Talk:Gibraltar

Parallels

I reverted a large addition about parallels with other territories. I'm mindful of past disputes and don't want to provoke another, but I politely suggest to Justin that an overview article on Gibraltar is not the right place to go into this kind of thing. Gibraltar is so much more than the subject of territorial disputes involving Spain. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you that WP:CIVIL includes a section about not raking up past disputes, please stop it now. Please identify exactly what is wrong with the content I proposed, it is relevant, possibly too long and could be slimmed down but it is relevant and that is what is important. I will discuss content but if you continue to rake up past disputes per WP:CIVIL I will ask for the special conditions imposed by arbcom to be invoked. Justin talk 17:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I am just saying, I don't want to provoke another dispute - please don't overreact. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Focus on content, that is all I will say. Justin talk 22:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Red Hat that the dispute article is a better place for this. I must admit I'd question whether a mention belongs in this article at all, bearing in mind that that section intends to represent Gibraltar politics as a whole and this is a relatively tangential part of the dispute, itself only part of Gibraltar politics. Given that, the text as proposed is certainly too long and detailed IMO. Pfainuk talk 17:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. Probably the best place for it is the international disputes section of Foreign relations of Spain? That's hardly got any information there at all. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly but given this was brought up recently by Peter Caruana and is cited in numerous documents on the sovereignty dispute it is relevant. The more detailed text could go in another article but a slimmed down version is relevant here. It is also cited from a reliable source, it is verifiable and to avoid covering it would be to suppress relevant material. Justin talk 22:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is sourced - but we're discussing its relevance, not whether it's original research. It's well written, so I sincerely encourage you to look at integrating it elsewhere on WP - Foreign relations of Spain really is its perfect home - the entirety of your addition would work perfectly there. We can also add a link to that article in the See Also section of the Gib article. How does that sound? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why the analogue of Spanish enclaves in Moroccan territory, in part only 15 km away, are not of relevance? I contend the relevance is compelling and have sources that confirm this. I have already conceded the text I initially proposed is overly large for this article, it would be more relevant elsewhere. Here, I am suggesting a brief coverage pertinent to an overview article. Please address what I actually propose. Justin talk 23:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

For the reasons stated by Pfainuk: "this is a relatively tangential part of the dispute, itself only part of Gibraltar politics". And, to put my own perspective on it too, what you added - even if we massively trim it down - is really an analysis of Spain's territorial disputes - Spain is the common thread amongst Gibraltar, Ceuta, Melilla and Oliveira, not Gibraltar, and this is an overview article of Gibraltar. Anyway, I'm obviously not going to convince you, and, I have to say, vice versa, so this will be a matter for consensus. Let's see what others have to say. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC) ps it is late there in Scotland - time to hit the hay?

Given this has been raised by Peter Caruana QC, Chief Minister, Government of Gibraltar, as I point out above, the relevance is actually established. And again as I point out above the analogue with the situation in Gibraltar is compelling. I have already demonstrated a willingness to dicuss content and have already changed position. Focus on content please. Justin talk 19:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that relevance to an overview article like this one is established by any comments so far of the Chief Minister. Spain's other issues are worth passing mention by him, but they aren't directly relevant. If he and other leading spokesmen in this dispute all said that Spain's other territorial disputes are all part of the same dispute, I'd change my mind, but he hasn't and neither has, for example, the foreign minister of Spain. I'd support a brief mention of this issue in the Dispute article, all or a lot of it in Foreign relations of Spain, and none here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Richard, do you have a source that says it isn't relevant to Gibraltar or is that your personal opinion and/or original research - neither of which are grounds that I find are relevant to wikipedia for not supporting the inclusion of material in an article. Let us actually look at this objectively. Spanish enclave on the edge of Moroccan territory less than 15km away, that Morocco would like to see returned but the people living there don't wish to be part of Morocco, and Spain supports their right to self-detemination, a British enclave on the edge of Spanish territory but Spain denies they have a right to self-detemination and does not respect their wishes not to be part of Spain. But this doesn't merit a mention in the Gibraltar article? Such a compelling analogue and it doesn't merit a mention? Sorry but I think your argument is completely unsustainable and is based on grounds that are not relevant to the policies of wikipedia. Justin talk 22:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of sourcing, nor indeed of policy - it's a matter of relevancy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I happen to have sources that establish relevancy and seriously I don't see how it can be argued that it is not relevant. Justin talk 23:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't relevant because no legal or practical part of the case on Gibraltar would be significantly affected even if all the other parallels had never existed. They simply have nothing to say to the status of Gibraltar. I suppose we could put in a comment, probably on Disputed status of Gibraltar if there isn't one there already, to say that the issue has been brought up in this context. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

On what grounds do you base that assertion? [1]

“ Of course, Spain argues this while happily sitting on a dozen separate enclaves on another continent, Africa, including two cities, in the territory of what would otherwise naturally be the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco.

Spain passionately believes these to be Spanish by virtue of history, the passage of time (around 500 years) and the fact that the Kingdom of Morocco did not exist at that time in the same legal form as it exists now. With respect, those distinctions seem wholly insufficient to justify Spain holding and advocating diametrically opposed positions in the cases of Gibraltar and her own enclaves in North Africa just 15 kilometres away from Gibraltar across the Strait of Gibraltar.

”

[2]

“ In this respect, the Spanish have a convincing argument that the British occupation of Gibraltar is anomalous given its location compared to Britain. However, such an argument is undermined by Spain’s similar occupation of Ceuta and Melilla in Northern Africa. ”

Legal opinion does consider it relevant, the latter is the work of a legal scholar. I think that the fact they're 15 km away from Gibraltar is also of great significance. And all I'm arguing for is a very brief mention. Sources demonstrate the relevance. Your assertion it is not relevant based solely on your personal opinion is not grounds based that I find acceptable on Wikipedia given that relevance can be sourced. You have not advanced a policy based objection to any of my proposals. Justin talk 12:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your quotation is of a lawyer mentioning, in a footnote, a populist argument. Again it might do for a very small comment in Disputed status of Gibraltar. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Policy based objection, please. Justin talk 12:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a populist point of no legal relevance and minimal notability. A brief mention might fit in an article on the dispute, in which context it has some notability. But not in an overview article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal relevance is established above, notability is established by the source quoted - which is a speech at the UN. Populist point? There you have me, please explain how that is based on grounds acceptable to wikipedia? Justin talk 16:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal relevance is not established by your source, nor sufficient notability by PC's comments. Its only relevance is that it establishes some degree of inconsistency in Spanish policy and this point is popular in some quarters. In the Dispute article it might be worth a brief comment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This you're going to have to explain. A legal opinion in a legal journal by an academic that is not legal relevance? Notability related to a speech at the UN by Peter Caruana but the UN isn't notable or he isn't? Inconsistency in Spanish policy toward Gibraltar but that is not relevant on the grounds that it is popular in some quarters? I don't see a policy based argument here at all, certainly not grounds that are relevant to wikipedia. Sorry but I really don't, so far you've reverted/vetoed any change that I have proposed but I don't see policy grounds for those at all. Justin talk 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this is a good moment to call for further opinions. I insert here Justin's edit that is the subject of this section:

"Parallels with Spanish territories

The strategic position of the Strait of Gibraltar has left a legacy of a number of sovereignty disputes. Spain maintains sovereignty over Ceuta, Melilla, Penon de Velez de la Gomera, Alhucemas and the Chafarinas Islands (captured following the christian reconquest of Spain) based upon historical grounds, security reasons and on the basis of the UN principle of territorial integrity. Spain also maintains that the majority of residents are Spanish. Morocco claims these territories on the basis of the UN principles of decolonisation, territorial integrity and that Spanish arguments for the recovery of Gibraltar substantiate Morocco’s claim.

Olivenza (Spanish) or Olivença (Portuguese) is a town and seat of a municipality, on a disputed section of the border between Portugal and Spain, which is claimed de jure by both countries and administered de facto as part of the Spanish autonomous community of Extremadura. The population is 80% ethnic portuguese and 30% of portuguese language. Olivenza had been under continuous Portuguese sovereignty since 1297 when it was occupied by the Spanish in 1801 and formally ceded by Portugal later that year by the Treaty of Badajoz. Spain claims the de jure sovereignty over Olivenza on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz still stands and has never been revoked. Thus, the border between the two countries in the region of Olivenza should be as demarcated by that treaty. Portugal claims the de jure sovereignty over Olivenza on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz was revoked by its own terms (the breach of any of its articles would lead to its cancellation) when Spain invaded Portugal in the Peninsular War of 1807.

Portugal further bases its case on Article 105 of the Treaty of Vienna of 1815, which Spain signed in 1817, that states that the winning countries are to "endeavour with the mightiest conciliatory effort to return Olivenza to Portuguese authority". Thus, the border between the two countries in the region of Olivenza should be as demarcated by the Treaty of Alcanizes of 1297. Spain interprets Article 105 as not being mandatory on demanding Spain to return Olivenza to Portugal, thus not revoking the Treaty of Badajoz. Portugal has never made a formal claim to the territory after the Treaty of Vienna, but has equally never directly acknowledged the Spanish sovereignty over Olivenza.

Spanish public opinion is not generally aware of the Portuguese claim on Olivenza (in contrast to the Spanish claim on Gibraltar or the Moroccan claims on Ceuta, Melilla and the Plazas de soberanía). On the other hand, awareness in Portugal has been increasing under the efforts of pressure groups to have the question raised and debated in public."

And I would really appreciate the advice of anyone who can take the time to read through this section and advise on whether this text should be in the article, in the above or any form. A more formal request for comments may be appropriate if this doesn't get us anywhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

May I request that you strike through the text above, because that isn't actually what I propose. That is text I plan to put elsewhere, when I have the time. The proposal is actually a brief resume of the analogy of Ceuta/Melila and its relevance to the politics of Sovereignty and that is all. Thank you. Justin talk 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, could we have your revised proposal then? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, patience grasshopper. I didn't see the point in writing anything if it was just going to be rejected. Justin talk 15:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

I'm unhappy with the Government and politics section. It is misleading and inaccurate and I wish to see it corrected. Gibraltar is self-governing with the exception of defence and foreign relations. The constitution gives the GoG powers over everything except the judiciary and internal security. As with the UK, the judiciary is independent of Government, the selection of judges is not a GoG resposibity but equally they are not appointed by the UK Government as the article implies. Equally internal security is the responsibility of the Gibraltar Police authority. Effectively these two functions remain under Gibraltar control but this article does not make that clear; effectively POV by ommission. This needs to be corrected. Justin talk 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree here. The paragraph beginning "Under its current Constitution," ought to represent the fact that Gibraltar's internal security and judiciary are not controlled by the UK government. For information on the police in particular, I suggest this as a useful source. Pfainuk talk 18:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be reworded. I don't think a POV tag is warranted really, we can discuss on the talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree, the text here misrepresents the Government and politics of Gibraltar and the POV is skewed. Until that is corrected then I feel a POV tag is warranted. I will also point out, that I previously pointed the need to correctly represent the way Gibraltar is governed but that was ignored to insert the current text, which is seriously biased. It needs more than rewording, it needs to be completely rewritten with regard to the policy of WP:NPOV. Justin talk 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

At the moment we have (omitting the references): "Under its current Constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal democratic self-government through an elected parliament. The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor of Gibraltar. Defence, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the Governor; judicial and other appointments are also made on behalf of the Queen in consultation with the head of the elected government."

What rewording would anyone like to suggest, bearing in mind the rather extensive discussion now happily relegated to the archives or remaining in the references? What about: "Under its current Constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal democratic self-government through an elected parliament. The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor of Gibraltar. All of the royal functions are exercised in close consultation with, and normally on the suggestion of, the local elected representatives and officials. Defence, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the Governor; judicial and other appointments are also made on behalf of the Queen." Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It is misleading thats what wrong with it. The Governor is a figurehead, he doesn't select and appoint judges, he doesn't select the chief constable or run internal security in Gibraltar. If we have this edit then that is the implication. Tell me Richard, does the Queen appoint judges in your area personally, or does she appoint the Chief Constable? So in which case why does the Gibraltar article state that the Governor as representative of the Queen does verbatim as fact. Is that really fine? Justin talk 22:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Formally the Governor and the Queen do such things. As a matter of practice they normally rubber-stamp local decisions, possibly offering gentle guidance behind the scenes. Or am I wrong? Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but are you really suggesting that the Queen or Governor steer decisions on the judiciary? They do no such thing and were either to try and interfere, there would be the most tremendous row. The point is rubber-stamping local decisions, as a figurehead, though you'd never know that from reading this article. The article implies it is the day to day job of the Governor to hire/fire judges and run the police force. The Governor does no such thing and thats why this article is misleading. Justin talk 07:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

We seem to agree on the facts; the present painfully-achieved wording seems to give a fairly good representation of them though I make a suggestion for possible improvement above. What do you suggest? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No the wording doesn't give a fairly good representation, it is misleading readers implying the Governor is in charge of the judiciary and the police. The text needs to make plain that the judiciary is independent, the Governor is a figure head as Queen's representative whose function is solely to rubber stamp local decisions of an independent judiciary and not to make those decisions. Similarly with internal security, it needs to be made plain this is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority, with the Governor as a figure head rather than in day-to-day control. That is what I suggested long ago, it deals with the text neutrally and explains it to readers. Wikipedia should be about breaking down prejudices based on misinformation, as currently written it re-inforces them. Justin talk 12:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Governor is indeed more or less a figurehead, like the Monarch - until something goes severely wrong. See for example 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. That is when the reserve powers become obvious and real. There are analogies with the actions of King Juan Carlos I against the 23-F coup. Yes, I am (though a humble ordinary citizen) somewhat aware of the various unwritten conventions and expectations surrounding these things. But the present text, while no doubt improvable, is at least accurate. Could we have suggestions, rather than overstatements?

UNINDENT

Richard, it is actually unhelpful to make comments like alleging I am overstating the position. I have made a suggestion for a proposed edit, do you accept the basis or do you want to pontificate further? The present text is not accurate, it does not conform to NPOV - omitting details like the figurehead status of the governor is tantamount to misrepresenting the GoG by omission.

Only in extremis is the Governor able to intervene and in that case it would actually be the UK Government that does so, in the normal course of events it is a purely symbolic position and Gibraltar is governed by the people and for the people. And in many case the GoG has demonstrated it will act independently and in blatant opposition to the British Government, such as recent events when the Blair Government proposed to share sovereignty with Spain. So again my proposal is to explain the symbolic status of the Governor and that power is vested in local institutions such as the GPA and the local independent judiciary. As an aside I don't find the comments about the Spanish king of relevance since the Queen would never intervene in that manner.

Could we discuss my content proposal please, then move ahead to discussing text? Justin talk 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The present text describes the reality accurately and briefly. I don't think that this article needs to go into the conventions of constitutional monarchy any more than, say, the United Kingdom article does. Could we have your suggested text? Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend to write prose, if you're simply going to go "no, no, no". And yes the article does need to go into those conventions, especially when they're being used to present a misleading view of how Government works. Quit stalling please. Justin talk 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but writing some constructive suggestion would almost certainly help and is better than endless nonspecific argumentation. Anyway, I can't think of any way of making my point clearer than my last comment immediately above. My suggested new text is "Under its current Constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal democratic self-government through an elected parliament. The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor of Gibraltar. All of the royal functions are exercised in close consultation with, and normally on the suggestion of, the local elected representatives and officials. Defence, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the Governor; judicial and other appointments are also made on behalf of the Queen." Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No it needs more details than that, which I will write if there is a will to consider them objectively and not simply reject by reflex because of past issues. That is what I fear going to the effort of writing it, to hear, no, no, no. A few simple sentences shouldn't need this microscopic examination. Justin talk 15:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive

I have restored the archiving of this talk page after Justin's reversion. The page is extremely long - any threads that are pertinent to a discussion can be linked to on the archive page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I feel that at least some of that material is germane to current discussion so I am restoring it. Please can we focus on content of the article. Justin talk 23:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's there on the archive page - you can link to the threads that are relevant. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have restored it as I said I would, it is more convenient to have the material to hand. May I suggest you read WP:BRD, archiving was premature IMHO. Justin talk 23:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Overview article

This is a overview article, rather than a full account of historical events, and it now seems to me that we would need to put in an excessive number of details to achieve consensus text that treats certain events in a neutral manner. A NPOV blow-by-blow account of the whole thing, including the who did what to whom, who went where, towns that were founded in SPAIN not GIBRALTAR, and so on, just seems too much for an incident in a overview. Personally I'd go for slimming down the text as I edited tonight, which no doubt will satisfy no one but treat the incident in a neutral manner. Much as I suggested months ago before we had an outbreak of atrocity tennis. Seems to me that there is certain inconsistenty in the standards on deciding on content. Justin talk 23:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

On the reprisals sentence, I agree with you. I don't think this sits well there, and I do think it is too much detail for an overview article. On the mention of San Roque, I don't agree with you that it should go. Either way though, this text was the result of a consensus - it sat untouched for several months, so please, let's discuss in a cool and calm atmosphere, OK? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss content in a cool and calm atmosphere. But threats like this and posts like this and this indicate to me that you intend to continue to focus on the past. Please let us focus on content as I have pleaded thus far. Justin talk 23:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you've gone about this in completely the wrong way. You quoted WP:BRD above regarding talk page archiving, but then you fail to follow it yourself, on an extremely contentious edit which you know there is no consensus for, which you know was a major cause of us ending up at ArbCom, and which - from the talk page posts you didn't let me archive - you can see we reached consensus on. As such, I've filed a report at WP:ANI here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No I have not, I made a bold edit, that you disrupted half way through. I simply compeleted it and initiated a discussion. In actual fact, there was no consensus for including this material - you and others chose to tag team edit war that material into the article. And again you drag up the past and use the threat of admin action to impose content rather than discussing. There is also a major inconsistency in your approach. Above you insist we shouldn't include material on the grounds you assert it is relevant to Spain but tangential to Gibraltar; an argument that isn't sustainable given the prominence in sources. Yet something that is tangential to Gibraltar but relevant to Spain you insist must be included and edit war to impose it. I am prepared to discuss it but if you insist on personaling this discussion as a dispute and make personal attacks and accusations as you've done at ANI I will be going to arbitration enforcement. I have given you plenty of warnings. Justin talk 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the last stable version. Sort it out here before engaging in another edit war please mark nutley (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention to edit war as I stated. Justin talk 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin, may I suggest at we break your edit into two parts - San Roque and non-San Roque. On the latter, again, I am in agreement with you and if others are too, would support the removal of that sentence. However, given the relative stability of the article in past months, let's proceed to make changes on the basis of consensus. Please? The ArbCom business was a stain on everybody, whether or not we got sanctioned (ie including me), and we should do all we can to avoid the sorts of behaviours which will have us returning there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made no reference to arbcom or raked up the past, I pleaded that you didn't and you were out of order to do so. I gave you no cause and your post at ANI was simply needlessly provocative. If you agreed with part of my edit why revert all of it? Your editing behaviour makes no sense at all.

Again I will discuss content with you that is all and please respect my request to stay off my talk page. Anyway I am off to bed to sleep on matters. Justin talk 01:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with part of your edit, but I know others won't. Therefore, it would be wrong and hypocritical of me to allow removal of the bit I agree with removing and to put back the bit I don't. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a bizarre argument, if you don't agree with it, why did you side with a faction demanding atrocity tennis is included in the article. Sorry but the historical record in the archive shows you adopting a very different position when I suggested this wasn't appropriate for an overview. Justin talk 12:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a review and possibly more opinions. Here is the longish-consensus text that we have at present, minus references: "On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain."

and here is Justin's slimmed down version: "On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to nearby areas of Spain."

Justin's edit removes details of the disturbances after the conquest of Gibraltar, which Red Hat agrees might well go as too detailed for an overview article, and it also removes mention of San Roque as the destination for most of the refugees.

The consensus text on the disturbances was carefully and painfully crafted as balanced (and I think it is). However I agree that it's also too detailed and personally I'd be happy to see it go. Justin's text here also strikes me as acceptably balanced.

San Roque is an ongoing hot button because the modern town (about 7km from Gibraltar) maintains historical continuity (or identity) with Spanish Gibraltar. It is mentioned in many references as the main destination, ahead of many other details, and the ongoing claim may also be thought to give its foundation some degree of notability. The inclusion of the name "San Roque" had already been the subject of a very long argument - if I remember rightly, starting about archive 15. I haven't changed my opinion here; it should be in. It's true and highly notable in the context.

Could we have some comments on:

Whether to include the fuller version of the disturbances?

Whether to mention the name "San Roque"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I must first say that this is a pivotal episode in the history of Gibraltar (the one with possibly the largest impact in the last 500 years of the Rock): the point when Gibraltar started to be under the influence of a new country, with a new population, with impact on its culture, language, ethnicity, economics, politics... That's why it is explained in a lot of detail in all modern sources when they talk about the history of Gibraltar.

I must add that I am happy with the current version, I don't find it exceedingly long and it's quite balanced. But I would be eager to agree on a shorter text in order to make other editors happier. On the other hand, I think that even a shorter version should mention *why* "the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous" (even if in a shorter text): it was not because of fear of revenge or bombs or sickness (as the article used to explain and certain editors used to defend -without proper sourcing- in the past), but because of the atrocities that were committed by the invading forces. I find this very important, and it's very widely mentioned even in English sources (albeit, almost only since the middle of the XX century -it used to be silenced by English sources before, that's a fact if you look at the sources).

I also think that the main destination of the population of Gibraltar in 1700 is historically relevant according to the sources -enough to be in the History section of an overview article.

Thanks, Richard, for the suggestions. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard, bear in mind our dicussion on the Timeline article and also bear in mind I suggested in something like Archive 15 the necessity of including what I call "atrocity tennis" was completely inappropriate for an overview. Sources also list a number of reasons why the population fled. One, is the behaviour of the troops, two, is a fear of revenge following the murders of the British and Dutch troops followed by descration of their remains and, three, there was a natural expectation of a Spanish counter attack and a full blooded battle in the town. I personally feel that latter is the one that most stands up to logical examination as by the time of the exodus order had been restored. Personal opinion however is not the basis of my argument, which is that for any text to approach NPOV you'd have to cover all bases in that respect, which is clearly impractical in an overview which should be brief. I want to emphasise, however, that this has been my approach from day 1, whereby I would prefer the details to go into the Main history article with minimal coverage here commensurate with an overview. They left because they felt it was dangerous covers all bases in that respect.

Secondly San Roque falls into the same category. The exodus was not as simple as suggested. The fishermen of the town, which by the way Gibraltar being a fishing town prior to 1704 you might expect to form a major population, settled to form the modern town of Algeciras. Initially a number settled around what is now called San Roque but then dispersed wider. The sources don't match either, 4000 left with 6000 settling in San Roque? I fear that at least some of the sources have history confused to focus on modern claims. Also why mention San Roque but not mention Algeciras or any other town that spang up as the result of the events of 1704? Also San Roque didn't exist at the time, it was founded several years later. The sources actually mention the population settling in what became San Roque. So if you do actually mention it, they settled at a location where the town of San Roque was subsequently founded - that is supported by sources. But then is that appropriate for an overview article, focused on Gibraltar

Hence, if we are to deal with the exodus my suggestion is that the best approach is to keep it brief and deal with the details in the History article. Hence, my argument based upon WP:DUE is that it this material detail belongs elsewhere. IT is peripheral and tangential to Gibraltar, much as you're arguing above Richard on other details you consider peripheral and tangential. And again there I am arguing on the basis of WP:DUE. This is a perfectly valid argument for wikipedia and breaking my promise to myself not to go over the past, Richard your assertion that my arguments weren't valid for wikipedia was deeply hurtful and I consider an outrageous slur and still do.

Inclusion of the details is arguable either way. The details are an important reason for the strength of feeling behind the ongoing claim. If we do have details we need to give a balanced account, especially in a "hot button" issue, and the present text is the balanced product of a very long negotiation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No Richard, it was in fact a solution you chose to impose, tag team edit warred to force into the article and dismissed any disseting voice as "not grounds suitable for wikipedia". It was not a negotiation and that is why I contest it to this day and only why. Justin talk 16:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that San Roque is a hot button to press in the sovereignty dispute I have consistently said from day 1 is not grounds to exclude it. But it does make it behoven upon us to consider the matter carefully and balance whether including it is giving due coverage or by including it we tip the balance into POV territory. Justin talk 12:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

See the archives for details; briefly, San Roque was a hamlet and a convenient place for refugees from Gibraltar to ease their sad and weary legs. Most fled there but not all stayed, and some went elsewhere, the fishermen presumably to places accessible from the sea and with more fish to catch. (To judge by San Roque's rather dry appearance on Google Earth, few places have less fish to catch. Only a very stupid fisherman would have tried sailing there. Nipping over the bay to Algeciras would have been an obviously-better alternative.) San Roque got its royal charter a few years later, not one calculated to relieve anxiety in British Gibraltar, describing San Roque as the city of Gibraltar resident in its campo and so on.

The notability of San Roque as a destination has been fairly thoroughly established. I could trawl the archives, but, to reiterate, it is mentioned in multiple good sources ahead of many less important details. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin, we have already gone over this over and over. You are wasting your (and everybody else's) time if you just repeat yourself without bringing sources. Please, don't. In fact, I am ready to accept:

1. That villagers in part fled because of fear of revenge if you cite proper sources. Sources support the fear of atrocities ("English atrocities at Cádiz and elsewhere and the behaviour of the English sailors in the first days after the surrender suggested that if they stayed they might not live to see that day." Jackson, William. The Rock of the Gibraltarians. pp. 100-101). We have NO SOURCES supporting fear of revenge. If you have found any, please, CITE the source, author, page and if possible QUOTE them.
2. That San Roque was not the main destination if you support it properly. There are many sources supporting that San Roque was the main destination [3]. If you have any sources supporting the opposite, please CITE them (source, author, page, and -if possible- QUOTATION).

Otherwise, we will have to assume that you are indulging in WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard, notability I conceded long ago that not being the issue and never was in my opinion, relevance for this article I questioned and still do. I long ago established that many overview articles do not feel the need to merit a mention. That of itself seems a better test for relevance than detailed historical texts focused on that period of time. I feel the place to conisgn the detail is another article focused on the history. I've not seen anything that changes my mind on that matter.

I would also ask that you don't mix your comments with mine, as I almost missed that you had done so. Also you did not state that it was arguable either way, that I could have conceded and agreed to differ. You STATED my reasons were on grounds not relevant to wikipedia, that was an outrageous slur and it still rankles.

Imalbornoz, your comments bear no relation to mine, so I do not feel the need to respond in detail. I noted that sources support multiple reasons and your proposed text has and always has focused on one. That doesn't seem appropriate to conform to our policy of NPOV. Focus on the content and please stop making these personal attacks. Justin talk 16:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(Justin, I purposely didn't mention names when I made that comment, and I don't even think that I had you in mind. There had been earlier nationalist insults by other parties. I don't propose to repeat them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC))

Richard, go back and look again and consider it from my perspective and how you would have interpreted it - particularly with my comments on your talk page of February 4. You had your chance to explain that it wasn't directed at me but didn't. You responded in terms I find dismissive. Secondly it was not a solution arrived at by negotiation it was an imposed solution. Mediators should never impose solutions, full stop. You crossed the line into participant and still claimed to be objective. No that isn't how it works. So please don't claim it was arrived at by negotiation because that does not reflect how it got there. Justin talk 22:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin, this is no personal attack. It just is a perfectly wikipedic request for you to cite sources.

You have made some assertions as you proposed to eliminate any mention of the atrocities in the article: "Sources also list a number of reasons why the population fled. (…)two, is a fear of revenge following the murders of the British and Dutch troops followed by descration of their remains and, three, there was a natural expectation of a Spanish counter attack and a full blooded battle in the town." Then you go on to say that we would have to mention all the bases, which is too much detail, and thus everything should go in the History article. Please support those statements (cite those "sources" you talk about with author, page and if possible quotation) so that we all can have a constructive discussion. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It was full of personal attacks Imalbornoz. Both Richard and RHoPF acknowledge my proposal has merit, none of us feel this example of "atrocity tennis" adds to the article, too detailed and the issue is just too much for an overview. You appear to have strong feelings that we must tell everyone that the British did many nasty things in 1704. Well strong emotions are not conducive to writing prose that meets NPOV.

Richard, can we take this as RHoPF suggested in two parts, my deletion proposal and then perhaps look at the issue of San Roque afresh. I feel we need to separate the two. Justin talk 22:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Opinions please

OK, could we ask for opinions on whether to remove the present sentence: "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings." Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - the circumstances described are notable and have ongoing relevance, but may be a bit too much for an overview article Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And, on whether to remove the mention of San Roque as the main destination: Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - as documented many times over, San Roque was the main destination, mentioned as such by many reliable sources ahead of facts which are uncontentiously in the article, and the circumstances of San Roque's foundation have ongoing relevance for anyone who wants to understand the ongoing problems. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin says that sources mention multiple reasons (fear of revenge among them) for the population leaving Gibraltar, and therefore fear of the atrocities should not be singled out, and therefore there's no reason to keep it in the overview article.

Again, please Justin, can you provide sources for your assertion: "Sources also list a number of reasons why the population fled. (…) two, is a fear of revenge following the murders of the British and Dutch troops followed by descration of their remains and, three, there was a natural expectation of a Spanish counter attack and a full blooded battle in the town."

This is the third time that Justin is requested to provide those sources (and quotations if possible) that support his proposal. Everybody else has spent lots of time and effort to provide sources for each of their proposals. The least that we should ask from him is to spend some time sourcing his proposals before he asks everybody else to dedicate some effort to reopen yet again this issue. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. :

“ Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives. ”

I presume you're familiar with it. Wait. Theres more. Justin talk 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

“ When the garrison marched out on 7 August almost all of the inhabitants, some 4,000 people in total, joined them. They had reason to believe that their exile would not last long; fortresses changed hands frequently at the time. Many thus resettled nearby in the ruins of Algeciras or around the old hermitage at San Roque at the head of the bay. They took with them the records of the city council including Gibraltar's banner and royal warrant. The newly founded town of San Roque thus became, as Philip V put it in 1706, "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo". A small population of neutral Genoese numbering some seventy people stayed behind in Gibraltar.[60] ”

Chris's prose, which everyone agreed was an excellent summary. Justin talk 21:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Part of the reason for keeping the talk page record intact was for the ability to refer to the discussion that took place that you claim establishes consensus. I note that Pfainuk had this to say:

“ You propose we do exactly that. It is biased to present the townspeople as complete innocents driven out by evil British soldiers and marines, as you propose - especially when we have it sourced that the townspeople killed soldiers and desecrated their bodies. And no matter how much you insist that my concerns about the clear bias in your text and the serious inaccuracy implied by it are unimportant, I will not accept that. ”

I agree the text is clearly biased and the serious inaccuracies implied by it are important. I too can't accept it as conforming to a policy of NPOV. I note that despite these reservations is was nontheless imposed. I have therefore opted to make the text more agreeable with our policy of NPOV. Justin talk 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin, regarding Pfainuk's comment: I don't know what he finds lacking in the article to make it biased, you can clearly see in the History section that "townspeople carried out reprisal killings", like sources say. On the other hand, no source mentions any "desecration" of bodies like he says.

Most important: you said that the other reasons for leaving were:

1. "a fear of revenge following the murders of the British and Dutch troops followed by descration of their remains"
2. "a natural expectation of a Spanish counter attack and a full blooded battle in the town."

I'm afraid I don't see the sources mention 1) any "fear of revenge" in the Spanish population, nor 2) any expectation of "a full blooded battle in the town" (the texts you cite do mention an expectation to return soon, but nothing else). Justin, can you please help me find where exactly in the text you can find any references to "fear of revenge" or "expectation of a full blooded battle"? Someone else? Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I too can find no mention of "fear of revenge" or of battle among the Spanish population in the references that Justin gives. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The source does mention the expected Spanish counter attack, that is the point I made. The point being there was more than reason. Are you both claiming that it does not? Justin talk 20:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Self governing in the lede?

I have restored the lede to the previous consensus text. I hope we can see new reasonable arguments in the discussion and are able to reach a new consensus or keep the old one. Please let us all be reasonable and follow BRD. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The section I restored had a long standing consensus, much longer than the current text. It is an important qualification to indicate the devolved Government status of BOT like Gibraltar. The edit summary in the reversion is of itself demonstrating bias claiming the edit to violate NPOV - something hardly conducive to starting of a discussion reasonably. I trust there will be no further bad faith accusations and we will focus solely on content.

The edit itself is accurate, reliable and sourced, satisfying WP:V and WP:RS. The use and abuse of the C24 list to dispute this edit is not acceptable as it WP:OR and WP:SYN. The criteria for inclusion by the C24 is bizarre in that it bears no relationship to whether a territory is self-governing or not. The C24 criteria lists states that are:

• A sovereign state
• An integral part of a sovereign state
• A state in free association with a sovereign state

The C24 list is used to promote a less than honest view of the level of self-government enjoyed by territories such as the Gibraltar. Its used and abused to deny the status of such territories to promote the fiction that they remain British colonies. Wikipedia should be about explaining this to readers not promoting fiction. NPOV is not about representing all viewpoints but rather covering mainstream views.

If readers want to know what a BOT is, then we link to a perfectly serviceable article British Overseas Territory dealing with precisely this point. If they want to know details of the self-government enjoyed by the Gibraltar, or the issue of the C24, they could refer to the Politics section of this article once the biased and non-neutral nature of the text is corrected. There is benefit in distinguishing those BOTs that are self-governing from those that are under direct rule, but no benefit in going on and on about exactly what powers are involved in each case in the lede. That is lede fixation. The point of the lede is not to put everything into the article in all its gory detail. If it was, then there wouldn't be any point in putting an article underneath it. The lede is there to summarise the topic only.

I also give fair warning that unlike the past where I tried to reason with people and did not as a rule report disruptive behaviour, the first time I see a personal attack, accusation of bias, accusation of suppression, attempts to use my ethnic background to paint me as unreasonable, reams of text to block discussion, forum shopping or disruptive behaviour of any kind I will take it straight to WP:AE and ask that the special sanctions are involed.

Please do not take any bad faith accusations. I'm sure non-NPOV edits can be made with good faith also!!

The last consensus in the article was NOT to include that expression (since February or March). About previous consensus: There was a previous consensus to INCLUDE it (which lasted since April until July 2009). And previously, the consensus was NOT to include it (for several years). Anyway, I am sure we can work with BRD now and reach a new consensus or keep the old one.

Regarding your arguments, I have nothing to answer that has not been previously said: your source does not unequivocally say "self governing territory", but "self governing territory EXCEPT (...)"; also, some sources say that it is "NON-self governing" (UN, consultancy firms, newspapers, Spanish sources...) NPOV should require either to explain the different positions in the lede or to only deal with this issue with detail in the body of the article. This last option was the one chosen in order to reach the last consensus. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No that is misleading, it was uncontroversially in the article for 2 years, until your insistence on making it an issue. It was not added prior to that as the current constitution was implemented in the same year it was added. Avoid making bad faith statements if you do not wish them to be taken as such.

NPOV does not require all positions to be dealt with in the lede as you assert, it requires that the article treats all mainstream view points with due prominence. NPOV also does not require us to give WP:UNDUE prominence to fringe viewpoints based on dogma rather fact. An article promoting a less than accurate viewpoint of the Government of Gibraltar for dogmatic reasons fails NPOV.

The article also previously caveated that defence and foreign relations were not within the purview of the GoG. And before you attempt to claim that the judiciary and internal security are included in this, Gibraltar has an judiciary independent of the executive and internal security is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority; both institutions being under local control. An attempt to confuse governance with Government will not be acceptable. Justin talk 12:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ADD - if your objection is solely the lack of suitable caveats then there is a readily available solution. Justin talk 12:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Justin, you say that my comment (that the term self-governing was in the lede for only a few months) "is misleading, it was uncontroversially in the article for 2 years, until your insistence on making it an issue." You also seem to say that the UN, Spain and other sources who do NOT say that Gibraltar is "a self-governing territory" are just "fringe" POVs and thus need not be put at the same level as your statement (which is that "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory").

I'm afraid that your perception is very much mistaken. I think that the best option will be to leave prejudice for a moment and look at plain evidence. To begin with, can you please tell me the start and the end date for those TWO "uncontroversial" years until my "insistence on making it an issue"? Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Withdraw the accusation of prejudice please, because I am not going to tolerate accusations of prejudice. Justin talk 15:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Also I will not indulge a post mortem of past events any more than I have already. Content discussions only please, I also stated clearly positions based on fact not dogma. I made no mention of nationalities and will not do so. Justin talk 15:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Let's focus on evidence. You've made two statements, which I don't find evidence for. We disagree, so let's find a solution. Please provide the evidence, or realise the lack of it:

1. You've said that there was a two year long consensus for including the expression "self-governing territory" before a controversy took place (you've even said that my statement that the consensus lasted for only a few months was "misleading"). Please provide the evidence: the start and end date of those two years.
2. You say that sources that say that Gibraltar is not self-governing (UN, commentators, etc which have been provided in previous discussions) are fringe POVs. Please provide the support for that.

Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No I am not going to go down the path of raking over the past, I was foolish to allow you to sucker me into that.

On the second point I said no such thing. I have explained till blue in the face that the UN C24 list is not based on objective judgement of Self-Government in Gibraltar but other parameters and to use that to deny the self-governing nature of Gibraltar is misleading. My other point is that Gibraltar has a written constitution, holds democratic elections, independent observers have validated the conduct of democracy in Gibraltar, the Government governs within its parameters, Gibraltar has an independent local judiciary and internal security is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority. So the sources that state the territory is self-governing with the exception of defence and foreign relations are demonstrably based on objective verifiable fact. Sources that deny those verifiable facts for entirely dogmatic reasons are denying verfiable objective facts to advance a position that is not sustainable by wikipedian standards. Yes they can be included in the article, as the dogmatic position they present condemns itself and I would happily include those arguments for that very reason. However, they cannot be used to deny verifable facts in the lede and giving them equal prominence in the lede violates our policy of a NPOV based on the presentation of objective verifiable fact.

There is plenty of objective verifiable sources to back up what I have argued. Now if you can demonstrate any source that denies the self-government of Gibraltar that is based upon objective verifiable fact and neither dogma nor a misrepresentation you might have a case. But continuing to claim the UN supports that position when it does no such thing is certainly not a sustainable argument, neither is continuing your previous practise of raising tension by continuously misrepresenting my argument - I'm simply not going to allow that to continue and will seek arbitration enforcement if you do so. Neither is that an invitation to derail discussions by walls of text. Justin talk 19:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I see:

• You have reached the conclusion that "Gibraltar is self-governing" based on some verifiable facts. On the other hand, sources such as the UN, Gov. of Spain, commentators, etc. "deny those verifiable facts for entirely dogmatic reasons (...) to advance a position that is not sustainable by wikipedian standards" and therefore their PoV should not be at the same level (at least in the lede). That's your (respectable) opinion.
• I have my own opinion (like you). My opinion is not important (only reputed secondary sources' is), but I will explain it to you. I think that Gibraltar has a level of self-government. But it does not reach plain self-government: it did NOT develop a constitution by itself (it was negotiated with and granted by the UK -who did not grant all the issues that the GoG demanded), it has no right of self-determination, many powers are in the hands of the Governor who usually does not interfere with the will of the GoG but reports (indeed) to the FCA office and -under certain circumstances- has the right to override the will of the GoG...
• What WP says is that my (or your) opinion should not be imposed on a WP article. The article should just reflect what relevant sources say. And here is where I disagree with you: UN IS a relevant opinion (as much as the GoG, UK, Spain, etc) and it literally says that Gib is a "non self-governing territory". Saying the opposite in the lede is not NPOV. Also, saying that something is "self-governing" when even according to the GoG and UK it is "self-governing EXCEPT ..." seems to me something like WP:SYN.

I must say it is difficult to argue with someone who says that any source opposing your position is not "based upon objective verifiable fact and neither dogma nor a misrepresentation".

Finally, please, when you say someone is "misleading" please check before. You said that the term "self governing territory" stood uncontroversially for two years in the lede (when I said that it was there only for a few months vis a vis several years of not being there). When I have asked you for evidence, you just have avoided the issue. You just have to check the history of the article (that's much easier than deciding which international organisations are relevant and/or dogmatic). Please tell me when you have checked whether your statement was true or false. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

No, I said no such thing. I have explained the position of the UN so many times now, yet you repeatedly misrepresent my comments. I say the UN opinion is not relevant for the lede as it is not based on criteria judging governance but statehood and the two are not co-incident. To use the UN position to comment on governance is mendacious and misleading. Stop it, now please. Secondly, no that is not my opinion, it describes how the sources I quoted derived their opinion based on objectively evaluating the facts of the situation. Sources that derive their opinion from dogmatic reasons that deny verifiable facts are not the suitable basis for NPOV. I make no comment whatsoever on their national or ethnic origin, merely that they assert black is white. The only person to raise concerns on a nationalist basis is yourself. No matter the origin on the source, it is the basis of their argument that is the issue here. Thirdly, your reasoning on the status of the Governor is specious. Australia and other Commonwealth countries have Governors whose theoretical powers are identical. Yet we would not qualify their level of self-government on that basis. Similarly the constitution has evolved in consultation between the British Government and people of Gibraltar - so what. Any transfer or devolution of power would require that to take place. Australia, Canada, New Zealand or any former colony has had to go through that process. So to use that as a basis to deny self-government is not a sustainable argument by any stretch of the imagination. Also Spain and Holland and a number of other countries also still have a monarchy, are we to assert on that basis, falsely, they do no enjoy self-government as in theory the monarch can take over. You do not advance an argument that survives logical examination. Fourthly, none of this is based on my personal opinion, it is based on sourced material from reliable sources that evaluate the facts objectively and do not distort facts to assert a position based on dogma. Do not go down the route of attempting to paint me as being unreasonable when I am advancing an argument based on objective evaluation of sources, compliant with wikipedia's policies on content. That is unreasonable and a personal attack, which I have already indicated I will not tolerate. Fifthly, no again I will state the discussion is to focus on content, I am not going to be suckered into raking over the past and taking the discussion down a blind alley. Justin talk 14:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually self-government was rather conspicuously qualified in Australia in 1975. In this article we have comments that describe the reality, that of a sophisticated constitutional monarchy, quite well. Namely, self-government with significant reserved powers, used in unusual and difficult situations. That is the situation of quite a lot of territories - British and Spanish, for example. It does not amount to unqualified self-government, self-governance, or whatever. (Nor, rather more obviously in my humble opinion, does it amount to traditional colonial status.) It may be more important to describe the reality in the Gibraltar article precisely because remarks about "la colonia" and so on are still current. But there is no sensible argument for asserting "essential truths" which oversimplify the situation and omit critical nuances, and even less reason for putting them in the lede. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is a good reason for qualifying it in the lede. Not all BOT are self-governing, most are to varying degrees but those with a transient military or scientific population are not. I also did not propose unqualified self-government in the lede but qualified that defence and foreign relations are excluded. I have also not argued on the basis of "essential truths" but verifiability over truth. But again unfortunately the article doesn't describe the reality of a sophisticated constitutional monarchy, the omissions explaining local dominance detract from it rather seriously. More on that later when I have the time. Justin talk 15:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not discuss my own or any other editors' opinion about the "true" meaning of the term "self-governance" or on whether a territory is "in fact" self-governing or not, because we are neither reputed experts nor relevant sources. On the other hand I am ready to discuss about what different sources "literally" (i.e. without WP:SYN) say and whether a WP article is NPOV or not.

Following this premise, it is undeniable that:

1. the UN General Assembly literally calls Gibraltar a "non self-governing territory" (with no "or", "except" or "but").
2. not one other source simply calls Gibraltar a "self-governing territory", not even to make a summary; even the Gibraltar Prime Minister qualifies the term explaining the exceptions.

Therefore, I would conclude that it would be oversimplifying the issue to just say "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory" or "Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory". I don't find myself (or you, Justin) in the position to perform that simplification. We'd better explain the different positions.

To make things easier, please look (again, the nth time since last July or August) at a list of sources:

Source	Term used in introduction	Details in Politics / Gvt. section
UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO)	“British Overseas Territory”[4]	“Gibraltar has a considerable measure of devolved government.” Also, “The Constitution thoroughly modernises the UK-Gibraltar relationship. Key elements include limiting the responsibilities of the Governor to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [5]
UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC)	“almost complete internal self-government” [6] (pg. 16)	"The constitution defines the responsibilities of the Governor as relating to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" [7] (pg. 146)
United Nations	"Non self-governing territory"[8] and “Non-Self-Governing Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” [9] (pg. 3)	“The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar.” [10] (pg. 3)
Gibraltar Chief Minister	n.a.	"The new Constitution is now in place and in operation. It maximises our self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers. All other matters are the competence of the Gibraltar Government, the Gibraltar Parliament or other Gibraltar legal institutions."[11] (pg. 4)
BBC	“British overseas territory”[12]	“self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy”[13]
CIA - The World Factbook	"overseas territory of the UK"[14]	"the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability"[15]
Encyclopedia Britannica	“British colony, Europe” and “British overseas territory” [16]	“is self-governing in all matters but defense”[17]
Merriam Webster	“a British colony” [18]	n.a.
Encarta	“British dependency” [19]	No explicit reference to self-government
British Library	“self governing British overseas territory in all matters but defence and foreign policy” [20]	n.a.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers	"a peninsula"[21]	"Constitutionally, Gibraltar is a British dependent territory with internal self-government, the United Kingdom being responsible for defence, foreign affairs, financial stability and internal security."[22]
Spanish Government	"a non self-governing territory", a "colony" Report about the question of gibraltar (in Spanish)	"The reform of the constitutional decree does not change the international status of Gibraltar, and even though it develops its self-government, it does not alter British sovereignty over Gibraltar, which remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for whose external relations and defense it is still responsible." Report about the question of gibraltar (in Spanish)

My conclusion: let us not write a lede that "misleads" the reader into believing that Gibraltar is consider by all relevant sources a "self-governing territory". This only happened for 4 months in 2009 (from April until July, Justin, please check the history of the article) before it was questioned. The long standing consensus (for many years) has been and still is to leave this complex issue to the body of the article. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Australia example is misleading because the governor-general was appointed by the Queen acting as the Queen of Australia on the advice of her prime minister for Australia. TFD (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(It was merely to make the point that theoretical powers can become very real. Indeed the constutional details are somewhat different. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC))

But that is not what I'm proposing and you've done exactly what I requested you didn't do. Once again you misrepesent what the UN says to infer it is commenting on governance when it is not. And you've stuffed a great wall of text in the way (which I note by the by supports my proposed edit) derailing discussions. You also clearly didn't bother to check since encarta is broken and this source [23] refers to the origin of the use of Gibraltar as a word not its current status. This source [24] doesn't even mention the word colony as you claimed. This source's [25] introduction doesn't detract from what it later says about Government. In addition, Devolved Government and Self-Government are one and the same. All of which you've posted repeatedly as a means of ignoring discussions and misrepresenting what is actually proposed. This is simply filibustering to avoid real consensus building. The proposal for the lede is self-governing with exception of defence and foreign relations - which I note even the Spanish Government source you quote supports .

If you can only argue against my proposal based on misrepresenting what I propose clearly you don't have a sustainable grounds for opposing my edit. Focus on the content proposed please and cease from derailing discussions and filibustering Justin talk 17:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that confusing governance with government is not helping matters. The powers conferred on the GoG do not include the judiciary, internal security or defence. Gibraltar has a judiciary independent of the executive, equally internal security is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority, with advice from the executive. Both are under local governance. Justin talk 17:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And, to repeat, are subject to reserve powers of the Crown. I feel that we are now repeating ourselves somewhat and I'd really appreciate it if any so-far-uninvolved editor would wade through this page and comment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT I apologise for not being able to make my point clear. If you allow me, I would like to try one final time, trying to make it as schematic as possible:

• I don't care about my own (or any other individual editor's) interpretation of what the sources really say or what the situation is. None of us is an expert in the field and this is a complex matter.
• NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources".
• Summarising all sources that have been provided, we can see that:

• At least TWO relevant sources call Gibraltar a "non self-governing territory" (the UN and Spain).
• Several other sources say Gibraltar is self-governing in some areas but with exceptions: Chief Minister of Gibraltar, UK FCO, UK HoC FAC, PWC, CIA, ...
• NO sources (ZERO, NONE) say that Gibraltar is a "self-governing territory" or a "self-governing British Overseas Territory" as is, plainly, without carefully chosen qualifiers or exceptions.

• To start the wikipedia article about Gibraltar saying that "Gibraltar is a self-governing British Overseas Territory" without anything else does not "represent fairly all significant views". In fact it represents a view supported by zero sources!!! Wikipedia would be the only source saying this!!! And it directly contradicts what the UN and Spain literally say. That's clearly not NPOV.

I hope I have been clear this time. I hope we don't get tangled with what my interpretation of the situation is (or Justin's or...) I agree with Richard: we are repeating ourselves. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I thought given my brief perusal earlier found considerable inconistencies between what Imalbornoz claimed and what the sources actually said that I would go through these sources and see what they actually say, given that I've noted a number are not represented accurately. What is interesting is that I have uncovered that the sources are in many cases misrepresented, in some cases outrageously so. Whats also interesting is that none and I repeat none of these sources contradict the edit I propose, all bar the UN directly support the proposed edit.

Focusing again on the UN, the UN bases its comments on the basis of statehood rather than governance. Specifically its criteria are independence, integration and free association - note devolved Government or self-government is not actually a valid criterion. Hence, to claim the UN list contradicts the proposed edit is to compare apples and oranges.

Misrepresenting sources is a serious matter on wikipedia. Edits should be based on reliable sources that are verifiable. The sources displayed support my proposed edit, they do not as claimed contradict it.

I have summarised the sources below, apologies in advance for the seemingly wall of text but I felt it important to fully list the evidence compiled from these sources. Justin talk 21:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

'ADDENDUM Again the proposed edit is self-governing with the qualifier except defence and foreign relations. I emphasise this as once again Imalbornoz has chosen to misrepresent the proposed edit as the basis to criticise it. I note my proposal earlier made this explicitly clear. Justin talk 21:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Source	Imalbornoz's claim	Actual wording in the source	Details in Politics / Gvt. section	Comments	Supports proposal (Y/N)	Richard's comments
UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO)	“British Overseas Territory”[26]	“British Overseas Territory”	“Gibraltar has a considerable measure of devolved government.” Also, “The Constitution thoroughly modernises the UK-Gibraltar relationship. Key elements include limiting the responsibilities of the Governor to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [27]	Devolved government is actual a synonym for self-government. For example the British Government has devolved powers to the Scottish and Welsh assemblies for matters concerning their respective countries. The comments about the Governor do not contradict the proposed edit as the role of the Governor is largely symbolic with internal affairs under local control.	Y	Devolved government describes a degree of self-government. It does not imply the entire thing.
UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC)	“almost complete internal self-government” [28] (pg. 16)	"Most Overseas Territories have elected governments. These have varying degrees of responsibility for domestic matters, ranging from Bermuda and Gibraltar which have almost complete internal self-government...."	"The constitution defines the responsibilities of the Governor as relating to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" [29] (pg. 146)	"In 1999 the Government published a White Paper, which set out a “new partnership” between Britain and its Overseas Territories, based on four principles: self-determination, with Britain willingly granting independence where it is requested and is an option; responsibilities on both sides, with Britain pledged to defend the Overseas Territories, to encourage their sustainable development and to look after their interests internationally, and in return expecting the highest standards of probity, law and order, good government and observance of Britain’s international commitments; the Overseas Territories exercising the greatest possible autonomy; and Britain providing continued financial help to the Overseas Territories that need it...." "We conclude that Gibraltar’s presence on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories is an anachronism. We recommend that the Government continues to make representations to the UN about delisting the Territory and that it makes clear that it is only sending the UN progress reports on Gibraltar because it is obliged to do so. (para 41)" P.147 (strange is it not that was forgotten to be mentioned given the previous comments.)	Y	This makes a much stronger case for Gibraltar's democracy being the master of its destiny, but it still doesn't amount to full self-government.
United Nations	"Non self-governing territory"[30] and “Non-Self-Governing Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” [31] (pg. 3)	Linked PDF is a dead link	“The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar.” [32] (pg. 3)	UN definition is based not on governance but rather statehood, the presence on the list does not of itself contradict the proposed lead. See [33] the Special Committee’s view that there are only three legitimate, acceptable and effective forms of decolonisation, namely: independence, integration and free association. IE the UN does not define self-governance on the basis of devolved government but statehood. As the UK Parliamentary report notes this is anachronistic in the case of devolved government.	N/A	The UN makes the point that self-government is not quite complete. This is not contradicted by any other sources.
Gibraltar Chief Minister	n.a.	Gibraltar	"The new Constitution is now in place and in operation. It maximises our self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers. All other matters are the competence of the Gibraltar Government, the Gibraltar Parliament or other Gibraltar legal institutions."[34] (pg. 4)	"Our positions on these issues are therefore not reconcilable, and the people of Gibraltar will never succumb to the undemocratic proposition that anyone other than we ourselves should decide our own sovereignty and our own political future, freely and in accordance with our human and political rights to self-determination." P2 ...but the kicker is later in the document "The old power of United Kingdom Ministers to disallow legislation passed by the Gibraltar Parliament has been abolished. The so-called “Administering Power”, the UK, administers absolutely nothing in Gibraltar."P.4 Tell me why someone seeking to objectively evaluate self-governing would fail to highlight this quote?	Y	It's true, Gibraltar administers itself in a democratic way. The UK / monarchy however still retain some reserve powers. Mainly, in case anything goes wrong.
BBC	“British overseas territory”[35]	Self-governing part of United Kingdom, claimed by Spain	“self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy”[36]	BBC is renowned for objectivity.	Y	Defence, foreign policy, and one or two other reserve powers...
CIA - The World Factbook	"overseas territory of the UK"[37]	overseas territory of the UK	"the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability"[38]	What is more interesting if we look at what the source actually says "The subsequent granting of autonomy in 1969 by the UK led to Spain closing the border and severing all communication links." ie the source supports the autonomous nature of the Government of Gibraltar "A new noncolonial constitution came into effect in 2007, but the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability." Note the word noncolonial but the source is actually slightly in error as internal security is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority, the UK's guarantee of financial stability does not detract from the proposed edit.	Y	Autonomy, devolution, local democracy, noncolonial local administration - all very true but, still, there are reserve powers, such as, technically, appointing the head of the local police authority. Which suggest to me that over-simplistic statements in the lead merely detract from the reality of self-governing Gibraltarian democracy.
Encyclopedia Britannica	“British colony, Europe” and “British overseas territory” [39]	Form of government: overseas territory of the United Kingdom with one legislative body (Gibraltar Parliament)	“is self-governing in all matters but defense”[40]	Interesting this one, it doesn't state that Gibraltar is a British colony. It mentions in the history section that it became a British colony ..... in 1830. This has to be just about the most outrageous misrepresentation of a source that I have ever seen. Full text of the Government section "Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense. Its constitution was established by the Gibraltar Constitution Order in 1969, which provided for a House of Assembly consisting of the speaker (appointed by the governor), 15 members elected to four-year terms, and 2 ex-officio members. (A new Constitution Order was approved by referendum in November 2006 and was implemented in January 2007; it renamed the House of Assembly as the Gibraltar Parliament and increased its number of members to 17.) "	Y	Indeed EB says little of note and as a source for this issue is best ignored.
Merriam Webster	“a British colony” [41]	Lets see shall we?	n.a.	Full text of the entry: Gi·bral·tar noun \jə-ˈbrȯl-tər\ Definition of GIBRALTAR an impregnable stronghold Origin of GIBRALTAR Gibraltar, fortress in the British colony of Gibraltar First Known Use: 1776 Intersting this one isn't it, it is about the use of Gibraltar as a noun in English to mean an impregnable stronghold, it is of no relevance to the actual status of Gibraltar. Its another outrageous misrepresentation of the source	Y	Well, it does use the word "colony" without dating it. But, like EB, it's not any real relevance to the current issue.
Encarta	“British dependency” [42]	Discontinued link says absolutely nothing	No explicit reference to self-government	Nice to see that the sources were checked before posting a wall of text.	N/A	I can't check because it's gone. I doubt it said anything very useful in this context anyway.
British Library	“self governing British overseas territory in all matters but defence and foreign policy” [43]	self governing British overseas territory	n.a.	Supports proposed edit perfectly.	Y	It does. It says (cut and paste): "self governing British overseas territory in all matters but defence and foreign policy". It depends what edit you mean.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers	"a peninsula"[44]	an overseas territory of the United Kingdom with internal self government except in matters of defence, internal security and foreign affairs	"Constitutionally, Gibraltar is a British dependent territory with internal self-government, the United Kingdom being responsible for defence, foreign affairs, financial stability and internal security."[45]	So Gibraltar is a "peninsular", well yes that is how it is described in the general geography section in its lead in. It still supports proposed edit.	Y	I'd have said it supports the more cautious, but definite, approach that I suggest.
Spanish Government	"a non self-governing territory", a "colony" Report about the question of gibraltar (in Spanish)	British Overseas Territory [46] Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory, which has a special status within the European Union (EU). Gibraltar es un Territorio Británico de Ultramar, dotado de un estatus específico dentro de la Unión Europea (UE). P.7 of 65	"The reform of the constitutional decree does not change the international status of Gibraltar, and even though it develops its self-government, it does not alter British sovereignty over Gibraltar, which remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for whose external relations and defense it is still responsible." Report about the question of gibraltar (in Spanish)	Interesting is it not, "it develops its self-government" and "remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for whose external relations and defense it is still responsible." Interesting is it not that even the Spanish Government does not actually contradict the thrust of the proposed edit. Whats most interesting is that the source doesn't even call it a colony, it calls it a "British Overseas Territory". Once again we see what the source actually says misrepresented.	Y	The diplomats have done a good job here even though they do still refer to Gibraltar as a colony. The constitutional position is somewhat complicated. To repeat, I feel strongly that putting an oversimplified and therefore endlessly-arguable comment in the lede detracts from the power and legitimacy of the way that Gibraltar is governed, which is best explained by a short clear paragraph in the relevant section. Putting a sufficiently-full account in the lede strikes me as lede bias. I hope this column, inserted five days after the table went in, helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I don't understand the logical process through which the UN General Assembly and Spain call Gibraltar a "non self-governing territory >period<" and at the same time their support for your proposal ("self-governing BOT except defence and foreign affairs") is "N/A" and "Y" respectively.

Also the Chief Minister of Gibraltar says "except defence, external affairs and internal security" and you only say "defence and foreign affairs". Yet, you seem to say that his statement supports your proposal.

Anyway, I would find your proposal NPOV as long as it includes the Chief Minister's position ("self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which vest in the Governor") as well as the UN's and Spanish position ("Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory"). Anyway, I would rather have all this issue and its details only in the body of the article and not in the lede. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Another alternative would be to say in the second paragraph that the new Constitution allows for a significant degree of devolved government (it wouldn't contradict the UN and Spain's position which say Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory but agree that it has a great deal of devolved government, and it would fit all the sources no matter if the consider different exceptions such as defence, foreign reltions, internal security and/or public service -the only problem seems to be in the "self-governing territory" expression and the different "perimeters" of self-government). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's perfectly adequate to have "self-governing" in the lede, with further clarification someplace below. Apcbg (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ownership

This is getting out of order, changes I did last night gave due coverage of a political issue, they expanded a section to cover an important event and added information that was sourced, from reliable sources and changed POV text to more neutral prose. Any change I make or propose to this article is reverted. This isn't about consensus building it is ownership and it must stop or I will take the issue to WP:AE. Final warning. Justin talk 07:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for one-line comments on proposed changes

Opinions please

I'd like to ask for opinions on whether to remove the present sentence: "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings." Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - the circumstances described are notable and have ongoing relevance, but may be a bit too much for an overview article Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - the events are very notable and have much relevance as the main cause for the exodus of the inhabitants of Gibraltar, leaving room for the new in-comers (with all the impact in culture, ethnicity, language,...) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• I think this proposal needs to be made clearer. The proposal is that the words:

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.

be changed to:

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.

both with appropriate references. I support this. It retains mention of the violence that occurred without going into detail. The detail is a problem because it is a POV minefield: violence occurred on both sides and we cannot provide neutrality without going into the sort of detail provided below. Imalbornoz's point does not make sense: yes, the fact that there was violence is relevant - nobody's arguing that it isn't. But the detail of the individual acts of violence on each side would seem too much detail. It would seem difficult to argue that, had the rape and desecration occurred without the pillage, the townspeople would have remained - but that appears to be the suggestion. Our readers can perfectly well imagine the disorder created by an invading army, given as we say that there was three days of disorder and that the townspeople felt that the town was too dangerous to remain. Pfainuk talk 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Pfainuk accurately delineates my proposal above, certainly more accurately than the comment above. Further if we are to include such details, we should include more details to balance the POV. The incidents were a hindrance to the Anglo-Dutch forces and their Spanish allies as it alienated the population, the perpetrators were severely punished. As it is currently written in addition to implying the evil British drove out the population reneging on promises made. It is simply untrue and not sustainable by the sources. Justin talk 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Or alternatively, per a recent bold edit, to expand the paragraph to: " After a heavy naval bombardment on 2 August, the marines launched a pincer attack on the town, advancing south from the isthmus and north from Europa Point. Gibraltar's defenders were well stocked with food and ammunition but were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The Spanish position was clearly untenable and on the morning of 4 November, the governor, Diego de Salinas, agreed to surrender. Rooke remembered the looting at Cádiz but could not prevent a repetition at Gibraltar. Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline but lost control in the days following the capture, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances (Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar), the perpetrators of crimes against the population were severely punished, order was restored but by 7 August the majority population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and opted to leave. They initially settled around the hermitage of San Roque later dispersing into nearby areas of Spain. The temporary resting place around the hermitage ultimately became the modern town of San Roque founded in 1706. The Allied conduct aroused anger in Spain against the 'heretics, and the chance of winning over Andalusians to the Imperial cause was lost. Several counter attacks by sea and land followed but all were repelled by the English and Dutch marines and Spaniards loyal to Charles." Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - a good piece of prose but definitely too much for this overview article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with Richard Keatinge. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Qualified Support This is bigger than desirable for an overview but the brief text is unsustainable according to wikipedian policies of NPOV. It is also poorly written and can have unintended interpreations that compromise NPOV. Justin talk 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And, on whether to remove the mention of San Roque as the main destination: Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - as documented many times over, San Roque was the main destination, mentioned as such by many reliable sources ahead of facts which are uncontentiously in the article, and the circumstances of San Roque's foundation have ongoing relevance for anyone who wants to understand the ongoing problems. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Details relevant to SR only would include exactly when SR became a town as opposed to a hermitage with a hamlet, and when that town got its charter. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with Richard Keatinge. Even books talking about Gibraltarian culture and ethnicity mention the exodus of previous inhabitants (and San Roque) as a pivotal event for present day Gibraltar.[47]-- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. No particular understanding of Gibraltar or the dispute is gained by mentioning San Roque in particular. Understanding of San Roque, yes, but this is not an article about San Roque. Worth mentioning also that the sentence is anachronistic. They didn't go to San Roque because there was no San Roque at the time. Better to say they went to the "surrounding countryside". Pfainuk talk 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Pfainuk delineates my proposal perfectly, though I acknowledge as I have always done the arguments are finely balanced. IF we must mention it, there needs to be a better explanation. Justin talk 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And, whether to insert the sentence: "In turn, Spain's position is criticised as anomalous, whilst it maintain the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla in Moroccan territory." Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - this is a point of no legal or practical relevance and should not be mentioned in an overview article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't find any relevance for this article: no person from Gibraltar has had any impact on Ceuta and Melilla or vicecersa. On the other hand they indeed have lots of relevance (together with Gibraltar, Olivenza and Western Sahara) in the section about international disputes in the article about Foreign relations of Spain.-- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support if San Roque remains. They are each as tangential as the other. Insist on excluding one, and the other should be excluded. Insist on including one, and the other should be included. Pfainuk talk 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support I disagree with Richard on the legal and practical relevance as it is a common comment on the Spanish position. A single sentence, supported by sources and a wikilink to the article on Spanish territorial disputes seems to be due coverage. Justin talk 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And,whether to include in the lede the comment "self-governing"? At present this is omitted, leaving the issue for the main body of the article, which presently reads "Under its current Constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal democratic self-government through an elected parliament. The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor of Gibraltar. Defence, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the Governor; judicial and other appointments are also made on behalf of the Queen in consultation with the head of the elected government.". Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - the bare comment "self-governing" is oversimplified, and the main body of the article describes the situation well. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - it is distinctly useful to distinguish self-governing BOTs from those under direct rule. Pfainuk talk 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - the term "self-governing" is ambiguous and controversial (some sources say PARTLY self-governing, other say NON self-governing; it looks like someone could choose this expression to make a point against the UN, Spain or other countries in the C24). Other expressions like "devolved government" are accepted by all sources and still make the distinction vis a vis other BOTs without governing bodies. Anyway, I think this issue is better in the body of the article and not the lede. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support I believe from Apcbg who writes above: "In my opinion, it's perfectly adequate to have "self-governing" in the lede, with further clarification someplace below. Apcbg (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)" Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard. Apcbg (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The comment above is not the proposal, reflecting a continued theme of anything I suggest being misrepresented. I have clearly made the contents of my proposal plain above. Please also note that sources support my suggestion and that the content of sources has been grossly misrepresented. Justin talk 20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done my very best to extract some meaning from your comments. If the above wasn't what you were proposing would you please be clearer? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? Justin talk 21:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support [48] If someone could tell me how to make my proposal plainer I will be happy to listen. The proposal is misrepresented here. The proposal is to add a qualifier - again a compromise that I feel is not necessary. IT is supported by all sources including the Spanish Government source. Per Apcbg the lede can be qualified in the text. Secondly per Pfainuk, the BOT are both populated where the British Government devolves Government, and those that are not, where other than a transient military or scientific there is no Government. Self-Government is an important qualifier for a BOT. Thirdly the use of the UN C24 is misleading as it defines self-government per UN resolution 1541 [49], which defines self-government on the basis of statehood (free association with an independent State, integration into an independent State, or independence). All other sources support this edit proposal. Justin talk 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's try a qualified mention of self-government. Should we include in the lede a comment of "largely self-governing", "mostly self-governing", "self-governing with some reserved powers", or some other closely similar formulation, the detail to be decided later?

• Weak support I'd be happy with an accurate comment of this sort. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support self-governing except for defence and foreign relations or some variation. Accurate and supported by multiple sources. Justin talk 08:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to Pfainuk's call below for greater specificity, I ask: should we include in the lede the phrase "self-governing with some reserved powers". I would support this or any other accurate comment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Overly vague in my view. I'd oppose "largely" and "mostly" as being inaccurate in implication (as I believe they underplay the level of self-government that Gibraltar actually holds). I'd support Justin's "defence and foreign affairs" line (though the sentence would need rewording somewhat). Pfainuk talk 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to support Pfainuk's and Justin's comments, please feel free to work out some wording. I do believe that we may achieve consensus here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it should be noted that many editors have said many times that it is not necessary to explain in the lede the kind of governance/government of an obviously populated BOT (myself, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Ecemaml, Cremallera, JCRB, external editors like Blueboar[50][51], Peregrine Fisher [52],...) But then, if we want to have a consensus, I am ready to reach some common ground if what Pfainuk and Justin want is the lede to clarify that Gibraltar belongs to the group of BOTs that democratically elect a government with a very important amount of competences, and therefore their main goal is not to mend the position of the UN, Spanish Government and several other sources (who say that Gibraltar is "non self-governing" -I don't say that they are right or wrong, I just say that this is their verifiable POV). That's what I understood that you wanted to do, isn't that so? In that case, I am ready to accept some changes in the lede. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC) BTW, it is not clear at all that all sources agree about the perimeter of government: many talk about defence, foreign affairs, and internal security; others add the public service to that list. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Even the Spanish source acknowledges self-government in Gibraltar, p51:

“ La reforma del decreto constitucional no modifica el estatus internacional de Gibraltar y, aunque desarrolla su autogobierno, no altera la soberanía británica sobre el Peñón, el cual sigue siendo un territorio dependiente del Reino Unido, de cuyas relaciones exteriores y defensa sigue siendo responsable. ”

Translates as:

“ The reform of the constitutional decree does not change the international status of Gibraltar and, although self-government develops, does not alter British sovereignty over Gibraltar, which remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for whose external relations and defense are still responsible. ”

And whatever terms it chooses to use for its own purposes it recognises the legal status of Gibraltar. P.7

“ Gibraltar es un Territorio Británico de Ultramar, dotado de un estatus específico dentro de la Unión Europea (UE). Está excluido del Territorio Aduanero Común y de la Política Agrícola Común (PAC), de la Política Pesquera Común y del requisito de recaudar el Impuesto sobre el Valor Añadido (IVA). ”

Translates as:

“ Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory, which has a special status within the European Union (EU). It is excluded from the Customs Territory and Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the Common Fisheries Policy and the requirement to collect Value Added Tax (VAT). ”

Can we also please stop attempting to confuse the situation by confusing governance with Government. GoG has certain matters excluded by the constitution, however the remaining functions of the judiciary and policing are undertaken by independent Gibraltarian bodies. These are not undertaken by the UK. This isn't helpful and has been explained before.

Equally the situation with the UN is not comparable, nor do UN statements undermine the proposed lede. This has been explained more times than enough. In include a link to UN resolution 1541, the UN definition does not recognise governance but statehood. The article should explain this but it does not exclude the inclusion in the lede.

Given sources support it, and the UN does not contradict, I propose, supported by the BBC cite:

“ Gibraltar (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈbrɔːltɚ/) is a self-governing British overseas territory with the UK retaining responsibility for foreign relations and defence. It is located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula at the entrance of the Mediterranean, overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. ”

Thank you. Justin talk 23:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

With thanks for everyone's positive contributions, I'd support that text. It's as close to absolute accuracy as we can get in the appropriate amount of space. Richard Keatinge (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am ready to reach an agreement, like I said. On the other hand, I don't find that Justin's proposal is accurate, for the following reasons:

1. WP:NPOV: Many sources do not support the part of the text that says "with the UK retaining responsibility for foreign relations and defence". For example:

• The Chief Minister says "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security."[53] (page 4).
• The CIA says "the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability."[54]
• PriceWaterhouseCoopers says: "the United Kingdom being responsible for defence, foreign affairs, financial stability and internal security."

2. WP:SYN: BBC does not say "Gibraltar is a self-governing BO Territory with the UK retaining defense and foreign affairs", it says "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas EXCEPT defence and foreign policy."

3. WP:UNDUE: NO SOURCE talks about the government or governance in the first sentence or even the first paragraph. Many of them do talk about it later on. Even Justin's source (BBC's Gibraltar profile) only talks about self-government in the third paragraph. Can anybody show any source that gives as much prominence to Gibraltar's type of government as Justin's proposal?

Therefore, I do not support Justin's proposal. But I'm ready to compromise and accept a comment about Gibraltar's type of government in the lede. I just won't support a text that only reflects only ONE version of the details of government of the several different ones that different sources support. And I won't a accept undue prominence of the type of self-government in the lede.

I would not have this in the lede, but for the sake of consensus I propose a text that has no contradiction with any source or with Justin's and Pfainuk's goal of explaining in the lede that Gib is the type of BOT with own government:

(in the third paragraph)

“ The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return.[4] Gibraltarians resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referendums held in 1967 and 2002. Under its new constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government[55]. ”

Comments? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be even mnore accurate. I'd support that one too. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

unindent

I'm sorry but I cannot accept that as a proposal, since it does not reflect what the majority of sources say. Going forward I feel it is necessary to establish a few ground rules.

1. Claims that proposals violate wP:SYN. The semantic argument that any prose must follow exactly the same words in the source is not sustainable under wikipedian policies.
2. NPOV does not require that we represent each and every way different sources find to say the same thing. Where there are explainable errors in what the sources say, editors can use the consensus building process to agree on suitable representation.
3. Misrepresentation of sources must stop now. For instance [56] actually states: "The new Constitution is now in place and in operation. It maximises our self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers. All other matters are the competence of the Gibraltar Government, the Gibraltar Parliament or other Gibraltar legal institutions." It is also states quite explicitly ""The old power of United Kingdom Ministers to disallow legislation passed by the Gibraltar Parliament has been abolished. The so-called “Administering Power”, the UK, administers absolutely nothing in Gibraltar."" Selectively quoting from the source to claim it denies the proposal when it in fact supports in must stop. It is unhelpful and it undermines the good faith of any discussion.
4. In the literature, there is an overwhelming number of sources to support the proposed text. Where there are differences, it is easily explained by the difference between the powers given to the Government of Gibraltar and those vested in independent Gibraltar bodies such as the judicial system and the policy authority. We should be looking to move forward, rather than endlessly discussing the same text. I have lost count of the number of times I have taken the time to patiently explain this, if there is something in the explanation that Imalbornoz does not understand he should ask for it to be amplified rather than repeatedly returning to make the same point over and over again. Because if after having taken the time to explain it, he makes the same point again, then clearly he has not listened or considered the points made. I note that once again yesterday I took the trouble to make this point again , yet again we see the same position stated. I really don't see how discussions can move forward on this basis.
5. The position of the UN is dictated by UN resolution 1541 [57], which defines self-government on the basis of statehood (free association with an independent State, integration into an independent State, or independence). We should recognise that the UN definition is archaic and not one that would be recognisable by most people and explain the apparent contradiction to our readers.

Establishing some ground rules would help frame the discussions and cease the endless arguments over points that have been explained more times than I care to count. Justin talk 13:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The UN definition is not archaic, but it isn't the same as all other definitions. On the one hand, some powers are reserved. That's one real definition of "lacking full self-government". On the other hand, Government decisions in Gibraltar are practically all taken through a local democratic - hence really self-governing - process. Arguing about which definition is the "real" one, as in effect we have been doing for some time, strikes me as amazingly futile, a recipe for endless quarrels. And we - or at any rate I - hope to come up with an article that will be acceptable not just to us, but to future readers and editors including those who have strong opinions either way and good information to back them. I hope we're nearly there.

I suggest that acceptable solutions would include:

• No mention in the lede - but several editors think the point is important enough and really should be in the lede. We are unlikely to achieve any consensus soon on this idea.

• "self-governing with some reserved powers", or "largely self-governing", or "almost complete internal self-government" or other similar form of words. Vague enough, and precise enough taking into account Justin's point about self-governance, to be entirely accurate, hence defensible against almost any reasonable comment. This would be my preferred solution though I'm not hung up on any one form.

• "self-governing except for (a list of reserved powers). I suppose I could live with this for the sake of consensus, but if the list of reserved powers is long enough to be entirely accurate and thus challenge-proof, it's going to be too long for the lede. Very much a second choice, and in addition getting precision will lead us squarely into the arena of conflict between definitions of self-government. On quite a lot of points, the local politicians make the actual decision but the Governor signs it. Do you want to argue definitions of self-government through every one? I'd prefer to pull my own teeth out. Let's avoid that particular self-inflicted torment, shall we?

Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Just had a brief look at the above.

One thing that stands out is Imalbornoz's argument:

WP:SYN: BBC does not say "Gibraltar is a self-governing BO Territory with the UK retaining defense and foreign affairs", it says "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas EXCEPT defence and foreign policy."

That's not original synthesis. When I say that, it's not any particular judgement call or borderline case. If this is original synthesis, then practically the entire encyclopædia is original synthesis. We are not just not required to replicate the wording in the source - we are not allowed to replicate the wording in our sources because that would be copyright violation.

He also argues WP:UNDUE, again based on this notion that we must follow sources exactly. So, the point is worth making again. We aren't here simply to regurgitate our sources. We're here to write an encyclopædia. I actually think that there is a far better way of getting around this, without resorting to this much detail - but Imalbornoz and Richard don't agree to it. Because compromise is required, I am willing to compromise to this extent.

Justin argues that there is still some misrepresentation of sources going on. And it does appear that some are being selectively quoted. I'd call on all editors to make sure that when they quote sources, they quote them with all relevant sections - including those that they may think undermines their viewpoint. Remember that we're trying to reach a mutually agreeable outcome: there are no "winners" or "losers" here. That bit that you think undermines your point might actually hold the key to agreement.

Finally, on the UN. East Anglia has no government of its own. There is no separate East Anglian legislature, no separate East Anglian ministers, no East Anglian governmental institutions of any kind. All government of East Anglia is done either at a higher (UK-wide) level or a lower (municipal) level. There is nothing in between.

By contrast, American Samoa is governed under its own constitution as a multiparty democracy, complete with bicameral legislature (the American Samoa Fono), effectively equivalent to that of the United States.

Which is "self-governing" according to the UN definition? The region with no government of its own or the territory with a functioning democracy that does in fact govern itself? It's the region without a government to itself that is "self-governing" and the territory that governs itself that is "non-self-governing". Why? Because even in theory the UN definition of "self-government" has nothing to do with the actual degree of self-government and everything to do with the status that the territory happens to have (in practice, of course, this is itself secondary to the C24 governments' politics). By putting a territory on the C24 list, the UN is not claiming that the territory is not self-governing, only that it does not have one of the three statuses outlined in UNGA resolution 1514 - an entirely different kettle of fish. Pfainuk talk 16:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To which I'd add my proposal is supported by sources. The text that Richard proposes isn't and what Imalbornoz proposes underplays what the sources actually say. The policy is WP:V, it is verifiable and all bar one editor has agreed that it could be the basis of a concensus. The arguments produced against it don't withstand the scrutiny of our policies. I feel we are better explaining the apparent contradiction under the politics sections. I am not attracted to a fudge using vague terms, we should respect the sources - that is of itself defensible. As Richard pointed out on another article, there are some for whom the mere existence of Gibraltarians is offensive. Well anticipating their objection to text that accurately describes how Gibraltar is run and compromising the text as a results is simply appeasement. As I said all bar one editor agreed with the proposal, his objections are not sustainable on policy grounds. Effectively if he cannot produce a sustainable argument against it, we do have a consensus. Justin talk 18:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, could we all agree on "self-governing except for reserved powers including defence and foreign relations"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I could agree to that. Though "for reserved powers" appears redundant. Justin talk 20:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the phrase "for reserved powers including " may allow us to answer Imalbornoz's objections, and those of possible future editors, and so may allow a consensus. If so it's well worth a little redundancy. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I have commented on Justin's proposal and made another proposal trying to find some common ground, in line with Justin's and Pfainuk's desire to make sure that the lede indicates that Gibraltar is part of the group of BOTs with a large degree of self-government. Richard has given his (positive) opinion about it. Please, Justin and Pfainuk, could you explain what's your view about it? Do you find it acceptable? Do you find anything wrong about it? My proposal was:

“ The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return.[4] Gibraltarians resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referendums held in 1967 and 2002. Under its new constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government[58]. ”

Thank you very much for your time and interest! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that one too. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I've already indicated that I wouldn't be happy with it and stating why - asking again won't change my opinion seeing as you've advanced nothing new. And Imalbornoz your comments on the other proposal are not sustainable under wikipedian policies. This is not helpful behaviour ignoring comments and arguments put to you to simply restate a position. We have a proposal that has substantive support - you are the sole objector. Justin talk 09:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I see that your objection is that "almost complete internal self-government" is not what the majority of sources say. Please, even though we have had strong differences, I kindly ask you to analyse again what they say, to see if we can reach an agreement. I can assure you that I have made a strong effort with the proposal to make it acceptable to all editors in this discussion (even though myself and most of the editors have declared at some point or another that it would be better left out of the lede altogether...) Please let's analyse the proposal again:

• It sets Gibraltar in the group of BOTs with the highest degree of self-government, using the words of the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee itself (who is not suspect at all of understating the self-government of Gibraltar, and is supposed to be technically competent as well).
• On the other hand, all the sources say that self-government is not complete but they disagree in some details.
• All of them say that external affairs is in the hands of the UK (thus, self-government is internal at the most, not external).
• All of them say that defence is out of the perimeter (thus, internal self-government is not complete either) and many (at least half of them -right or wrong) also exclude other internal affairs.

I have tried to find the greatest common divisor but without explicitly mentioning specific areas that might be contradicted by some sources. At the same time, please bear in mind that "almost complete internal self-government" is the expression that the UK HoC FAC has used to define the group of BOTs with highest self-government and to include Gibraltar in it (which is your goal and Pfainuk's, if I'm not wrong). I hope I have explained myself better this time so that you are able to review the proposal again. Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be squeezing closer and closer to actual agreement. We now have: Under its new constitution, Gibraltar: either - has almost complete internal self-government or - is self-governing except for reserved powers including defence and foreign relations

Or possibly both, because I have just re-read the rest of this page and I really don't see any important difference, either semantic or relating to Wikipedia policies, between them. I have to say that if I was trying to emphasize the degree of self-government, I'd slightly prefer Imalbornoz's version, and it's also shorter. But both are correct, encyclopedic, acceptable. Who else is prepared to accept either? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Imalbornoz: I find your arguments are singularly unconvincing. For one thing, your declaration that the fact that the UK is responsible for defence means that "internal self-government is not complete". Who do you think the military would be defending Gibraltar from? Barbary Apes?

I note that you have not followed my request to ensure that you quote all relevant portions of a given source, which is disappointing. WP:AGF is all very well, but in articles like this, it is a good idea to demonstrate your good faith. This helps to lower temperature and reduces the likelihood of a battleground mentality coming forward. I note also that your proposed edit is insufficiently referenced. You cannot expect readers to trawl through a 172-page document to try and find the single sentence the edit is supposed to be referenced from.

I note also that your statement that "almost complete internal self-government" is the expression that the UK HoC FAC has used to define the group of BOTs with highest self-government does not appear to be accurate, based on what I assume is your source. In particular, I find that your use of the word "define" gives a very strongly misleading impression of the source.

Richard: your suggestion that Justin and I are here to try "to emphasize the degree of self-government", as opposed to trying to improve the encyclopædia by including pertinent information on the subject of Gibraltar, reads as yet another violation of WP:AGF. If you want me and others to believe that you're assuming good faith here, Richard, you really need to be far more careful about your choice of words. Because, frankly, it doesn't look like you are from here.

The proposed qualifiers are unnecessary extra words with no particular benefit. They add no information whatsoever to the text. Fact is, that the GoG governs everything in Gibraltar, apart from defence and foreign relations - which are handled based on the wishes of the GoG. Gibraltar is not governed by the UK, it governs itself. If we have to include unnecessary qualifiers of "self-governing", better that they at least carry some information. Pfainuk talk 18:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, Pfainuk, here is the complete quote from the source (House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Overseas Territories, Seventh Report of Session 2007–08, page 16):

“ Most Overseas Territories have elected governments. These have varying degrees of responsibility for domestic matters, ranging from Bermuda and Gibraltar which have almost complete internal self-government to Tristan da Cunha and the Pitcairn Islands, where the Governor is the law-making authority and there are only advisory councils. In the majority of Territories the Governor has special responsibility for defence, external affairs and internal security (including the police, the public service, and administration of the courts). In Anguilla, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands the Governor also has special responsibility for financial services. In St Helena the Governor is responsible for finance and shipping. ”

I suppose that we can all agree that it classifies groups of BOTs according to their degree of self-government, explains that one of them has the highest level of self-government, defines it as "almost complete self-government", and sets Gibraltar in it.

Your argument for including the reference to self-government in the lede is: "Support - it is distinctly useful to distinguish self-governing BOTs from those under direct rule. Pfainuk talk 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)"

I hope that you will agree that the quote that has been proposed fully meets your criteria. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK It boils down to this. Do we go with text that the majority of the sources reflect per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, as per the text I suggest, fully in line with wikipedia's policy of WP:V. This is a proposal that all bar 1 editor finds acceptable. The alternative which was not supported by 3 editors relies on a single source. If there is not a substantive policy based objection to the proposal that has majority support then I propose we insert it within one week. I am disappointed that once again, as Pfainuk note, accusations of partisanship have crept in, equally disappointing is that positions are being repeatedly stated, counter arguments ignored and those accursed accusations substituted instead. Justin talk 10:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point it may help to reiterate exactly what is being proposed. Proposals have included "almost complete internal self-government", "is self-governing except for reserved powers including defence and foreign relations", and possibly other variants that I've missed. Again, I don't see any important difference between these two, and both seem accurate and unexceptionable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an important difference "is self-governing except for reserved powers including defence and foreign relations" is supported by the sources apart from the text "except for reserved powers", whereas the alternative is supported by only one. Per WP:DUE the proposal supported by the majority of sources is the preferred option suggested by wikipedia's policies. Justin talk 19:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually:

• the expression "has almost complete internal government" is not contradicted by any source, and is sourced by a technically competent source like the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. I am sure that the HoC producing an official paper has taken extreme care that this wording is completely accurate. I don't know who in their right mind would find that this wourding is not right or "understates" Gibraltar's self-government.
• the wording "is self-governing except for reserved powers including defense and foreign relations" runs the risk of not being accurate (I personally I don't understand it too well). And the source is... Justin A Kuntz himself making a synthesis of several sources. No one else uses this wording.

Currently, the consensus is (and has been for at least seven years, except for a period of a few months) to leave this complicated issue for the body of the article. I (and many other users) personally prefer it that way (IMHO it is too much prominence for the type of government). I (and many other users) was ready to talk about self-government in the lede if the UN POV was mentioned there as well, for the sake of consensus. Then, I accepted to exclude the UN POV and proposed the wording of a technically competent source. It seems this is not enough for Justin: he will only accept his very own personal wording.

I propose that if he is not able to reach a wide consensus, we leave the most stable version: type of government described in the body of the article. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you feel that the words "and fled to San Roque" are original synthesis as well? That precise wording does not appear to be used by any source other than Wikipedia and its mirrors. By your standards, it's clear original synthesis.

We can go further. Perhaps you would like to go to WP:VPP and request that every article in the encyclopædia be deleted because it's impossible to write them? After all, by your standards, anything that does not violate WP:COPYVIO is original synthesis and must be removed on those grounds. Pfainuk talk 08:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually this isn't an easy issue and none of us is a constitutionalist or a political theorist. It's just that -at Justin's request and against many editors' preferred option- we have accepted to include this issue in the lede, then we accepted to exclude the UN POV, then we find a technical and comprehensive source to explain what you and Justin proposed... And now it seems that the HoC summary is not enough for Justin; he has to put it in his very own words.

Well, I'm getting tired of this and I'm starting to feel tempted to just leave the version that has proved to be most stable and uncontroversial for years: not to include any summary in the lede and explain all the details in the corresponding section. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This would be my preferred solution also. However, for the sake of consensus I am prepared to accept a variety of compromises, so long as they're accurate/NPOV and within reasonable length. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, the entire point of writing the encyclopædia is that we do so in our "very own words". Your entire argument against Justin's wording is that it isn't a direct quote of a source. Fact is, in cases where this is relevant, it works the other way around: a direct quote of a source is rather less likely to be acceptable than a paraphrasing thanks to Wikipedia's policies on copyrighted material. When your only argument against a proposal is this bad, don't be surprised when other people don't accept it. Pfainuk talk 11:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

May I just point out that the current proposal is a compromise from several editors and is not my preferred option. I feel it is important to bring that to everyone's attention, since it seems that yet once again matters are becoming personalised and I am being blamed. This I do not find acceptable.

Furthermore, this is not just my request it reflects what the majority of the sources have to say about Gibraltar and makes an important distinction for the populated BOT. There is no controversy about this proposal except perhaps it may be offensive to people holding extreme nationalist opinions, for whom the mere existence of Gibraltar is an affront; those opinions are not relevant to writing wikipedia.

May I also point out that consensus is not a veto or requiring unanimity and where a proposal conforms to wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V, stamping your foot and saying WP:IDONTLIKE is not acceptable or amenable to building consensus. I don't find the latest proposal acceptable as it seems an attempt to derail consensus than to move the discussion forward.

May I finally note the request was for comments on the proposal to be strictly limited to policy based objection rather than personal opinions, further posts attacking individual editors are not acceptable and I would expect all editors to move forward on that basis. Talk page discussions should not be about filibustering to stall proposals that individuals don't like. Justin talk 15:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Coming back to the phrase "is self-governing except for reserved powers including defence and foreign relations". I'm quite happy with it, but Imalbornoz, whose English is excellent, says that he doesn't understand it too well. Perhaps it could be clearer while preserving the meaning? What about "is self-governing except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations"? Does that make the comment clearer? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections, though to be honest it seems needlessly verbose. We should also remember that en.wikipedia is intended for those whose first language is English and write accordingly. Justin talk 19:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That sentence is much more understandable (at least the "reserved powers" part). What would the global proposal for the lede be? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's one possible version:

Gibraltar (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈbrɔːltɚ/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula at the entrance of the Mediterranean, overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. The territory itself is a peninsula of 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) whose isthmus connects to the north with Spain. The Rock of Gibraltar is the major landmark of the region and gives its name to the densely populated area with city status, it is home to almost 30,000 Gibraltarians.

An Anglo-Dutch force captured Gibraltar in 1704 during the War of the Spanish Succession. The territory was subsequently ceded to Britain by Spain under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. It became an important base for the British Royal Navy, which drove the local economy and provided employment for a large portion of the local population. Today its economy is based largely on tourism, financial services and shipping. It is self-governing except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations.

The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return.[4] Gibraltarians resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referenda held in 1967 and 2002.

I'd be happy to put that in, or quite a few other variants. Indeed I propose to insert it within the next couple of days, unless anybody really objects. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather go with the majority who preferred to leave any mention of government to the corresponding section (WP:DUE). Also, I'd rather use the wording of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee which is technically accurate and doesn't go into the details of which powers are reserved and which are not (WP:SYN, NPOV and WP:DUE)...

BUT, for the sake of consensus, I could accept this text in general. I'd only suggest:

• to include the word "Gibraltar" (otherwise, it's not clear at the beginning who is self-governing; e.g. the economy?)
• to include the word "some" before "powers": "except for some powers reserved to the UK Government" (otherwise, it looks like the only reserved powers are foreign affairs and defence).
• also, for style and continuity, I'd include a transition between the previous sentence (which talks about Gibraltar's past and present economy) and the sentence in question. Maybe something like "In 2006, a new constitution was approved maximising the self-government of Gibraltar, except for some powers reserved to the UK Government."
• Finally, again, I wouldn't mention any specific reserved power, IMO "some" is enough (in order to avoid controversy). But if you want, you can use your sentence: ", including defence and foreign relations."

Thank you, Richard. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I will make a couple of observations:

1. Repeatedly stating the same point, when there is a consensus and a stated reason for adding this material is unhelpful
2. Alleging WP:SYN etc when that has already been COMPREHENSIVELY rebutted is unhelpful.
3. Insisting on your preferred wording, rather than wording achieved as a consensus contribution is unhelpful.
4. Insisting on using a single source, rather than reflecting the majority view in the literature is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE and also unhelpful.
5. There is a consensus to add the text, seeking to pick at the text to change it to your preferred text, ignoring the previous comments is unhelpful.

As previously stated, we should reflect the majority of sources per WP:V and WP:DUE. We should be moving forward on the basis of the prose that has majority support, not seeking to obstruct moving forward by not moving in position.

May I suggest a slightly modified version of Richard's text, moving things to the first paragraph and trimming a few words that are superfluous.

“ Gibraltar (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈbrɔːltɚ/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula. Gibraltar is self-governing except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations. The territory itself is a peninsula of 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) whose isthmus connects to the north with Spain. The Rock of Gibraltar is the major landmark of the region and gives its name to the densely populated area with city status, it is home to almost 30,000 Gibraltarians. ”

Thanks, Justin talk 20:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors have insisted that this get longer and longer and longer, until we get to the point where a distinction that could perfectly easily be expressed in a single word is now a sixteen-word sentence. No, we need to come up with something quite a lot shorter than this. As I pointed out on Imalbornoz's proposal, there's no point in adding loads of words that don't add any meaning or clarification - which is what is being done here.

Let's remember that we have a link to British Overseas Territory here, which editors can go to if they want to know what a BOT is. It doesn't imply that Gib is a self-governing BOT as opposed to a BOT under direct rule, but it does imply just about everything else that's being discussed here. Let's remember that exacting detail can be included later in the article, allowing us to summarise the situation in the lede. Let's remember that we are allowed - nay, required - to summarise our sources and thus let's see an end the absurd claims that anything that isn't a direct quote from a source is original synthesis. And let's try and get a way of distinguishing self-governing BOTs from those under direct rule without resorting to adding words that do not add meaning. Pfainuk talk 22:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree totally "self-governing BOT" is more than adequate but I have tried to compromise to meet the concerns as expressed. "self-governing BOT except for defence and foreign relations" is also acceptable. The latter is supported by the sources. including the Spanish Government paper. I'm leaning to the view that we have compromised more than enough yet have seen nothing in return. Justin talk 23:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As we've done to death, the trouble with "self-governing" tout court is that it isn't quite accurate. If we have it in the lede we need it qualified for accuracy and comprehensibility. I do like Justin's trimmed suggestion:

“ Gibraltar (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈbrɔːltɚ/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula. Gibraltar is self-governing except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations. The territory itself is a peninsula of 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) whose isthmus connects to the north with Spain. The Rock of Gibraltar is the major landmark of the region and gives its name to the densely populated area with city status, it is home to almost 30,000 Gibraltarians. ”

Alternatively we could have the shorter formulation: "Gibraltar is self-governing except for some powers reserved to the UK Government." Can we settle for one or the other? I'm happy with both. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is accurate Richard, self-governing as a term reflects internal matters, so the caveat is actually quite superfluous. We used to have a wikilink to self-governing that reflected that but that article was altered to remove the reference to internal matters. I am nontheless prepared to compromise and caveat the term if it allows the article to be improved. My preference is for the former, rather than the latter, as it does reflect what the majority of sources say. So please can we not have a return to previously stated positions and move forward. Justin talk 09:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Moving on, and taking Justin's point about other minor improvements to the lede, how about this one?

“ Gibraltar (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈbrɔːltɚ/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula. It is a peninsula of 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) whose isthmus connects to the north with Spain. The Rock of Gibraltar is the major landmark of the region. At its foot is the densely populated area with city status, which is home to almost 30,000 Gibraltarians. Gibraltar is self-governing except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations. ”

Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable to me, lets move on. Justin talk 10:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Justin and Pfainuk: the current consensus is NOT to mention the type of government in the lede. Myself, Richard (tell me if I am wrong) and many other editors would rather have it ONLY in the body of the article. The only reason to include it is to include YOU (Justin and Pfainuk) in the consensus. I hope that you guys are able to recognise that compromise from the MAJORITY.

That being said, I think that you guys should accept some things, otherwise it will look like you don't just want to explain to which group of BOTs Gibraltar belongs, but that you want to make a point (which is not the purpose of wikipedia) by including the term "self-governing" in the first paragraph of the article no matter what. My comments about the proposal:

• the proposal does give WP:UNDUE prominence to this issue: as Richard first proposed, it is better in the second paragraph. The first paragraph is about "what is Gibraltar", not how it functions. The vast majority of sources (Britannica, CIA, PWC, UN, BBC, ...) do not talk about the system of government in the first paragraph.
• it does not reflect what the vast majority of sources say. In order to include the vast majority of them (including the Gibraltarian Chief Minister, the UK House of Commons, the UN) the following sentence is better: "In 2006, a new constitution was approved maximising the self-government of Gibraltar, except for some powers reserved to the UK Government." If you want, you can add ", which include defence and foreign relations." (although it makes it longer).

This sentence has the merit of explaining to which group of BOTs Gibraltar belongs (your ONLY stated reason for including this issue in the lede), it does not contradict ANY source, and it does not use the controversial terms "self-governing" or "non-self governing".

If you really want to move on, then let's put this text in the article. (Otherwise, tell me what's wrong with this proposal, according to encyclopaedian criteria). Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your views about majorities are basically irrelevant, I'm afraid. Consensus is not, and never has been, about majorities. The point of this is to find the widest possible consensus, including as many people as possible. In other words, we're trying to find a formulation that we can all agree to.

I do not consider it to be undue prominence to distinguish between different kinds of British Overseas Territory in the lede. This is a matter of "what is Gibraltar", as you put it. Such distinction does not require us to divert entire paragraphs into long-winded explanations on the exact amount of self-government that Gibraltar has - indeed, IMO the words "self-governing British Overseas Territory", with the link included, are entirely sufficient to do this. The initial proposal along these lines was only marginally longer than that. If there is undue prominence in the proposals currently being made, it is due to the large amounts of detail that you have insisted on adding.

Your suggestion that the point made is not backed up by the sources is plain wrong. It is backed up by the sources. It isn't a direct quotation of the sources, but that's no bad thing.

But you announce that anyone who doesn't accept your positions is acting in bad faith. This is a very unhelpful position to be taking and is liable to make it rather more difficult for consensus to be achieved, and I strongly suggest that you withdraw that remark. The fact that people disagree with you is not evidence of bad faith.

Now, compromise is needed and I think I'd better declare my position here. I'm willing - reluctantly - to accept Richard's current proposal. As I've said, I find it altogether too long, but the impression I'm getting is that it's the most likely compromise here. On your proposal, Imalbornoz, I find it awkwardly worded and open to serious misinterpretation. It appears, for example, that the "except" clause is modifying the word "approved" - implying that elements of the constitution concerning reserved powers were not approved. Pfainuk talk 19:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, try this, three well-organized and slightly shortened paragraphs, the first on what's there, the second on history, the third on political argument:

“ Gibraltar (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈbrɔːltɚ/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula. It is a peninsula of 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) whose isthmus connects to the north with Spain. The Rock of Gibraltar is the major landmark of the region. At its foot is the densely populated city area, home to almost 30,000 Gibraltarians.

An Anglo-Dutch force captured Gibraltar in 1704 during the War of the Spanish Succession. The territory was subsequently ceded to Britain by Spain under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. It became an important base for the British Royal Navy, which drove the local economy and provided employment for a large portion of the local population. Today its economy is based largely on tourism, financial services and shipping.[3][4]

The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return.[4] Gibraltarians resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referenda held in 1967 and 2002. Under its current constitution Gibraltar is self-governing except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations.

”

I do hope we don't need to argue about exactly where things go in the lede; I'd suggest that good organization takes precedence over any such issue. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't propose to provide any rebuttal to Imalbornoz's comments, I've previously indicated my reasons so I don't see the point in reiterating them. Similarly, I'm not going to indulge in a disucssion of editors other than to remind him to comment on content NOT editors. Richard's proposal is acceptable to me. Justin talk 10:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My view for this one is the same as the previous proposal. I'm not keen because I think we'd be better off with something shorter, but am willing to accept it as a means of getting consensus. Pfainuk talk 21:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I must say that I am a bit frustrated because I think that I've proposed several very reasonable alternatives and, somehow, they have not even been taken into consideration.

Myself, I think that I have been quite open in order to reach consensus with Pfainuk and Justin (accepting the mention of type of government in the lede -in spite of the opinion of the majority of inside and outside editors-, accepting not to mention the UN's and Spain's position about Gibraltar's self-government -that it is a "non self-governing territory"-, accepting the mention of just TWO exceptions to self-government...).

I suppose it's only reasonable to ask that they should do the same (so far, they've only accepted to mention that there are exceptions to self-government -something that is mentioned in ALL sources-, and to include the mention of self-government a bit later than the FOURTH word of the article -like ALL sources do).

I will accept the text that Richard proposes except for a minor change of wording. It includes the less controversial expression "self-government" (used by half of the sources or more):

“ Gibraltar (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈbrɔːltɚ/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula. It is a peninsula of 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) whose isthmus connects to the north with Spain. The Rock of Gibraltar is the major landmark of the region. At its foot is the densely populated city area, home to almost 30,000 Gibraltarians.

An Anglo-Dutch force captured Gibraltar in 1704 during the War of the Spanish Succession. The territory was subsequently ceded to Britain by Spain under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. It became an important base for the British Royal Navy, which drove the local economy and provided employment for a large portion of the local population. Today its economy is based largely on tourism, financial services and shipping.[3][4]

The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return.[4] Gibraltarians resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referenda held in 1967 and 2002. Under its current constitution Gibraltar has self-government except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations.

”

I can't imagine any possible encyclopaedic objections from Pfainuk and Justin to this text, so I hope they go along with this spirit of consensus and we can finish this discussion that started more than 15 months ago. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lede in accordance with the above. I really hope that finishes this particular episode; I'd like to get on with a lot of things including going through the useful suggestions in the Good Article review and trying for GA status again. On balance, and although the four of us seem to have frightened everyone else away, I feel pleased that we have managed to reach a consensus text, one which probably does improve the article. I'd like to thank you all for your help and I hope that you all feel a similar satisfaction. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Steady on here. I, for one, have an objection to this text. I object because it's badly written. We should, at least, have a wording that flows. This one doesn't.

Let me explain: in the verb phrase proposed by Richard, "except" modifies "self-governing". Thus "except" introduces limitations to self-government. In the noun phrase proposed by Imalbornoz, "except" modifies "has". This is a rather more binary distinction: instead of introducing standing limitations to self-government, it would introduce situations in which self-government is removed altogether.

For example, one might say that Gibraltar has self-government except during wartime, or that it has self-government except at the airport. It does not really work with reserved powers, which are a standing situation that do not remove Gibraltar's self-government in other areas. These aren't the sort of limitations that are introduced by Imalbornoz's phrase. The wording makes a binary self-government-or-no-self-government distinction and then tries to pull out of it and ends up sounding weird. That's aside the awkward repetition of the word "government".

Imalbornoz has provided no good reason whatsoever why such awkward phrasing should be preferred over a more natural phrasing. He's provided reasons, but none of them are relevant. So I see no reason to use it over Richard's proposal.

As a side issue, I'm not particularly happy with the removal of the section at the entrance of the Mediterranean, overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar - which I hadn't noticed before. Gibraltar's strategic position is absolutely crucial to the understanding of many aspects of Gibraltar's history, and its cultural significance. Pfainuk talk 10:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. I have returned the text to the previous consensus as per BRD until we all find a new one. Regarding Pfainuk's argument, I think it is a very interesting one, but not really accurate (in my humble opinion). The text does not say that UK's reserve powers affect the whole of Gib's self-government. Plus, anyone can understand what is meant, especially with the examples that are given about foreign relations and defense. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If we met in a Madrid and I said to you ¿Metro dónde?, I'm sure you'd understand what I meant - but I'm equally sure you would recognise that this is not a well-constructed sentence in Spanish.

You say that "the text does not say that UK's reserve powers affect the whole of Gib's self-government". Well, no. I never said it did. My point is that the construction is unnatural because it starts by implying something that affects the whole of Gibraltar's self-government and then refers to something that doesn't.

I actually fail to understand any reason why you are not willing to accept Richard's original proposal. You say that "self-government" is preferred by most sources - but words in Wikipedia are not chosen by popular vote of sources, so that's totally irrelevant. Good thing too: if it was, we'd never be able to put together a coherent sentence. You imply that "self-governing" is controversial - well, if "self-governing" is controversial then "self-government" is surely equally controversial. I see little to choose between them in that regard - this is certainly no good reason to choose a less natural-sounding sentence over a more natural-sounding sentence. Pfainuk talk 11:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Oh well. I find myself agreeing with both of you. Imalbornoz's proposal doesn't, as far as I can see, either say or imply that the reserve powers remove self-government. However, it is slightly (and we are talking about slight differences here) clumsier than the alternative text; the problem as Pfainuk says is the repetition of the word "government", and while we must use our sources we don't have to choose exactly the same word.

I also agree that we should continue to include a phrase describing the strategic location of Gibraltar. I shall go for a paddle in the less-controversial waters that lap Anglesey and check your thoughts again this evening after sunset. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we just cut the crap please, Richard's proposed text was perfectly acceptable and good english. What Imalbornoz proposed was badly written with bad grammar and poor use of English. It seems to be vacillating and filibustering to frustrate consensus. Can we please just go with what Richard wrote and get on with it. There is no material difference except one is written well and the other isn't. Justin talk 13:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I've restored Richard's edit, supported by Pfainuk's amendment. There is clearly a consensus to add this. If Imalbornoz wishes to propose an improvement he can do so here. I hope we won't see edit warring to remove it.

Now moving on, this [59] and this [60] should have been an uncontroversial edit. Per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV they're clearly relevant and provide due coverage of the issue. Justin talk 13:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Before I zip up the wetsuit, what about "Under its current constitution Gibraltar has self-government except for powers reserved to the UK, which include defence and foreign relations." Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for implanting an image I really didn't need. I have a preference for the previous prose as it reads better, it has already grown beyond the two words necessary and I'm concerned for the squandering of yet more innocent electrons in filibustering. Won't you please think of the sub-atomic particles. Justin talk 14:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the image :-}

I'm not about to revert again, but I do thnk that we should wait for Imalbornoz's comments. In the meantime I've made what I hope will turn out to be an uncontroversial edit to the first paragraph. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with including the reference to the entrance of the Mediterranean, it surely is relevant.

I just restored Richard's edit, but eliminating the repetition of the word "government" (which seemed to be the thing that made it clumsier). If we are going to include a reference to self-government in the lede and, at the same time, not mention the UN's and Spain's position, we should try to avoid the expression used by the UN and Spain ("self-governing" vs. "non self-governing"). I hope that the current text is acceptable by everybody. The goal should be to reach a consensus at least as stable as the previous one (only mentioning self-government in the body of the article). PS: isn't it a bit cold to go paddling around up there ;)? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Richard's edit was fine by me but Imalbornoz's destruction of basic English grammar wasn't. I've restored Richard's original prose, I would have hoped that someone whose first language isn't English might have listend in good faith when people tried to explain that what they're proposing was grammatically incorrect. I would also hope they might realise that even the Spanish Government recognises the self-governing nature of Gibraltar seeing as that is what the official Spanish Government source actually says. The current prose should be acceptable given that it is supported by numerous sources - including an official Spanish Government paper. This has been done enough can we move on please to improving the article for GA status.

Again, moving on. This [61] and this [62] should have been an uncontroversial edit. Per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV they're clearly relevant and provide due coverage of the issue. I'll take it if there is no response there is no objection and we can move on further. Justin talk 22:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin, please take a look at Richard's edit here. Maybe you have made a mistake when restoring it (please notice how I assume good faith)? I have restored it correctly now and eliminated the repetition of the word "government" like Richard proposed. If you now suddenly feel that Richard's edit is not fine by you any more, then maybe we'll have to return to the previous (and stable for years) consensus. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

My previous point still stands. A sentence starting Under its current constitution Gibraltar has self-government except... would still be expected to go on to give circumstances in which self-government is removed - and it still doesn't read well when it doesn't actually go on to do that. The wording, regardless of this modification to your proposal, is still needlessly awkward.

And the fact is, you still haven't given any good reason why Richard's original text was such a problem to you. Sure, "self-governing" is used by the UN to denote status rather than level of self-government. But "self-government" is as well, so this does not distinguish the two wordings. As Justin says, the Spanish government source actually supports that edit.

I would finally note that I do find what can only be described as the ultimatum at the end of your message inappropriate. The point of this is to try and find a consensus that all editors can agree on. We're not working to a deadline here - there's plenty of time. Let's get this right. Pfainuk talk 23:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't find any reason why the sentence "has self-government except for powers reserved to the UK, which include defence and foreign relations" should be awkward. Pfainuk seems to imply that I don't get it because I am not a native English speaker. He's right about the latter (English not being my mother tongue), but I'm not too sure about it really being awkward. Actually, Richard seemed to accept it without any problems. Please Richard, could you give your opinion about the sentence?

Regarding Pfainuk's second comment, I have already explained that the UN and Spain say that "Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory". So, if we have an option to BOTH 1) attain Pfainuk's and Justin's goal of explaining that Gibraltar is one of the BOTs with a large degree of self-government and 2) avoid saying "Gibraltar is self-governing", I think we should use it to make the text less controversial.

Finally, Pfainuk, I have not delivered an ultimatum. I have only proposed to follow your own policy of keeping the previous stable consensus until we reach a new one[63][64][65][66]... I was hoping you would oblige and be consistent also when it is yourself who wants to change something in an article. Could you or someone else return the text to the previous consensus while we discuss this? I hope we can do it calmly and without edit wars (remember ArbCom's recommendations). Thanks!! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never said or intended to imply that it was awkward because you are not a native speaker. I am an English native speaker and I certainly write awkward sentences sometimes, particularly when I try to change bits of already-written sentences. No, I rather figured you didn't get it because I hadn't explained it clearly enough.

Second, you claim to be trying to restore a stable consensus - but at the same time were reverting to a position that had never had and does not have consensus. If you're trying to return the text to the previous consensus position, why on earth are you edit warring to maintain a position that apparently does not have consensus and never has had consensus? While majorities do not define a consensus, let us note that Richard's text (of 21:03, 3 November) has the largest level of support that we've had since this whole thing started.

Third, I've just checked the Spanish government document. Sorry for the length, here are the sections I see that reference the word "autogobierno" ("self-governing"):

En el citado Comunicado Conjunto se añadía que el objetivo compartido de España y el Reino Unido era el de lograr un futuro en el que Gibraltar disfrutase de un mayor autogobierno y de la oportunidad de aprovechar plenamente los beneficios derivados de una convivencia normal con la región circunvecina.

In the cited joint communiqué [the British and Spanish governments] added that the shared objective of Spain and the United Kingdom was to achieve a future in which Gibraltar enjoys greater self-government and opportunity to fully exploit the benefits of normal coexistence with the surrounding region.

Su objetivo común era superar todas sus diferencias sobre Gibraltar y garantizar un futuro seguro para ese territorio, en el que Gibraltar conservase su modo de vida y sus tradiciones, gozase de un mayor autogobierno interno, aumentase su prosperidad de forma sostenible y recibiese todos los beneficios correspondientes a una cooperación armoniosa y mutuamente beneficiosa, en todos los terrenos, entre Gibraltar y el Campo de Gibraltar.

[The British and Spanish foreign ministers'] joint goal was to overcome all of their differences over Gibraltar and to guarantee a secure future for this territory, in which Gibraltar conserves her way of life and her traditions, enjoys greater internal self-government, increases her prosperity in a sustainable manner and receives all the benefits corresponding to a harmonious and mutually beneficial cooporation between Gibraltar and the Campo de Gibraltar in all fields.

Los gibraltareños serían consultados, en un referéndum, sobre el acuerdo una vez ultimado. Los gibraltareños tendrían más autogobierno, de acuerdo con el texto del acuerdo, y podrían preservar sus costumbres y cultura. La idea de que la soberanía compartida fuese una fórmula transitoria no era, según Peter Hain, aceptable para el Gobierno británico.

The Gibraltarians would be consulted, in a referendum, on [the joint sovereignty proposals of 2002] once they had been finalised. The Gibraltarians would have more self-government, in accordance with the text of the agreement, and would preserve their customs and culture. The idea that joint sovereignty would be a transitory formula was not, according to Peter Hain, acceptable to the British government.

Los gibraltareños debían entender que el acuerdo era en su mejor interés ya que tendrían un amplio autogobierno y mejores relaciones económicas con España. Si no aprovechaban esta oportunidad, España seguiría insistiendo para que Gibraltar siguiera estando excluido de los acuerdos de la UE.

[According to José María Aznar in an interview with the Guardian,] [t]he Gibraltarians should understand that [the joint sovereignty proposals of 2002] was in their best interests as they would get broad self-government and improve economic relations with Spain. If they didn't take this opportunity, Spain would continue to insist that Gibraltar be excluded from EU agreements.

La reforma del decreto constitucional no modifica el estatus internacional de Gibraltar y, aunque desarrolla su autogobierno, no altera la soberanía británica sobre el Peñón, el cual sigue siendo un territorio dependiente del Reino Unido, de cuyas relaciones exteriores y defensa sigue siendo responsable.

The reform of the constitutional decree does not modify the international status of Gibraltar and, though self-government develops, does not alter British sovereignty over the peninsula, which remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, which is still responsible for external relations and defence.

Thus I can find no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim that Spain says that Gibraltar is not self-governing. I note in passing that they do use the Spanish equivalent of the UN term, "territorio no autónomo" (non-autonomous territory), several times - and primarily in two contexts. It's used when describing Gibraltar's status in international law, and when describing Gibraltar's relationship with the UN. It does not use it to make any judgement as to Gibraltar's level of self-government.

We can move on to the UN. Resolution 1541 uses both the terms "self-governing" and "self-government" to refer to status. Not level of self-government, but political status. As such I see no reason to assume that one form of the word is any more controversial than the other, and thus no reason not to go for better English. Pfainuk talk 11:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to apologize for having declared a solution prematurely. However, we are very close. The remaining difference is between "Gibraltar is self-governing except..." and "Gibraltar has self-government except..." I cannot see any semantic difference between the two sentences, and to support my intuition I've just spent time on a Google search for both terms.

On the term "self-governing" - it's a verb, and the phrase therefore tells us directly what Gibraltar does. However, that phrase is specifically contradicted by the UN and so forth, using an absolute and essentialist definition of the term requiring it to be equivalent to full independent nationhood; on those grounds it would be, slightly, preferable to avoid it. If we do use it, we can look forward to repeated, referenced, good-faith attempts to remove it. As if we haven't had enough good-faith nitpicking already.

On the term "self-government", it's a noun, a thing, a reification of a process, and is therefore an abstraction which requires parsing before its meaning becomes as clear as the alternative. But it may be, very slightly, less controversial.

If we can't agree on this one, I'd suggest we get someone else to comment. Or flip a coin. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 for UN use of the word "self-government".

The UN, incidentally, does not consider "self-governing" equivalent to "full independent nationhood". A "self-governing" entity by the UN standard does not even need to have its own government. Pfainuk talk 12:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we stop claiming that we're contradicting what the UN says, because we're not and as has been demonstrated repeatedly the UN status is nothing to do with Government. We would do better explaining what the UN actually means by that statement and the appropriate place to do so is in the politics section not the lede.

I also don't think its helpful Richard that you let Imalbornoz's ultimatum pass without comment. He is clearing laying down the law that we either accept his strangled sentence or eliminate it from the lede. This is filibustering to frustrate consensus and that should be recognised by you.

Come on people, we are supposedly in the business of writing a quality encyclopedia, if the choice is between a poorly written English sentence and a well written one, the choice should be a no-brainer. I really don't understand why anyone would edit war to impose a bastardised statement in the article. I also don't find your suggestion that the term would be subject to nit-picking criticism, it in no way implies statehood or otherwise - particularly as the article makes plain the UK retains sovereignty. We need to explain the status with the UN and the apparent contradiction - that should put an end to it. Justin talk 13:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not with any old set of words, but with the title of the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. It actually might give trouble and it's worth getting it right. What about an even more direct phrasing "Gibraltar governs itself..."? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No the problem is not the UN list, it would be better to explain UN 1541, then there is no room to abuse UN resolutions to push a fiction. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be about educating our readers? Justin talk 19:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, I think I didn't explain myself: I thought that we had consensus for the edit I made. When I talked about the previous (and longest standing consensus) I talked about the last one we had. To summarise the history of the term "self-governing" (or similar ones) in the lede:

• No mention at all since 22 October 2002[67] (the first time there was a lede) until 5 April 2009
• The term is introduced for the first time on 5 April 2009[68], six and a half years later
• I try to revert and discuss the inclusion of the term in the lede (when I got to understand BRD -I was a newbie) on 3 August 2009[69], only 4 months after it was included for the first time. Justin (and a couple other editors) put the term back.
• We discuss the inclusion of the term for maaaaany months, until Richard Keatinge takes out "self-governing" and the term "almost complete internal self-government" is included on 20 February 2010[70], while we keep discussing (there seems to be a consensus that, in case self government is mentioned in the lede, it should be qualified with the exceptions)
• The mention of self-government is taken out of the lede on 15 May 2010[71], and remains without any controversy in the talk page for five months
• Then, Justin returns from his topic ban, and on 9 October -FIVE MONTHS later- 2010[72] he puts "self-governing" back, without any qualifiers -as if no discussion had ever taken place. We start all over again the discussion.

The last consensus lede does not mention self-government (until 9 October, when it was included, reverted and this discussion started). The longest standing consensus lede (SIX YEARS AND A HALF) does not mention self-government in the lede. Self-government has been mentioned in the lede without any controversy for only FOUR MONTHS.

Following Pfainuk's criteria, I am returning to the last consensus text while we discuss this. I hope we don't enter into an edit war and are able to discuss this peacefully and reasonably. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not true, there is clearly a consensus to include this, you have not provided a valid grounds based on wikipedia's policies and are now simply filibustering to frustrate consensus. We focus on content not editors, you seem determined to reduce discussion to slandering other editors. You will not be indulged anymore. Stop the edit warring now, you're simply being disruptive. Justin talk 11:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin, you were topic banned because your continuous assumption of bad faith. Can you please refrain? --Ecemaml (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I'm sorry that you do not agree with the points made by those who disagree with you, and even think them to be filibustering and slander. To reiterate, it seems unwise to assert a phrase that an important source specifically denies. They may not be defining their words in the same way as we are, and the source may be out of date, but we should find another way of expressing the actual situation. I have just tried a bold edit, with the sentence "Under its 2006 constitution Gibraltar governs itself except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations." I hope that this will be more constructive than expressing irritation and making edits before consensus. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So we're back to the situation where bad tempered and bad faith attacks can be aimed in my direction and there is nothing said but complaining about filibustering, which is accurate, and two of you pile in immediately complaining about my comments.

Again Richard the proposal is to explain why the UN says something different and that should put an end to the matter. Why can't we try and do that instead, we don't contradict what the UN says and we can explain why. Mmm? Would educating our readers be a much better situation so that the rabid nationalists for whom the mere existence of a Gibraltar is an affront cannot use the UN list as an excuse to deny the easily verifiable fact that Gibraltar is self-governing. Would that not be a much better situation than trying to play with wording that they're not going to accept under any terms. Justin talk 12:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And another thing, no one was entirely innocent in that arbcom case, just because you escaped sanction by arbcom doesn't mean any of your hands are clean. And the sanctions that result from that case apply to you as much as they do to me. I would much rather be creating content for our readers, remember them, the readers that is, because that is what wikipedia is supposed to be about. Instead we apparently have to spend months debating to include the most basic facts, I have been trying to bring this article up to GA status for 2 years and every single attempt to do so has been frustrated by POV pushing nationalists who wish to use the use the article to push a nationalist irredentist agenda. When I returned to this article it hadn't been touched for 3 months but as soon as I start to improve it, there are people coming out of the woodwork to try and stop it. Justin talk 12:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

See [73] for an example of what we could do. Justin talk 13:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

unindent ...Returning to constructive discourse, we have come very close to a consensus. What about the phrase "Gibraltar governs itself except..."? Alternatively "Under its 2006 constitution Gibraltar elects its own government; some powers including defence and foreign relations are reserved to the UK."? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have copied the seedling discussion of Ceuta and Melilla to a new section below. Until we have consensus to insert it here, rather than under Foreign relations of Spain, this comment needs to be removed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Frankly this is getting ridiculous, I asked twice already if there were any objections to my edit. There were no responses, I edit and now apparently we have to have a discussion as whether I'm allowed to edit the article or not. You don't WP:OWN this article, anyone can edit, except me it seems. How come it is only my edits that have to have this scrutiny by a self-appointed scrutineer? Justin talk 13:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Richard's edit gives satisfaction to all parts in this discussion. The second alternative sounds better in my ear, but I can agree with both of them.

Regarding Ceuta and Melilla, the previous consensus was not to mention them. There was a vote (at the end of the page) that clearly does not show consensus to include that mention. If anybody wishes to further discuss, we can do it in that section. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a vote, its about strength of argument. You don't get to suppress material or censor material by voting. Justin talk 13:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A few comments on the above.

Ecemaml, there are few things more likely to be disruptive to progress on this page than editors dragging up the past. The four of us who have been in this discussion have avoided it for the last few days and we've managed to make some good headway on the matters in hand - progress that could not have been made had editors been focussed on the past rather than the future. I would strongly suggest that you do not jeopardise this progress by making any more such unhelpful comments.

Imalbornoz, consensus is not, and never has been, a matter of voting. The substance of the arguments made do matter as well. Just like here, we need to come to a position that all can accept. I will put my position in detail below, but we're going to need compromise there as well as here.

Richard, it still sounds a touch awkward to my ear, but am willing to accept something on the lines you propose. It may be a case of varying mileage, but I will make an edit to try and get something that sounds better to me. Pfainuk talk 18:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The result looks good to me, better than my attempt. Thanks. We could perhaps still remove the final word, thus just "UK" instead of "UK government"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks good to me too. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course it looks good to Imalbornoz, the two words "self-governing" aren't included. The two words he doesn't like and will demand are removed whenever they appear. The fact that the majority of sources use those two words, well hey we must ignore those sources when its an issue that Imalbornoz doesn't like. Otherwise we have to repeat the source verbatim or otherwise he'll claim WP:SYN. Two obviously contradictory positions but there is never any conduct about his disruptive behaviour but hey get comment on his filibustering to frustrate consensus building and that gets immediately condemned as a PA, whilst his PA on other editors, raking up of the past, misrepresenting of sources, misrepresentation of discussion passes without comment. Nothing much changes around here. Justin talk 11:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

there is no contradiction with the UN position but we don't explain the UN position so you can expect some POV troll to drop by in future and further disrupt the article.

RfC: Ownership Issues & NPOV on Gibraltar

There are some very clear ownership issues on this article. Any attempt to improve the article, to expand coverage to deal with some obvious NPOV issues, or introduce relevant material is resisted by several editors. Arguments are inconsistently applied, material that is tangential on one subject must be included but other material that is relevant is reverted with the claim it is tangential. Talk page discussion is fruitless as there is no attempt to achieve a consensus, rather discussions on consensus are a stalling tactic to deter editors from attempting to improve the article. Outside opinion is discouraged by flooding the talk page with tendentious arguments and there is some serious misrepresentation of sources. Tag team edit warring has been used to impose content that clearly did not have consensus, there is also a very unhealthy attitude where consensus is decided by straw poll among a group of editors who always agree with one another. Justin talk 12:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin has so far failed to convince anyone, apart from himself, to support the changes in the previous section. New opinions would indeed be welcome, perhaps in the previous section where the proposed changes are laid out. My comments in the previous section are about as brief as I can manage, but I suppose we could always reiterate a few of the main points with references. The issues are discussed at some length on this page, but related argument fills most of the previous 18 archived talk pages.

Additionally it might be appropriate to review Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar in relation to the recent activity on this page, starting at Parallels above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was topic banned for uncivil conduct, I have returned and done my level best to edit in a civil manner. I also apologised to everyone involved unreservedly. I served my topic ban. There was also a great deal of taunting and uncivil behaviour that arbcom chose to ignore, there were also mitigating circumstances which Richard chose not to mention. The purpose in raising the arbcom case is not to help anyone considering to offer a comment but rather to deter it. Continually referring to past conduct, when I have done nothing to repeat past mistakes is of itself uncivil. Please note I have been labelled "prejudiced" already in discussion, each and every edit I have done has been reverted, even where an editor claimed he agreed with it. Justin talk 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:WQA#Richard Keatinge, wikiquette alert filed regarding the above comment by Richard. Justin talk 20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think this is helpful Richard? Yes, Justin was topic-banned. But given as he is not repeating the conduct that led to the topic ban, this is not an issue. Whether you like them or not, Justin is entitled to his views and is entitled to express them. He is not the problem here: right now appear he is being dismissed based on the fact that it's him making the argument, not on the merit of his arguments - and his arguments do have merit.

We've got to the absurd point where it is demonstrated that a user is misrepresenting his sources to an alarming degree and you don't seem to care. But Justin is subjected to personal attacks and his views are dismissed for the sole reason that he is Justin. Nobody was entirely innocent in the Arbcom. Just because they topic banned Justin and not you and Imal, it doesn't mean that you two were perfection personified. Time for everyone to move on from the Arbcom and discuss this in a constructive manner. Pfainuk talk 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, who is misrepresenting their sources? I see Justin doing it - the "fear of revenge attacks" for example seems to be pure synthesis - and he is also producing walls of ill-constructed text of limited relevance to his edits. His incivility has been muted, it's true. But his arguments do not appear to be any more useful than they ever have been, indeed they have changed very little. To the extent that I can understand what his proposals are, I have extracted them from his bold recent edits and arranged them above. I would be extremely happy to see some reasoned comment upon them, or indeed any further comprehensible proposals. Maybe the RfC will help? Failing that I can only think that Justin's suggestion of arbitration enforcement may be the best way of moving on. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Except once again I made no such claim, more to the point I have clarified my comments already above to ensure there is no misundertanding. Yet the same misinformation is being repeated and anything I proposed vetoed. My "incivility" has been non-existent, Richard, non-existent. Justin talk 23:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you not read the above then? According to Imalbornoz this calls refers to as Gibraltar "British colony, Europe". It doesn't. A search for those words on that page does not come up with anything at all. The word "colony" is only used in reference to the situation in 1830. Imalbornoz's representation of the source is totally inaccurate. And there are others - practically that entire table is at best selectively quoted in order to give an impression that accords with Imalbornoz's POV. We can't have consensus unless everyone is prepared to assume that everyone else is here to improve the encyclopædia, and this is impossible if editors are selectively quoting sources in order to try and push a position.

But regardless of that, you're trying to drag up old dirt. If you've seen the arguments before, then that does not mean that the topic ban is relevant. The topic ban was put in place because for behavioural reasons, reasons that do not exist right now. Trying to discredit his arguments based on a topic ban that has nothing to do with them is a case of commenting on the editor, not the argument - and is distinctly unhelpful.

I note, finally, that I cannot find where the words "fear of revenge attacks" features in the above, and thus would suggest that Justin is being misquoted. Pfainuk talk 07:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(His words were "fear of revenge following the murders") Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, if you look at the History of the article in the Britannica (in the upper left corner) you will see that the term "colony" was changed to "BOT" (not "self-governing BOT", mind you) on December 8, 2009. As I said (and Justin and you must know, as we were involved in a very heated discussion about the "self-governing" expression), I created and posted this table for the first time in August 2009.[74] I'm sorry I didn't check since then.

In any case, to accuse me of "misrepresenting" sounds a bit overreacting. You can check that for many sources I've written the term "British Overseas Territory" in the table, so it would not be consistent for me to just "misrepresent" the Britannica. In fact, I'm not proposing to call it a colony, but a "British Overseas Territory" (without "self-governing"), so the current version of Britannica would only support my proposal.

Overall, I hope that you've been able to check that NO SOURCE WHATSOEVER CALLS GIBRALTAR "A SELF-GOVERNING BOT" without exceptions or qualifiers.

Finally, about "the fear of revenge" theory, it was you in fact who first proposed it one year ago, saying that it was fully sourced.[75] Poor Justin seems to have just trusted you as a source. Talk about "misrepresentation"... You[[76] and Justin [77]have kept proposing this theory in this same page again and again. It's pretty weird that you can't find those words and suggest that Justin is misquoted. Cheers. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Dragging up the past again? Perhaps you could get your facts straight. You may note that my comment of 5 September 2009, for example, was nothing more than reiterating the final proposal at the inconclusive end of a very long and pointless discussion in May-June 2008. You may note that, far from proposing it, I was perfectly willing to leave that point out. You will also note that the words "the fear of revenge" and "fear of revenge attacks" do not occur in either of my comments. Justin uses the words "the fear of revenge" once on this page, it's true - but Richard quoted him as saying "fear of revenge attacks", which he did not say. Richard misquoted Justin, and you have just misquoted me and misrepresented the history of this page quite significantly.

On self-governing, you've misrepresented Justin's argument on this so many times that one wonders whether you have actually read it. Justin is not arguing that we should just say "self-governing". I think we should, because I think it's a useful point, but it's not his argument. He's arguing that we should say that Gibraltar is self-governing except for defence and foreign relations - a rather different point. You go to Encyclopædia Britannica and say it backs up your position. It's clear that it backs up Justin's position as well. Your point?

On December 8 2009, I had not edited this page in three months. I was not involved in any such discussion here at that time and so it seems odd for you to assume that I have detailed knowledge of what was discussed when. I do not.

We cannot move forward if you will continue to insist on pretending people's positions are things that they are not. This works only to undermine others' assumption of your good faith, and the assumption of good faith really is necessary for consensus to be achieved. Pfainuk talk 11:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Incompetence

If we do this properly with diffs, I really hope that something useful will come out of it. I summarize by saying that Justin's main problem at present is not the incivility, which he has toned down to mildly irritating asides. It is incompetence; in the first place, dragging up old issues, but more importantly, failing to organize the discussion stage of WP:BRD.

1. He began by introducing the long-contested term "self-governing" in the lede. After a very long discussion (see above under POV tag, Self-governing in the lede) Justin complains: "ADDENDUM Again the proposed edit is self-governing with the qualifier except defence and foreign relations. I emphasise this as once again Imalbornoz has chosen to misrepresent the proposed edit as the basis to criticise it. I note my proposal earlier made this explicitly clear. Justin talk 21:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC") I cannot find - correct me if I'm wrong - any comment from Justin that made this new wording clear. As far as I can see, the discussion to that point had been specifically about the term "self-governing".

2. Next, he introduced a long section entitled "Parallels with Spanish territories": "The strategic position of the Strait of Gibraltar has left a legacy of a number of sovereignty disputes. Spain maintains sovereignty over Ceuta, Melilla, Penon de Velez de la Gomera, Alhucemas and the Chafarinas Islands (captured following the christian reconquest of Spain) based upon historical grounds, security reasons and on the basis of the UN principle of territorial integrity. Spain also maintains that the majority of residents are Spanish. Morocco claims these territories on the basis of the UN principles of decolonisation, territorial integrity and that Spanish arguments for the recovery of Gibraltar substantiate Morocco’s claim.

Olivenza (Spanish) or Olivença (Portuguese) is a town and seat of a municipality, on a disputed section of the border between Portugal and Spain, which is claimed de jure by both countries and administered de facto as part of the Spanish autonomous community of Extremadura. The population is 80% ethnic portuguese and 30% of portuguese language. Olivenza had been under continuous Portuguese sovereignty since 1297 when it was occupied by the Spanish in 1801 and formally ceded by Portugal later that year by the Treaty of Badajoz. Spain claims the de jure sovereignty over Olivenza on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz still stands and has never been revoked. Thus, the border between the two countries in the region of Olivenza should be as demarcated by that treaty. Portugal claims the de jure sovereignty over Olivenza on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz was revoked by its own terms (the breach of any of its articles would lead to its cancellation) when Spain invaded Portugal in the Peninsular War of 1807.

Portugal further bases its case on Article 105 of the Treaty of Vienna of 1815, which Spain signed in 1817, that states that the winning countries are to "endeavour with the mightiest conciliatory effort to return Olivenza to Portuguese authority". Thus, the border between the two countries in the region of Olivenza should be as demarcated by the Treaty of Alcanizes of 1297. Spain interprets Article 105 as not being mandatory on demanding Spain to return Olivenza to Portugal, thus not revoking the Treaty of Badajoz. Portugal has never made a formal claim to the territory after the Treaty of Vienna, but has equally never directly acknowledged the Spanish sovereignty over Olivenza.

Spanish public opinion is not generally aware of the Portuguese claim on Olivenza (in contrast to the Spanish claim on Gibraltar or the Moroccan claims on Ceuta, Melilla and the Plazas de soberanía). On the other hand, awareness in Portugal has been increasing under the efforts of pressure groups to have the question raised and debated in public."

Red Hat reverted it, commenting (as others agreed) that it would be better under the dispute article or Foreign policy of Spain. After a significant discussion on this text in Parallels above, Justin then writes "May I request that you strike through the text above, because that isn't actually what I propose. That is text I plan to put elsewhere, when I have the time. The proposal is actually a brief resume of the analogy of Ceuta/Melila and its relevance to the politics of Sovereignty and that is all. Thank you. Justin talk 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)" It seems that he had changed his mind in accordance with Red Hat's comments, but hadn't bothered to tell anyone else, instead indulging in a long wrangle about whether his two casual quotations support notability in the Gibraltar context. My jaw dropped and I shook my head, but, for the sake of being obliging, I struck the text through as he requested. Above, at the end of the Parallels section, I asked:

"OK, could we have your revised proposal then?"

to which Justin replied:

"Indeed, patience grasshopper. I didn't see the point in writing anything if it was just going to be rejected."

As I mentioned above, not actual incivility, just a mildly irritating aside. The point is the incompetence in discussion and the waste of time.

3. Then Justin removed "San Roque" from the History section. As a one-off bold edit, this might be acceptable, though given the long previous arguments about it and the multiple references which firmly establish its notability, it would have been tactful to introduce the possibility on the talk page first. But I am left astonished that he should think that the comment "to be consistent with the argument in Parallels" is adequate. He may think that the multiply-referenced main destination of most of the previous population of Gibraltar is as trivial as a perceived inconsistency in Spanish policy, but other editors are unlikely to agree. His change was reverted.

4. Justin then removed San Roque again and also the sentence: "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings." His edit summary was again entirely inadequate: "slimming down the text relevant to an overview, the detail can go in the history article, rm material that is peripheral as per current discussion". His repeated removal after a revert came with the summary "rv per discussion in talk, with a request that accusations of disruptive editing and other PA cease and a plea to focus on content". Again, nowhere near adequate, and an editor without longstanding involvement reverted to the last stable version.

5. Justin then inserted a considerable expansion of the account of the British takeover, referenced and well-written but probably far too long for an overview article: "After a heavy naval bombardment on 2 August, the marines launched a pincer attack on the town, advancing south from the isthmus and north from Europa Point. Gibraltar's defenders were well stocked with food and ammunition but were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The Spanish position was clearly untenable and on the morning of 4 November, the governor, Diego de Salinas, agreed to surrender. Rooke remembered the looting at Cádiz but could not prevent a repetition at Gibraltar. Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline but lost control in the days following the capture, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances (Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar), the perpetrators of crimes against the population were severely punished, order was restored but by 7 August the majority population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and opted to leave. They initially settled around the hermitage of San Roque later dispersing into nearby areas of Spain. The temporary resting place around the hermitage ultimately became the modern town of San Roque founded in 1706. The Allied conduct aroused anger in Spain against the 'heretics, and the chance of winning over Andalusians to the Imperial cause was lost. Several counter attacks by sea and land followed but all were repelled by the English and Dutch marines and Spaniards loyal to Charles."

6. Justin then returned to the Parallels to insert a brief (and possibly defensible) comment: "In turn, Spain's position is criticised as anomalous, whilst it maintain the enclaves of Ceuta and Melila in Moroccan territory." I reverted almost all of these edits anyway to await consensus. Discussion in the Overview section above was getting lost in Justin's complaints (as opposed to relevant comments) about how the present text was achieved: "In actual fact, there was no consensus for including this material - you and others chose to tag team edit war that material into the article. And again you drag up the past and use the threat of admin action to impose content rather than discussing. There is also a major inconsistency in your approach. Above you insist we shouldn't include material on the grounds you assert it is relevant to Spain but tangential to Gibraltar; an argument that isn't sustainable given the prominence in sources. Yet something that is tangential to Gibraltar but relevant to Spain you insist must be included and edit war to impose it. I am prepared to discuss it but if you insist on personaling this discussion as a dispute and make personal attacks and accusations as you've done at ANI I will be going to arbitration enforcement. I have given you plenty of warnings. Justin talk 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)"

7. In the hope of getting discussion back on track I started the section above "Request for one-line comments on proposed changes". As will be clear from the diffs here, the proposals listed were direct quotations (some trivially amended) from Justin's edits. Justin then complained about ownership of the article, and wrote (above): "The comment above is not the proposal, reflecting a continued theme of anything I suggest being misrepresented. I have clearly made the contents of my proposal plain above. Please also note that sources support my suggestion and that the content of sources has been grossly misrepresented."

Summary and proposed action

Even from Justin, this seemed remarkable. It appears impossible to engage Justin in a meaningful discussion at all. If he disclaims his own edits and refuses to write any other proposals, I really cannot understand how anybody is supposed to guess what his proposals actually are. At this point, and considering Justin's immense past history of argumentation, I came to the conclusion that as long as Justin continues to edit in this fashion, this article will remain bogged in futile wrangles. I should add that I do not merely assume good faith, I judge that he is editing in good faith, but without displaying sufficient competence to conduct a constructive discussion. I will remind him that the arbitration remedies included specifically "Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution...", and that advice on dispute resolution includes "Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages.". Making highly contentious edits and following them with semi-relevant wrangles, accusations, and disclaimers does not help us to build a better encyclopedia and it is a behaviour pattern which might reasonably attract enforcement action under the terms of the existing arbitration decision.

I do have a suggestion which I hope will allow Justin's knowledge and interest to be used constructively. If we all wish to put suggested edits on the talk page, with references, and then to engage in clear, relevant, and specific discussion in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, this would be welcome and useful. I really hope that he does so. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't read this because it's over 14,000 bytes and fills my entire monitor. I wouldn't expect a point-by-point rebuttal (indeed, I'd ask editors not to provide one) for exactly the same reason. When people talk about "walls of text" putting people off, this is the sort of thing they mean. In the future, could I ask all editors to try and write more concisely please?

That said, I would suggest that, however politely it's put (and I don't know because I haven't read it), posting a nearly-2000-word essay entitled "incompetence" on a talk page about another user would look like a personal attack even if there was no Arbcom case and no dispute. Now, it could be that there's no violation of WP:NPA in there - but it doesn't look good. Could I ask that this be sorted please? Pfainuk talk 13:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the volume, but documenting some long-winded argumentation seems the only way of making a convincing point about remediation. Backing up the call for no point-by-point rebuttals, I repeat my summary request for all editors to put suggested edits on the talk page, with references, and then to engage in clear, relevant, and specific discussion in accordance with Wikipedia's principles. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that would start with you, then? What compromises are you willing to make in order to gain consensus on the points raised? What are your proposals that you believe could resolve the dispute to you and Justin's mutual satisfaction? Pfainuk talk 20:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could continue our civilized discussion process above? If we cannot reach consensus on the present proposals no doubt we can generate some more. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What's needed here is compromise on all sides. Justin has been trying to compromise, but you've opposed every one of his attempts. It's not reasonable to expect people to stumble around in the dark hoping we hit upon something that you're willing to accept. So I would like to invite you again to put your suggestions. What compromises are you willing to make in order to resolve this dispute? Pfainuk talk 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions can be divided into those that unequivocally help a better encyclopedia, those that unequivocally don't, and the group in the middle. I'm happy to compromise on the middle group. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This comment notably fails to assume good faith in that it implies that those who disagree with you are "unequivocally" out to damage the encyclopædia. If you want to have a civilised discussion, then you're going to have to accept that people who disagree with you are not doing so out of bad faith. Neither I nor Justin is out to damage the encyclopædia, as you imply. — Pfainuk , — (continues after insertion below.)

(I don't say anything of the sort, and I assure you that I don't imply or mean it either. I have mentioned already that I don't find poor faith to be the problem. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

Well, you do imply it. You say that you'll support anything unless it "unequivocally" doesn't improve the encyclopædia, and you oppose to others' proposals. The only way these make sense together is if you believe that others are out to damage Wikipedia. So, perhaps you would like to clarify your comment above? Pfainuk talk 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

On the substance of your point, you are currently opposing suggestions that would clearly improve the encyclopædia in my view. I don't say "unequivocally" because I recognise that people may in good faith disagree with me. Fact is, because I have no idea what you consider would "unequivocally help a better encyclopedia" and what you feel "unequivocally" wouldn't, your post tells me nothing whatsoever. — Pfainuk , — (continues after insertion below.)

Instead of general argumentation, which has kept this page bogged down for years, perhaps we could talk about specific proposals? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been done before, believe me. Though I note that you haven't provided any specific proposals on most of the issues of contention, so any that I make are still blundering around in the dark. Pfainuk talk 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You've suggested a compromise on one point. I appreciate this, but your proposal is so vague that it's impossible for me to come to a reasonable conclusion on it. Do I support it? Well, right now there is no "it", so I couldn't tell you. You're asking for suggested edits, but your sole proposal isn't a suggested edit. And I notice you remain silent on the other points, meaning that we still have no idea what you might be willing to accept on those points. Pfainuk talk 22:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I could have been clearer. Would you like to suggest a specific phrase for the lede? Or alternative edits to those presently failing to achieve any consensus one way or the other? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Will discuss the proposal above. Pfainuk talk 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Richard alleges that it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion alleging I'm somehow unclear, that I cannot be understood.

1. [78] OK please tell me how I could have made my proposal plainer? Two other editors seemed to realise straight away.
2. [79] I express my comments on the reasons for the exodus:

“ One, is the behaviour of the troops, two, is a fear of revenge following the murders of the British and Dutch troops followed by descration of their remains and, three, there was a natural expectation of a Spanish counter attack and a full blooded battle in the town. I personally feel that latter is the one that most stands up to logical examination as by the time of the exodus order had been restored. ”

I add the emphasis to make plain a personal opinion on one of the reasons for the exodus. Which you will note I amplified in the following sentence and that I acknowledge as a personal opinion, with the additional point that personal opion is not the basis. All have been previously advanced as reasons for the exodus. The argument I present is supported by the source: Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. :

“ Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives. ”

I would hope there would be agreement that the sources supports the expectation of a counter attack. So I do not understand why you are demanding I provide a sources for a comment that is not my principal argument. Perhaps you could elaborate for the reason for doing so. Equally perhaps you could explain why Pfainuk is attacked for suggesting that my comments have merit, alleging he is responsible for introducing this throw away line.

1. On San Roque, I am prepared to compromise provided it is explained properly. Again my point is that saying they went to a town founded 2 YEARS later is not the basis for a well written encyclopedia.
2. On Ceuta and Melila, I have pointed out the legal and political justification for including a sentence. I have compromised following your suggestion of including my original proposal and wikilinking to another article with a very brief mention in this article. I don't see the justification for a revert here.
3. I have followed the WP:BRD, every edit that I have produced that has been reverted I have attempted to discuss.
4. Your comment on one line proposals. Well noting my comments above, particularly where I explicity defined my proposal ie [80], my proposals were not accurately explained. There were also two editors who have demonstrated a reluctance to address my arguments who both voted against ideas that were not my own. Perhaps you might like to consider it from my perspective but to me it looks like two editors who only wish to bring up the past, ganging up against me and owning the article. Perhaps that is a bad faith presumption but it is not an entirely unjustifiable one.
5. If I am incompetent Richard, perhaps you could explain to me, what is the benefit of dragging up remarks I made whilst extremely upset and whilst I was in a bad way mentally. Because from my perspective it simply appears as flinging them back in my face and an attempt to belittle and humiliate me. I have apologised unreservedly on more than one occasion so I really don't feel it is helpful.
6. Finally, I have done nothing but ask to focus on content not editors. I don't feel the need to attack your competence with a 2000 word diatribe. And yet again we have a wall of angry text deterring outside comment. Is it not possible to put the past behind us? Justin talk 21:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to answer this one for several reasons. First, I don't want to fatten this already-overfed page, but would prefer to move on. To explain the further misunderstandings in your last comment above would require yet another couple of screensful. Second, I don't want to belittle you nor to stop you from contributing in an area where you have information and interest, and I guess that answering all your points, if I were to do so to your intellectual satisfaction, would do nothing for your self-esteem. Third, given your angry comments about me in the past, I'm not sure you'd read what I write in the constructive way that I intend it. I'm not therefore keen on answering your last set of questions, and if you were to persuade me to do it I'd prefer to do it on a user subpage. I do want to get on with the business of improving this encyclopedia. Perhaps you could solicit an un-involved editor - Atama comes to mind if he/she has the time - to assist you in the technique of doing so?

However, I hope that we may bypass this wretched business by the process in the section above. That is, by making clear proposals and brief pertinent comments, either achieving consensus or moving on to alternative proposals. User subpages may also be a useful mechanism for honing our longer contributions, perhaps with help from our friends, until they express with brevity and clarity a really well-thought-through point. Or we could draft our remarks thoughtfully, then wait a day or two to allow us to make them clearer and more relevant before we post them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, if you didn't want to have to have this kind of discussion, you shouldn't have posted a 2000-word essay on how incompetent Justin was. That was a very bad idea, and was never ever going to have a good outcome. Given the personal attacks contained in this message, veiled and open, you are baiting Justin here, Richard. If you want a civilised discussion, you are going exactly the wrong way about it.

The topic ban is finished. Justin has apologised over and over and over again for his past comments. Let's move on. Pfainuk talk 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Redistrubution of the worlds areas

As long as the UN allow the state of Israel to exist, I think there is no point in discussing other areas. Should there be a time limit (year), how the area was gained, what the inhabitants want, or what should decide who owns what? Why haven't the UN thrown Turkey out of Cyprus? This is a much more resent and devastating dispute than Gibraltar. An why do the Spaniards still occupy Moroccos cities? And what about the west Indies? When I see a Jamaican, Holland is of course the first thing on my mind. So please shut up! If it hadn't been for piracy and warfare, there would not have been any Britain nor Spain. Why shouldn't Denmark-Norway be given back southern Sweden? It belonged to them for centuries longer than it has been under Swedish reign. Why don't we start a new war right now? The winner takes it all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.99.225 (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether to mention the position of Ceuta and Melilla in this article

The proposal was to insert: "In turn, Spain's position is criticised as anomalous, whilst it maintain the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla in Moroccan territory." Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - this is a point of no legal or practical relevance and should not be mentioned in an overview article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't find any relevance for this article: no person from Gibraltar has had any impact on Ceuta and Melilla or vicecersa. On the other hand they indeed have lots of relevance (together with Gibraltar, Olivenza and Western Sahara) in the section about international disputes in the article about Foreign relations of Spain.-- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support if San Roque remains. They are each as tangential as the other. Insist on excluding one, and the other should be excluded. Insist on including one, and the other should be included. Pfainuk talk 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support I disagree with Richard on the legal and practical relevance as it is a common comment on the Spanish position. A single sentence, supported by sources and a wikilink to the article on Spanish territorial disputes seems to be due coverage. Justin talk 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Otherwise, we'd have to include mentions to the Falkland Islands or to the Hong Kong situations, for instance. The proper place to do it is the article on the dispute. It's a typical case of WP:CHERRY in order to POVize the article. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pah, I'd withdrawn the proposal 1 1/2 hrs before your comment. So illuminating, to note you registered oppose without even reading the arguments. Per WP:Cherry why do we have a mention of San Roque or atrocity tennis? Answer you change the argument to fit whatever content you desire or to censor and suppress other content. No matter your positions on other matters are contradictory. Justin talk 16:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I guess that sooner or later we'll have to collect all your personal attacks and ask again for administrative review of your actions. It's very sad to verify your inability at avoiding personal attacks. Was it that difficult to say "Pah, I'd withdrawn the proposal 1 1/2 hrs before your comment. So illuminating, to note you registered oppose without even reading the arguments. Per WP:Cherry why do we have a mention of San Roque or atrocity tennis? Answer you change the argument to fit whatever content you desire or to censor and suppress other content. No matter your positions on other matters are contradictory". --Ecemaml (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I see, well allow me to respond that WP:BAIT is also an instructive essay to read. I have tried to focus solely on content but the responders have instead chosen to attack me, rake up the past and refer to past comments for which I have apologised more times than enough. I am sure there is a sincere desire to avoid further arbcom intervention but I might not entertain doubts about your sincerity if you had perhaps commented upon and condemned the 2000 word diatribe directed toward me entitled "incompetence". Let me also look at your comment, my suggestion is based upon the compelling analogue between Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar and I actually welcomed your correction of a POV error I made in my original edit. You now accuse me of cherry picking facts to POVise the article, your comments on my proposal are entirely based on a bad faith presumption on my motives. You allege I'm making personal attacks, yet I find myself defending myself against your own. If you feel the need to gather comments I make in response to baiting, then may I also suggest WP:PETARD. I have tried hard to focus on content, it seems that attacking, belittling and baiting me is more productive for some. My personal preference is to be generating content, not talk page discussion. All I ask is for my content proposals to be considered on their merits, not rejected out of hand because of who makes them. Content should be discussed not editors, yet again despite my plea in that direction you're discussing my conduct, finding reasons to ignore my proposals, reasons I have to say are not rooted in wikipedia's policies and I find myself defending myself and frustrated at the interminable discussion the simplest proposal I make takes. Regards. Justin talk 17:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ecemaml, I find this exchange extraordinary. In other cases, I've mentioned AGF based on inference and subtext. In this case, your violation of WP:AGF was blatant. And yet barely an hour after you broke this key behavioural guideline - one that we all have to follow if we are to get consensus on the issues here - you're complaining about Justin's behaviour!

We need to assume good faith in each other because people here genuinely have different views about what the best position of this article is. To get end the disputes, we need to get as many people as possible on board - and this can't happen if you're assuming that people who don't hold your position are acting in bad faith. Particularly on an article with the history that this one does, everyone is going to have to work, and work hard, to avoid inflaming the situation. Regardless of your intentions, your comments here, Ecemaml, have only served to inflame the situation and have been deeply unhelpful.

AGF and other behavioural guidelines are here for a reason. We need everyone on this page to do their best not to say anything that might be taken as an assumption of bad faith, a personal attack, or any other violation. Step back and think before you press the save button. Wait a few hours before responding to an edit, particularly if it annoyed you. And remember that the point of this is to get the widest possible consensus on all the points that are at issue here. Pfainuk talk 18:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And once again, this isn't the edit, I corrected a POV error in my proposal already. Since when did we have scrutiny of well-written sourced and relevant material? Which policy change did I miss? Justin talk 13:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to include several POVs and common criticisms of those POVs, we should include also the ones that support the UN's position that Gibraltar is not a self-governing territory. To only include criticism of Spain's position is -clearly- not WP:NPOV. In fact, I think any of us can come up quite quickly with several very common and noteworthy criticisms of Britains' and Gibraltar's POV.

If those issues also include Ceuta and Melilla, this could very easily be expanded: including the POVs criticising Spain's position in Ceuta and Melilla and not including the relevant POVs defending its position is clearly not WP:NPOV.

An alternative would be to redirect to the article about the sovereignty dispute (that would be shorter and less controversial in this article). Which would you prefer?

BTW, I am returning the text to the previous consensus while we discuss this, following Pfainuk's[81][82][83][84] criteria. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Two votes in support, one in opposition, one weak oppose. By anyone's arithmetic that is a majority in favour. This is well-written, sourced and relevant material giving due coverage to an issue. The allegation it fails NPOV is not sustainable by any wikipedian policy, this is not a content discussion it is suppression and censorship using the consensus process to filibuster any content discussion to frustrate the achievement of a consensus text. We allow readers to make up their own minds but how can they do that when any material perceived to be somehow critical of Spain is suppressed and censored. There is no sustainable objection to my edit on any grounds relevant to wikipedia. The wikilinks above have no relevance here. Justin talk 14:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and for the unitiated I didn't just do this, I asked twice if there were any objections, there being none I then proceeded to add the edit. All of sudden then we have to discuss the edit, this is not WP:BRD its Discuss, Ignore, Discuss, Ignore, Edit, Revert, Filibuster. Justin talk 15:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN#Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar Please allow outside comment without flooding the page with walls of text. Justin talk 20:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see the plea to allow outside comment was ignored. Richard you commented earlier that outside opinion would be helpful, I doubt we'll get it with the walls of text above and every time it is sought you and Imalbornoz pile in to deter it, saying it isn't needed. What was that about, Imalbornoz poisons the well claiming it isn't neutral and misrepresenting discussion, then you pile in saying we don't need outside comment and its better discussed here. Then you don't discuss it, you have your little vote, don't listen to the argument and claim there is no consensus. Again we see the discussion misrepresented by Imalbornoz, just as he has misrepresented what sources say and you say nothing about that Richard, nothing.

I asked for comment before putting this edit, twice, and there was none. From my perspective this is an ownership issue where reasonable, due and relevant coverage of any issue is censored and suppressed if it is seen as "critical" of Spain. My conduct may have been uncivil in the past, your conduct is becoming a problem now. The article was neutrally written before, now it has serious POV issues and talk page discussions are not being used to correct that but to frustrate any change. Justin talk 11:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Article tagged to encourage outside discussion of the issues raised. Justin talk 11:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Justin. So, if I haven't got your proposal right, what exactly is it? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The diff is here [85], I made a POV error in my original proposal that I was happy to correct. Justin talk 22:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So just to check, your proposal is:

“ In turn, Spain's position is criticised as anomalous, whilst it maintains the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla (claimed by Morocco) on the North African coast. ”

Is that right? Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Justin talk 23:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I oppose its introduction here, because it's of no legal or practical importance to Gibraltar; the arguments about sovereignty would be entirely unaffected if Ceuta and Melilla were now part of Morocco or were to sink tomorrow. I'd support its mention in articles about the foreign policy of Spain, where it is a perceived anomaly. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Right just so I understand you, you oppose it because you say it's of no legal or practical importance to Gibraltar but you absolutely insist we must mention San Roque that really is of no legal or practical importance to Gibraltar. The two positions are obviously contradictory yet you post a 2000 word personal attack contrary to WP:NPA labelling me incompetent. Well, at least I can construct an argument that stands up to logical scrutiny.

You asssert there is no legal or practical importance. Two references support the edit. 1. Is a publication in a legal document, which establishes legal relevance 2. Is a speech by the Chief Executive of Gibraltar at the UN, in relation to the UN C24. To claim it is of no importance is not a sustainable argument. You arguments on legal or practical importance do not stand up to scrutiny. They are not sustainable by any of wikipedias policies.

What I propose gives WP:DUE coverage of an issue per WP:NPOV, is it sourced from reliable sources per WP:RS, it is verifiable per WP:V. You have not advanced an argument based on wikipedia's policies, rather your own personal opinion and an opinion that have to say does not withstand logical scrutiny.

What is clear is it is not the edit that is the issue but the editor who has proposed it. Any proposal that this editor makes is reverted or opposed, on grounds that have no relevance whatsoever to wikipedia. This is censorship and suppression of relevant material, simply because you personally dislike the editor who made it. Justin talk 09:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, you quote the Chief Executive and a lawyer mentioning, in passing, a populist comment. This does very little to establish notability. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A publication in a legal journal, that mentions it, that you seem keen to dismiss and it has to be said not on the basis of grounds that are relevant to wikipedia - that he mentions it "in passing". The author thought it relevant enough to include it. The Chief Executive mentioning it in a speech to the United Nations. But you simply airily dismiss an important UN speech as a "populist" comment, again this isn't grounds relevant to deciding wikipedia's content. This isn't a policy based argument, its your personal opinion and it isn't rooted grounds for opposing content on wikipedia. You appear to have decided by reflex to oppose a change simply because of who made it and are clearly not listening to the argument. See also [86] on the legal implications, all of which are signficant. There is a clear policy based argument for inclusion, there are no policy grounds for censoring this information. Justin talk 11:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and before introducing this, I asked twice in the area you created whether there were any objections. If you'd objections why didn't you raise them then? As soon as I actually create content, there is a demand I remove it, its reverted. Every time I try to introduce content, even when you acknowledge its well written and sourced per wikipedia's policies you or one of your cabal reverts it. Justin talk 11:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Your new reference does indeed provide a more substantial argument for inclusion: "For stability and development in the Strait area, any lasting resolution of the Spanish and UK sovereignty dispute must also take cognisance of the Spanish and Moroccan territorial dispute on the southern shore of the Strait. Both states claim sovereignty over Ceuta, Melilla, Penon de Velez de la Gomera, Alhucemas and the Chafarinas Islands.4 Spain claims the five African Sovereign Territories (Plazas) on historical grounds, for security reasons and UN territorial integrity of the state principles. Spain stresses that the majority of residents there are Spanish. Morocco argues that the UN principles of decolonisation must be applied; that Spanish bases there threaten Moroccan security; and that the UN territorial integrity principles apply. Morocco insists that Spanish arguments for the recovery of Gibraltar substantiate Morocco’s to the Plazas.5" It is still weak - "taking cognizance of" doesn't mean any strong legal argument - and it strikes me as undue weight for an overview article though perfectly well-placed in Foreign relations of Spain. I wonder what other editors think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that I now have a "cabal". So far I have generally been ignoring any comments that don't seem offer any contribution to improving the article. But if you want to discuss matters of this sort, perhaps your talk page or mine would be the best place? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You are most definitely not welcome to post on my talk page and as for ignoring comments that don't seem to offer any contribution to improving the article I was not the one compelled to write a 2000 word personal attack right here. None of you had not touched this article for 3 months till I made a few changes and then its revert, revert, revert - you don't create content you just destroy it. No I have a preference for keeping everything in public and in the one place for that every reason. As to gettting other editor's comments, tell me what other editor, seeing as any attempt to bring in outside opinion is discouraged by you and Imalbornoz with the wall of text approach. You then oppose any change and claim there is no consensus but don't offer grounds compatible with wikipedia's policies for doing so. You airily dismiss reliable sources, you belittle a major speech at the UN as "populist" and really as we're talking a few words here how you can claim WP:UNDUE as grounds is beyond me. No there is more to this, its the classic example of WP:OWN and excluding editors who don't belong to your little club. I have tried to discuss this reasonably but you're not advancing grounds relevant to wikipedia that this material should not be included and unless you do so I will go ahead an include it. If you and Imalbornoz choose to edit war it out, then all you're doing is censoring and suppressing information that is relevant to the topic of this article not writing a quality encyclopedia, which is supposedly our aim. Justin talk 13:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring? I would really prefer to stick to concise, relevant arguments about the actual edits proposed, until consensus can be achieved. We have just managed to do that in one case by mutual compromise and by avoiding "hot button" wording. But if you want to complain about me any further, I invite you to start a section on my personal talk page. This may at least keep the complaints out of this talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no desire to discuss matters on your talk page, I prefer a public forum for the reasons already identified. You're not provided concise or relevant arguments about the actual edits proposed. That is the issue, you simply say no, the reasons offered don't stand up to logical scrutiny, they're not policy based and they're inconsistent. Justin talk 13:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the proposal for now based on the feedback I got from the NPOV noticeboard. I would have been much, much happier with that feedback if certain parties had not poisoned the well before any outside comment was received. WP:OWN is nontheless a big problem here right now. Justin talk 14:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Politics section

Having looked through the article while reviewing the previous point, I noticed with surprise that no significant discussion of the dispute is included in the Politics section of this article. Whereas detailed discussion of the dispute properly belongs on the (sadly dreadful) dispute article, and there is clearly more to Gibraltar politics than the relationship with Spain, this is nonetheless an important part of Gibraltar politics and should properly be discussed.

I thus suggest that the following, or something like it, be included underneath that section, and that the third paragraph (on the UN) be removed as redundant.

--

Relations with Spain

Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control, arguing that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity.<Spanish government document discussed above> In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the Treaty of Utrecht, which gives Spain "first refusal" if the British decide to leave.<this FCO doc, page 5, marked as page 58> The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination.<this Times article>

Two referendums on the subject have been held, in 1967 (on a handover to Spain) and 2002 (on the principle of joint sovereignty). In each case, more than 98% of voters rejected the outlined change. Both referenda were opposed by the Spanish government.<Sources from the articles on the referendums>

Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht. On this basis, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters, for example.<the same Spanish gov't document> The UK and Gibraltar governments do not accept any such limitations on British sovereignty,<this Gibraltar Chronicle article> and claim the isthmus based on longstanding occupation.<same FCO doc>

Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. While the British and Gibraltar governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised, Spain opposes such attempts, and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.<Same references as now>

--

References are provided in <angle brackets>. Thoughts? Pfainuk talk 21:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support that proposal with the suggestion that it is slightly expanded to discuss UN 1541 to identify the basis on which the UN describes what is/is not self-governing. The lack of such a description continues to permit the UN position to be used to misrepresent the state of Government in Gibraltar and is a major failing in the current article. Justin talk 23:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff in general, support something of the sort. Did the Spanish government oppose the 1967 referendum? The 2002 one is described as "'ilegal' y contrario 'a todas las resoluciones" of the UN - that certainly counts as opposition - but opposition to the referendum itself in 1967 isn't clear to me from the references in that article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes they did, they shut the border in response to it. Sorry but anyone who has knowledge of Gibraltar would be very familiar with that, so familiar they probably wouldn't think to reference it. Justin talk 23:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So a reference would be good? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The redaction seems fine but requires enhancements. Phrase "which gives Spain "first refusal" if the British decide to leave" is not fully supported by the source. In fact, the source says "Gibraltar could become independent only with Spanish consent" (I mean, the UK gov is quite explicit on its interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht consequences; it was reiterated in the dispatch accompanying the 2006 constitution). On the other hand, I wonder if talking about the isthmus in a generic fashion is OK. I mean, the isthmus links the Rock of Gibraltar with mainland. The dispute is only about the South portion of said isthmus.

Additionally, it requires a longer mention to UN (not only to 1541, but, for instance to 2231 or 2353). It's not only being in the list, but also all the procedures involved (mainly in the sixties). For instance, it lacks a mention to the UN rejection of the 1967 referendum (that is, the 1967 referendum was not only rejected by Spain, but by a UN resolution, 2353). In that framework, a mention to the closure of the fence would be needed. It also lack mentions to the Brussels Process, the 1987 Airport Agreement and to the Tripartite Forum (including Cordoba agreement). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC) PS: I can provide references to possibly all the events, both in English and Spanish, so please, don't hesitate to ask for them.

It would be really useful if you could list the references. We do of course need to remember that this is an overview article, and not every detail is appropriate here. But if you can give us your references we can discuss what to actually write. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I was about to add a comment in the line of Ecemaml's: I think the proposal is overall OK, as long as it has some additional (if brief) information; a longer mention to the UN (who has a major voice in territorial conflicts in general and has had a major involvement in this particular dispute) would be very important. I'll look at references when I find some time (I hope today or this weekend) if someone does not before I do. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I fear scope creep here, only the major UN resolutions need cover, additional detail is appropriate for a different article. 1514 and 1541 are the main ones requiring coverage in an overview. Like so many items here this risks being turned into a War and Peace epic if you try and jam in any item. Seeing as someone mentioned WP:CHERRY yesterday, they might like to consider whether insisting that 2353 is mentioned falls into that category. Justin talk 12:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. So the question is: Is the UN General Assembly position about the dispute and some of its episodes (explained in three resolutions specifically dealing with Gibraltar) relevant enough to be mentioned or summarised in the text? Or should the text only explain the position of Gibraltar, UK and Spain about those episodes -and only the UN's general policy about colonies (resolutions 1514 and 1541)?

My opinion: Neither 1514 nor 1541 deal specifically with the Gibraltar territorial dispute (although they merit mention). On the other hand, we have three UN General Assembly resolutions that deal specifically with Gibraltar: UN General Assembly Resolution 2070, 2231 and 2353 (by the way, 2353 directly deals with the 1967 referendum). I am sure that any text about a territorial dispute with (not one but) three UN GA resolutions should mention them, don't you think so?

I also think that the British position should be explained fully: that is, that the UK agreed to reach joint sovereignty (this is what led to the 2002 referendum), but at the same time it has said that it will not accept anything that is not agreed by a majority of Gibraltarians (the current text only explains the second half...) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide me with a cite that confirms that that is the current British position please? I mean, self-determination has been British policy for decades, whereas you're referring to an agreement in 2002 made by the party that is now in opposition, full in the knowledge that the discussion was almost certainly academic (as the deal was conditional on a referendum in Gibraltar).

You say: I am sure that any text about a territorial dispute with (not one but) three UN GA resolutions should mention them, don't you think so? No, not necessarily. UNGA resolutions are non-binding and may be limited in their impact even at the time of adoption - these ones are a good example of that. And even if we were to accept that they were relevant enough at the time, this does not imply that they remain relevant in a short summary of the political situation over forty years after they were adopted. Pfainuk talk 18:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec with Imalbornoz, 18:47 11 Nov. 2010) Ecemaml, while your quote is accurate, your statement that my phrase is not fully supported by the source is not. If you check the first line under "Sovereignty", you will see the words: Under the Treaty of Utrecht, Spain has right of ‘first refusal’ should Britain decide to relinquish sovereignty over Gibraltar. This is a British government POV, so is couched in those terms in my proposal.

The other points you list would appear to me to be so far beyond the point of reasonable summary that it would be unacceptable to me. Better to have no change than to create a WP:COATRACK on the detail of the referenda, which would be the effect of your proposal.

The only reason the text mentions the referenda is to point out implications of the British and Gibraltar POV: that self-determination effectively means the status quo. If we're mentioning the referenda to make a point about current politics (as I propose), it seems fair to point out that these were not conducted with Spanish consent as might otherwise be inferred - that Spain did not implicitly accept self-determination through the referenda. What the UN had to say on a referendum in 1967 in its non-binding opinion is pretty irrelevant to the political situation as of 2010.

The point made about the UN is independently relevant - it would be relevant even if there were no dispute. I propose it go in this section only because it would be illogical to go into the British and Spanish positions on the C24 listing before mentioning why they might care. And I agree with Justin that a reference to GA resolution 1541 would not be inappropriate to give context to the C24 list - again, it would be relevant as of 2010 regardless of the dispute, unlike the UN resolutions noted.

As to Richard's point regarding referencing - the article on the 1967 referendum is surprisingly bare of references, so I've had a look online. This book (p33) was the first I found, and it makes the point well enough. Pfainuk talk 18:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, let me observe that I have repeatedly suggested that we include a comment on 1541, which sets out the criteria by which the UN "defines" non-self-governing. As so many people make so much of the UN list of non-self-governing territories to push the fiction that Gibraltar is not self-governing the need for such a section is self-evident. But strangely, no that musn't be mentioned as it is "unimportant". We also apparently have not to mention 1514, which highlights self-determination of non-self-governing peoples as being paramount. The two resolutions are after all the cornerstone of decolonisation, so to not mention them makes no logical sense whatsoever.

There is a desire to mention 2353. OK fine by me, but bear in mind this resolution calls for the democratic mandate of the people of Gibraltar to be ignored and for the UK to negotiate with the Fascist Dictator General Franco, ignoring the wishes of the people of Gibraltar as expressed in said referendum. Mmm, really do think about this though, the UN is basically reproaching the UK for asking the people of Gibraltar what they desired for their future, consulting the people on their own destiny. Please do mention it verbatim, its own words condemn it most eloquently. If nothing else it demonstrates clearly and conclusively the UN is far from neutral. So for my vote, please do mention it - verbatim.

Finally, if we're going to mention political development, perhaps we could also mention that the GoG has challenged the Spanish Government repeatedly to take its claims to the ICJ See [87] and so far the Spanish Government has declined. Just mention it and let the reader decide for themselves.

Inhabitants and Gibraltarians

I have moved the detail about the number of inhabitants who are local citizens from the lede to the Demography section, with its reference. I hope this is helpful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe perhaps we could discuss first, it seems somewhat inconsistent that any content suggestion I make is subject to scrutiny but not anyone else. I don't see the need for this change personally. This is why there is a wikilink after all. Justin talk 13:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and before you issue a 3RR warning, I have no intention to make any further reverts. Justin talk 13:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion would be good; we need to be accurate but we don't need to put excessive detail in the lede. This sort of demographic detail is not usual for a lede (it isn't even mentioned in Dubai, for instance, where over 80% of the population is foreign) and is of very limited help to anyone coming to an overview of Gibraltar. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree absolutely, it is completely unnecessary. Justin talk 14:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin, have you looked at the source? Have you looked at any source at all? Or is it just the usual disruptive edit warring just for the sake of it?

If the lede says "At its foot is the densely populated city area, home to almost 30,000 Gibraltarians", then IT IS WRONG (please check it out before you revert). It would be right to say that "it is populated by 29,000 people (24,000 of them Gibraltarians)" or "it is populated by 29,000 people", but what you have just referted for three times in a row (from 3 different users) is plain WRONG. I get that you prefer that Wikpedia's users get the wrong information (for I don't know what absurd reason). This behaviour is extremely disruptive. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of Justin's position on the text, your message is a serious violation of Wikipedia behavioural policy. As such, I would like to ask you to please withdraw the accusations of bad faith made against Justin here. Pfainuk talk 17:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that Richard has acknowledged my concern on lede fixation and excessive details, so no it isn't wrong. The only person edit warring to impose content is Imalbnornoz. You were invited to discuss concerns, you have chosen instead to edit war to impose content and a blatant bad faith attack. When I introduce well written, sourced, verifiable and relevant material it is reverted and subjected to interminable discussion and I'm not allowed to introduce it into the article. I ask for a brief discussion in talk about a long standing consensus text - one that none of you thought to consider before - and you refuse, instead tag team edit warring to impose the content. Double standards, ownership, edit warring, misrepresentation of sources, misrepresenting argument, bad faith attacks. The disruptive conduct is racking up but none of it is down to me. Justin talk 21:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltarian people#Nationality Just to point out to the person making the bad faith personal attack alleging disruptive behaviour, that as I pointed out earlier the wikilink text explained the demographics. This is a clear case of lede fixation. Justin talk 21:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin, you have just edit warred for the nth time. And, to make things clearer, this time you have reverted 3 times to a text that was obviously wrong according to a source that you have considered relevant many times (the Gvt of Gib). I don't want to assume bad faith, but there are only two alternative explanations: either 1) you checked the source and even so you reverted or 2) you reverted withou even checking the source. Honestly, Justin, you have to realise that either one is disruptive, and I have to warn you that it can get you banned again. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable. Imalbornoz, if you are not willing to engage in discussion without making personal attacks or accusing others of bad faith, it is you who will be banned, not Justin. Justin has made cogent arguments as to why your edit was inappropriate. Justin is allowed to disagree with you, and you yourself said earlier this week that disputed edits should not be made until they have consensus. So I ask again: please withdraw your accusation of bad faith. Pfainuk talk 22:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Imalbornoz, you have edit warred to impose this content, ignoring a polite request to take this to talk. You're being disruptive here not me and you're returning to a pattern of behaviour of edit warring to impose content, whilst at the same time tying the talk page up in fruitless discussion where you are the only dissenting voice.

I gave a clear explanation and amplify it above, I also indicated I wasn't prepared to edit war. You have taken advantage of my good faith declaration to revert content back into the article, for which the consensus is far from clear at this point in time. You assert that disputed edits should not be allowed until there is a consensus, yet the moment your edits are disputed you edit war to impose them. There is of course, more than the two options, another being the one I have delineated above but yet again you assert there are only, both of which designed to infer bad faith on my part; of itself an attempt to use the Unclean Hands defence.

From my perspective your posts this evening are little short of WP:BAIT with the intention of eliciting an intemperate response. I would appreciate it if someone would consider reverting to the previous consensus. As I said I won't be reverting but I do tend to think that allowing the current situation to persist is rewarding disruptive behaviour such as edit warring and bad faith personal attacks. This is the last thing we need here. I would prefer a self-revert as a demonstration of good faith. Lets see what happens. Justin talk 22:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me check, please: do you really want the article to say that there are 30,000 Gibraltarians in Gib even when you positively know that sources say that there are a bit less than 24,000? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you to withdraw your accusation of bad faith twice now. You have twice declined to do so. I have thus raised the matter of your behaviour in this thread at WP:ANI. Pfainuk talk 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am restoring the previous text, which is the established consensus, and restoring the wikilink associated with it. Gibraltarian applies to both native born and residents. So the edit and lede fixation was unnecessary. The removal of the wikilink to an article that explains the demographics has left the article poorer. I trust we can have a mature level headed discussion about changing the consensus rather than further incivility. Justin talk 12:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

ARBCOM Warning

All users are reminded that this article is subject to sanctions under the ARBCOM rulings on Gibraltar. Please remember that we have specific policies for multiple reverts and for edit waring. Since there are no significant edits in the past day or so I have not issued blocks. I hope we do not come to that. All an encouraged to continue discussions on the talk page, respect all editors and avoid edit summaries and comments that may be deemed uncivil. Thanks JodyB _talk 19:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am expanding the warning to include incivility on the part of all. Vigorous debate is encouraged but focus on the content and not the editors. Badgering, name calling and other forms of dispute are blockable offenses as under the ARBCOM ruling. JodyB _talk 14:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Territorial dispute with Spain

Here is a redraft including my personal responses to Pfain's work and the comments above. I note that this is the crux of a very difficult issue and we will need to take more than usual care to achieve both a truly neutral point of view and sufficient conciseness. May I suggest that so far as possible we use the text below and edit it, as boldly as we feel is reasonable, giving clear summaries of our edits? (As opposed to either repeating all the text every time or talking in generalities, either of which will result in a very large amount of text.)

I have tried to incorporate into this the point that the international debate is to a large extent given its structure and vocabulary by the UN's comments, so I'd sugggest that a brief mention of the most important UN statements is worthwhile. I don't feel that in this article we should analyze all of them, though in the Dispute article more of them might be worth remark. In either case it is beyond the remit of an encyclopedia to point out perceived inconsistencies within the UN's various statements. I have cut and pasted a few references, but more are needed, and I haven't tried chasing up the dead links. Anyway, edit away, I hope this helps and even if it doesn't I foresee an interesting debate.

Relations with Spain

Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control.

Two referendums on the subject have been held, in 1967 (on a handover to Spain) and 2002 (on the principle of joint sovereignty). In each case, more than 98% of voters rejected the outlined change. Both referenda were opposed by the Spanish government.<Sources from the articles on the referendums> The UN General Assembly in Resolution 2353, on 20 December 1966, declared the holding of the 1967 referendum to be a "contravention of the provisions" of Resolution 1514 (the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples), and has passed other resolutions supporting the Spanish claim. The subsequent international debate has repeatedly used words from Resolution 1514 including "the right to self-determination", "the territorial integrity of a country", and "colony".

Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The British and Gibraltarian governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised. Spain opposes such attempts and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.

Spain argues that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity.<Spanish government document discussed above> In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the provision of the Treaty of Utrecht which gives the Crown of Spain the right to acquire Gibraltar if the British Crown ever abandons it.<this FCO doc, page 5, marked as page 58> The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination.<this Times article>

Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht. On this basis, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.<the same Spanish gov't document> The UK and Gibraltar governments do not accept any such limitations on British sovereignty,<this Gibraltar Chronicle article> and claim the isthmus based on longstanding occupation.<same FCO doc> Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC) (Sorry, I'd timed out and hadn't noticed)

I would suggest if you wish to mention 2353 and I encourage that you do, you quote the resolution in full - it loses a lot in selective quoting. Its also worth mentioning that the GoG disputes both the Spanish and UK Governments intepretation of Utrecht and has asked for the ICJ to deliver an judgement. At present the Spanish Government has declined to do so. The most recent occasion was last month. Also to put things into perspective 1514 and 1541 need to be mentioned. I have to say I prefer the original wording. Justin talk 22:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

On the UN resolutions, my position is reasonably clear-cut. I do not accept that the passage of non-binding resolutions discussing the political situation 40-45 years ago implies that said resolutions are directly relevant to modern Gibraltar politics - any more than General Franco's position on Gibraltar (for example) is directly relevant to modern Gibraltar politics. On the other hand, inclusion inappropriately diverts a section discussing modern politics by pushing us into historical discussion. I do not feel that the use of the referenda to make a point about modern Gibraltar politics diverts the text in this way.

Thus, unless someone can give me a compelling explanation as to how and why the resolutions are directly relevant to the current political situation - and I do not consider the fact that they exist and reference the dispute to be "compelling" - I oppose any text that includes them. Better to have no change than to create a coatrack of Spanish grievances.

As such, my proposed text is and remains what I proposed under the earlier part of this talk page, with the words under UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 optionally included after the words "United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories". As I said before, I feel that 1541 is different from the others, as it defines a UN list that includes Gibraltar today and that consensus accepts is relevant. The only reason to include mention of that list in this section - as opposed to before it - is so that we don't discuss the British and Spanish positions before mentioning the fact of the dispute. Pfainuk talk 23:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I can support that as a basis for the proposed edit. I agree that the suggestion to mention 2353 is a WP:COATRACK and your arguments for including relevant resolutions are compelling. I have to say that the argument to include 1541 is long overdue. Too often its used as an excuse to further disruptive edits. Explaining it to our readers provides a valuable insight. Justin talk 23:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The UN key phrases are a structure for the later and current debate, including the key points from all sides. This is why the word "colony" is central, this is why the phrase "self-governing" is a hot button, and this is why "self-determination" is important, especially in the context of a referendum. Could we have some draft wording on the referral to the ICJ? And what do others think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In a brief summary, the text deals with 1) Spain's sovereignty claim on the territory, 2) The two referenda about soverignty, 3) The inclusion in (and the claims for exclusion from) the UN's list of non self-governing territories (which deals with self-determination, etc.), 4) Spain's, the UK's and Gibraltar's arguments with regards to the territorial dispute, 5) The specific territorial dispute around the isthmus and surrounding waters.

The proposed text neither deals with all political "Relations with Spain", nor it limits itself to them. Like many Gibraltarians could tell you, the relations with Spain are much broader than that; also, this section does not only mention Spain: the UK and the UN are also prominently mentioned. What we have here is not a summary of the "Relations with Spain", but a summary of the territorial dispute (this is actually the common thread of all the issues that have been mentioned).

A title such as "Territorial dispute" or something similar would be much more accurate for this subsection. In fact, if you take a look at the lede, it would be an extention of the paragraph that deals with the Politics section (sovereignty dispute, self-goverment...). Pfainuk, you proposed this text (and I agree that it's a very good idea to include this issues in a subsection of its own): would you agree that a title such as "Territorial dispute" (or something similar that you can think up) is more accurate? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Territorial dispute is indeed much better - I've changed the title of my draft above. I hope it's clear to all that this is not a coatrack; this is an attempt to summarize very briefly, with appropriate conceptual grouping and in approximate chronological order, the arguments still used by both sides. I'd suggest strongly that including 1514 is important - there is an important contradiction (or not depending on which side you're coming from) in a request for self-determination expressed as opposition to a referendum. The ICJ may also be relevant - again, could someone well-informed do a draft? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a weak preference for sticking with the original title for the reasons that the text could include matters such as the tripartite forum. A small matter but talk page etiquette would I believe suggest you don't change titles in the talk page once established. I would be prepared to do a draft, however, I hestitate to start pulling together the sources. You may consider this a bad faith presumption but given that each and every content proposal I have made even when acknowledged as well written and sourced has been rejected. Justin talk 12:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather meh about going ino the detail of every UN General Assembly ruling, as they have as much authority as a Women's Institute Bake Sale. I'm fine with the current title. It is Spain that uses avenues like the UN etc, it is part of that situation. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the text proposed (Pfainuk's, and also the proposal by Richard Keatinge) describes part of Gibraltar's relations with Spain, UK and the UN; also, it does not describe all the relevant relations with Spain. On the other hand, it covers pretty well the issues regarding the territorial dispute. What do you think? (it would be great that we could agree on something once in a while). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A general response to the above, if I may:

I prefer the current title "relations with Spain", as it allows the text to cover a broader range of issues to be added at a later date. I also feel that it is more appropriate in the context that we are writing - this is the section discussing modern politics, and some aspects of the dispute are not relevant - and that the title "territorial dispute" is not strictly accurate because Spain only disputes the extent, not the fact, of British sovereignty in Gibraltar. That said, I am willing to compromise on this.

It may be worth clarifying my position on the resolutions. In my comment above, I'm specifically referring to UN General Assembly resolutions 2070, 2231 and 2353. These resolutions specifically addressed the political situation in 1965, 1966 and 1968 respectively and have no bearing on modern politics. While I do not consider them vital, I do not feel that a reference to 1514 (setting out the General Assembly's support for decolonisation in general terms) and 1541 (setting out the formal criteria for inclusion in the C24 list) fall into the same category. They have significance to the current discussions on the subject, and I would be willing to include them if an appropriate form of words can be found to summarise them. Pfainuk talk 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In case it might be useful, I have put a minor redraft of the above on a user subpage, User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar. This is intended as an area for draft and suggestions, which I hope we may refine towards a consensus. Pfainuk, does the current version strike you as "an appropriate form of words", and if not, what does? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I appear awkward but I would prefer any attempts to draft text are conducted in the talk page of the article. A users talk page is not appropriate in my opinion. I will take the liberty of moving the text here. Justin talk 20:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Richard's proposal:

Relations with Spain

Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control.

Two referendums on the subject have been held, in 1967 (on a handover to Spain) and 2002 (on the principle of joint sovereignty). In each case, more than 98% of voters rejected the outlined change. Both referenda were opposed by the Spanish government.<Sources from the articles on the referendums> The UN General Assembly in Resolution 2353, on 20 December 1966, declared the holding of the 1967 referendum to be a "contravention of the provisions" of Resolution 1514 (the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples), and has passed other resolutions supporting the Spanish claim. The subsequent international debate has repeatedly used words from Resolution 1514 including "the right to self-determination", "the territorial integrity of a country", and "colony".

Under UN General Assembly Resolution 1541, Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The British and Gibraltarian governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised. Spain opposes such attempts and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.

Spain argues that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity.<Spanish government document discussed above> In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the provision of the Treaty of Utrecht which gives the Crown of Spain the right to acquire Gibraltar if the British Crown ever abandons it.<this FCO doc, page 5, marked as page 58> The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination.<this Times article>

Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht. On this basis, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.<the same Spanish gov't document> The UK and Gibraltar governments do not accept any such limitations on British sovereignty,<this Gibraltar Chronicle article> and claim the isthmus based on longstanding occupation.<same FCO doc>

I suggest altering several paragraphs:

The second should be changed to:

“ Two referendums on the subject have been held, in 1967 (on a handover to Spain) and 2002 (on the principle of joint sovereignty). In each case, more than 98% of voters rejected the outlined change. Both referenda were opposed by the Spanish government.<Sources from the articles on the referendums> ”

To claim that UN resolutions support Spanish claims is simply untrue they don't. I agree to mentioning 2353 if is covered appropriately. But the proposed text fails WP:CHERRY in selectively quoting the resolution.

I suggest the next paragraph is amended as:

“ Gibraltar was originally included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. as it was declared as a colony by the UK in 1947. UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 defines a self-governing territory on the basis of (a) emergence as a sovereign independent State; (b) free association with an independent State; or (c) integration with an independent State. The British and Gibraltarian governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised under the provisions of Free association with an independent State. Spain opposes such attempts and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony, although such references are considered offensive in Gibraltar. ”

Note that I have included the Spanish practise of referring to Gibraltar as a colony, however, to be neutral I think it is worth commenting this is considered offensive in Gibraltar itself. Justin talk 21:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Change proposal

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.

be changed to:

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left for nearby areas of Spain.

I have a number of problems with the sentence "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings." In the first instance, it is a classic example of WP:CHERRY, picking out facts to make a point not supported by the original texts. As written it implies the evil Anglo-Dutch forces were deliberately beastly to the population to force them to leave. There are number of key factors that are not included here that would be relevant if this text is to persist. First of all the Anglo-Dutch forces and their Spanish allies had the objective of seeking support for their cause from the people, so the activities of some of their forces was disastrous as it alienated the population. Secondly, the forces tried desperately to control their troops and severely punished the offenders; the rapists were hanged for example. Thirdly, another factor in the exodus was an expected Spanish counter attack in the near future. The population believed they would return shortly. Fourthly, to say they fled to San Roque is emotive language, they did not flee, they chose to leave and they left unmolested. If anything in the article is WP:SYN this phrasing is it. Finally, the use of English language is poor the sentence structure is appalling and it reads badly. Not the product of quality writing for a quality encyclopedia.

Secondly, mention of San Roque. I am aware that this is mentioned in historical texts as a destination. The point that it is sourced is not the issue here. There are many other destinations such as Algeciras and other towns founded nearby, which we do not think to mention. I believe this is another example of WP:CHERRY picking out a fact for inclusion, which is only tangentially related to Gibraltar. In addition, we risk WP:COATRACK due to the importance attached to San Roque by certain ardent nationalists, whereby the people of San Roque are claimed to be the "real Gibraltarians" and the only ones who can determine the future of Gibraltar. Now I do not claim that consideration of offending or otherwise a particular nationalist group should ever be a reason for suppressing content but we should not shirk from considering whether mention improves the article or merely sates a nationalist aspiration to provide a WP:COATRACK for expressing nationalist sentiment. How long before someone decides to put in the fact that the Spanish consider San Roque to be the "real Gibraltar". Finally, San Roque was in fact founded in 1706, some 2 years later. Yes, it was founded by the people who left Gibraltar but it didn't exist as a town in 1704. So basically the article says they went to a town that didn't exist at the time and I'm sorry but I really don't see that as an example of quality writing for a quality encyclopedia.

This is a overview article, rather than a full account of historical events, and it now seems to me that we would need to put in an excessive number of details to achieve consensus text that treats these events in a neutral manner. A NPOV blow-by-blow account of the whole thing, including the who did what to whom, who went where, towns that were founded in SPAIN not GIBRALTAR, and so on, just seems too much for an incident in a overview. Personally I'd go for slimming down the text as above, which no doubt will satisfy no one but treat the incident in a neutral manner. As I have pointed out many times, I do not feel the article benefits from a pre-occupation with what I refer to as "atrocity tennis". Justin talk 12:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to convey in text form my passionate desire for consensus on good encyclopedic text, but perhaps I could ask you to reconsider the possibility that I'm really doing my best...

I'd be unbothered by the change from "fled" (which may suggest a greater degree of haste than was in fact the case, they trudged rather than sprinted) to "left". And, we could omit unsourced speculation about the exact state of mind of the refugees at the time. The text would then read:

"On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population left for San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain."

You suggest removing the brief and factual comment about the various atrocities and revenge attacks. I think it's a point of ongoing importance. And I feel the same about the mention of San Roque - we have been through it all many times, but the fact that the original shrine and hamlet in the Campo de Gibraltar, now a town, still makes certain claims is still important (to some people) as part of the current dispute. That is part of what makes the fact still notable today for this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that discussion of what was done by each side is awkward. It is very difficult to summarise what happened neutrally - and to be honest I'm not convinced that the detail of what happened on those three days is of ongoing importance. We should mention the fact that there was violence - that the townspeople didn't just think it would be fun to go for a walk and never came back - but the detail is too much IMO.

On San Roque, I have two issues: first, the fact that many townspeople ended up in San Roque - as opposed to (say) Algeciras - does not affect the later history of Gibraltar at all. Inevitably, somewhere had to be on the border, and San Roque is quite convenient for Gibraltar, but that does not make the fact that people ended up there immediately relevant in a summary history of Gibraltar. To the dispute, maybe - and thus it could go into Disputed Status of Gibraltar. It could equally be worth a mention in the more detailed article, History of Gibraltar. But I think it's too much detail here. Second, that the text is currently anachronistic. They didn't go to San Roque because there was no San Roque. There was a hermitage-cum-chapel and not much else there.

That said, I consider San Roque a secondary issue here. I shall include it in my proposal in brackets, not because I support inclusion, but because I want to concentrate on the more important issue, which is the form of words used to describe the situation from 4-7 August:

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. Following three days of disorder, almost all of the townspeople (had?) left for nearby areas of Spain (including the hermitage of San Roque).

This makes the fact of disorder clearer than Justin's proposal, without going into "atrocity tennis". Another thing: was there a massed and organised departure on 7 August, or was it a more disorganised affair, with some leaving at some times and others at others? The massed departure we currently describe just seems a little tidy - it doesn't quite ring true to me.

By the way, is 4/7 August here Old Style or New Style? I'm sure it's been mentioned before but Wikipedia's being slow at the moment. (Has someone deleted the sandbox again?) Pfainuk talk 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Before I respond to Pfainuk I would like to make an observation. Text is not a good medium in which to convey humour, I am sure Richard intended his comments to be humorous. However, equally they can be interpreted as patronising and dismissive of my concerns. I would suggest in the current climate avoiding what are intended to be humorous comments to defuse tension, as they could be misinterpreted. Much as my earlier "Patience Grasshopper" was, it was intended to be jocular, Richard took exception to it.

In addition, yes we've been through this before but the discussion was bad tempered with any comment suggesting this was too much for an overview howled down in protests that we were suppressing and censoring information. I don't believe the atmosphere was conducive to writing neutral prose. I did make a content suggestion that covered all the relevant facts in a neutral manner see [88].

“ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. After a heavy naval bombardment on 2 August, the marines launched a pincer attack on the town, advancing south from the isthmus and north from Europa Point. Gibraltar's defenders were well stocked with food and ammunition but were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The Spanish position was clearly untenable and on the morning of 4 November, the governor, Diego de Salinas, agreed to surrender. Rooke remembered the looting at Cádiz but could not prevent a repetition at Gibraltar. Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline but lost control in the days following the capture, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances (Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar), the perpetrators of crimes against the population were severely punished, order was restored but by 7 August the majority population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and opted to leave. They initially settled around the hermitage of San Roque later dispersing into nearby areas of Spain. The temporary resting place around the hermitage ultimately became the modern town of San Roque founded in 1706. The Allied conduct aroused anger in Spain against the 'heretics, and the chance of winning over Andalusians to the Imperial cause was lost.

Several counter attacks by sea and land followed but all were repelled by the English and Dutch marines and Spaniards loyal to Charles.

”

The above text illustrates my point in making this suggestion. To cover all relevant points to achieve a neutral text, requires including many details that are just too much for an overview. I would happily support Pfainuk's alternative text but I think I have demonstrated that the current text is non-neutral and is an example of WP:CHERRY. It picks facts selectively to make a point, it doesn't address the issue neutrally. I make no judgement whether that was the intention of the original editor, sometimes we don't recognise our own bias. As a result I don't think continuing with the current text is compatible with wikipedia's policies.

Please note that I'm not suggesting we don't need to mention the violence that occurred, in fact I've always suggested that it does need to be mentioned. However, the appropriate place for detailed text would be History of Gibraltar for example, where the more focused subject of the article allows us to consider such details. The text proposed simply didn't dwell on the details but conveyed the fact that the population felt the need to move because they were in fear. I believe this to be a neutral summary.

In answer to a question posed by Pfainuk, the exodus was an organised affair and is documented as a procession that proceeded to the ruins of the nearby hermitage of San Roque (from which the modern town takes its name); 4000 is the number given in numerous authoritive texts.

I support all the points he makes and I find the text he suggests acceptable. I tend to agree that it is better not to mention San Roque per brevity, his reason re-inforce the argument I set out above. I also find the current text inappropriate, they didn't go to the town of San Roque, the refugees founded San Roque there 2 years later. Justin talk 20:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)