An argument made from policy is likely to get more widespread support. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. If there's no new arguments, there's not much point in going over and over old ground. Pfainuk talk 18:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi

The anon is blocked for 3RR but is IP-hopping, so semi-protecting this page seems easier than a range block. Complaints? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Not from me, though I'd prefer it if they could just cool down and engage with other editors. Regards. Justin talk 20:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Improvement

I had forgotten that Pfainuk had proposed an improved text to the historical section. Personally I'd be happy to see what he proposes included in the article as being more accurate and NPOV. Regarding the exodus from Minorca, personally I would like to see the current text:

Other groups include Minorcans (forced to leave[57][58] their homes when Minorca was returned to Spain in 1802 by the Treaty of Amiens)

Replace with:

Other groups include Minorcans (who left Minorca fearing reprisals from the Spanish Government when the island was returned to Spain in 1802 by the Treaty of Amiens)[57][58]

More elaborate but perhaps better from a POV perspective. And it is balanced by the preceeding proposal from Pfainuk. I would suggest we include both. Comments? Justin talk 20:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems perfectly acceptable, and accurate. The initial wording may be concise but in being so concise it looks like it is randomly put there. I do still wonder if we wouldn't be better dedicating a sentence to the minorcan immigration rather than going 'Other groups', listing 3+ and only having a reason for one. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless the references specifically say they feared reprisals, we could leave that out, the Minorcans who came here did so because they preferred to live somewhere British. --Gibnews (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The references support it, I'd be happy to work in Narson's suggestion. Justin talk 20:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Pfainuk talk 11:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Overhaul (2)

To the editors who continuously obstruct the improvement and neutrality of this article: what gives you the right to semi-protect this talk page? Everyone has the right to participate in the discussion. Everybody, specially those editors who put forth constructive suggestions and provide verifiable information. So for once and for all STOP THAT DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR.

Second, since when is the term "colony" offensive? Is it offensive to those who have a political agenda in trying to depict Gibraltar as an independent country? Third, refrain from accusing editors of "bias" or of "nationalism" when they are only trying to include a small dosis of NEUTRALITY in a constructive way. And don't accuse others when it is you who repeatedly rejects verifiable facts like the Non-self Governing Status of Gibraltar, the basis of Spain's claims, or the UN Decolonisation mandates. Fourth, please stop your ridiculous "sockpuppetry" accusation. If you put your glasses on you'll see that I am signing my messages with my own name, JCRB, not an IP address. Fifth, don't tell me to "discuss my proposed edits in a reasonable manner.. and you might get somewhere" because I already have: here [1] and here [2] and here [3]. Many editors have already discussed edits in reasonable and constructive ways, and their sound proposals for improvement and higher neutrality have ALL been rejected through twisted arguments or questioning of sources or other stratagems to finally prevent their inclusion in the article.

If you want to prove your good faith and your neutrality start by completing the sentence about the sovereignty dispute with the other side's point of view:

"Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to the Crown of Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return based on the concept of territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonisation" JCRB (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Uhm. Lets start at the start, it was semi protected to avoid block evasion and it was done so by an admin whose involvement in this page is peripheral at best. So do a bit of thinking before you bandy around accusations of disruption.

If you truely believe you have no POV on this matter, then I fear there is little hope of a rational and productive conversation. Once again JCRB, bring something new to the table or there is little point in discussing it. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Though I would then add that I find it amusing that an editor whose messages are so filled with accusations of bias and nationalism is demanding that editors refrain from making accusations of bias and nationalism. Pfainuk talk 11:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Britain does not have any colonies, it has overseas territories. Gibraltar is not a colony and anyone who calls it that does so in order to insult its inhabitants and to deny us our human rights. At one time black people in America were slaves, you can refer to it in a historical context, but using terms related to that period today is simply not appropriate.

This article is about GIBRALTAR, not the Spanish claim, there is an article that describes the basis of that claim and its rebuttal fully. The article is there to inform people of that which is in Gibraltar. An American tourist to Gibraltar is interested in things here and not some outdated claim. A businessman wanting to set up a company here might want to be assured that there is no prospect of Gibraltar becoming Spanish as that would affect his operation, but he does not care about what was said at the UN C24,stuck in a time loop, makes no difference. So we are focusing on important things about Gibraltar, not Spanish dreams and delusions. --Gibnews (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The term colony is archaic and its only use in modern law is where the term is used in older legislation. (However this would apply to virtually all member states of the Commonwealth.} The Four Deuces (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The context in which it is used is that Spain asserts that the Gibraltarians are mere colonists from Britain who should either become Spanish citizens or leave. Its part of a dehumanising process.

Heres some background various positions taken at the UN C24 --Gibnews (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Do I take it that the attempt to improve elements of the article have been derailed yet again? Justin talk 19:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends. Unless someone actually objects to the change - and no-one has yet - then I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that silence implies consent. Obviously, any objection would need to give reasons - better reasons, one would hope, than the last time we tried this. Pfainuk talk 20:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If you mean improve the language about the Minorcans, we seem to be in broad agreement. Otherwise it seems fine to me. --Gibnews (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Not sure what you mean by "block evasion", but that other editor had some good points, so stop blocking the the talk page just because you don't like his comments.

2. The article is full of bias and nationalism, that is why I accuse some editors of bias and nationalism. It is they/you who repeatedly obstruct good suggestions towards neutrality. Your attitude of obstruction, diversion, and blocking the talk page, is the proof of your bias. Your anti-Spanish statements (Gibnews) and your political declarations are the proof of your blatant impartiality. If you dare accuse me of "bias and nationalism" I would like to see on what grounds. I have always and only argued for neutrality.

3. Read carefully. I never said the article should include the word "colony". I am just defending myself from your accusations of "insulting Gibraltarians". I did not know that the term "colony" was derogatory in any way. In fact, allow me to doubt it. Many people in Britain still use the term. Archaic? Perhaps.

4. You say "the article is about Gibraltar, not the Spanish claims" and therefore you oppose my suggestion that the sentence includes a simple mention of the basis of those claims. Well, if the article is only about "that which is Gibraltar" why does it go out if its way to explain that "the overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty" ? And then continues with "the British government has stated that it is committed to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes" ? Your reasoning betrays you. This is another example of the article's massive bias.

5. Proposed solution to point 4: either 1) mention the basis of Spain's claims, or 2) leave out the part of Britain's committment, and wishes of Gibraltarias. As you say, that should go in the Disputed Status of Gibraltar (which by the way is also incredibly biased). JCRB (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand the term block evasion? It means he was evading a block. He was blocked. He was using his rotating IP to avoid the consequences of that block. Also, either be clearer with who you are talking to or don't use the second person narrative, eh? It gets confusing. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone now knows the word Colony is offensive. So lets not hear it again. --Gibnews (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)