Talk:2002 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum

Incorrect name

It is absurd to have renamed this article.

The correct name can be seen on the poster shown on the page, and also on the official documents related to the event available here:

• http://www.gibnet.com/texts/ref2.htm
• http://www.gibnet.com/texts/ref3.htm

It is quite wrong to use the word 'Gibraltarian' like this.

--Gibnews (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Page move performed

Reason:

• "Gibraltar referendum" in Google News: 40 matches
• "Gibraltarian referendum" in Google News: 1 match
• "Gibraltar referendum" in Google Books: 47 matches
• "Gibraltarian referendum" in Google Books: 0 matches

Jayen466 12:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Press References

I've removed the reference to the NYT regarding 'The question' as it does not actually cite what the question was. I'm also concerned about its accuracy as it says:

On the day of the vote, the flags of Britain and Gibraltar were draped from dozens of apartments. Posters saying Give Spain No Hope, Vote No were plastered all over the town center, along with white balloons bearing the logo 'Gibraltar Forever, Spanish Fornever.'

Thats a fabrication, I certainly didn't see any of that, and its not the practice to 'plaster the town centre' with posters, indeed its illegal, and the balloon slogan does not sound Gibraltarian.

--Gibnews (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverting common sense edits

Someone reverted a series of clearly explained edits that I'd made, with an edit summary which made little sense but suggests that they take Spain's attitude to Gibraltar very personally.[1] This is not a useful state of mind in which to edit articles here, where a neutral point of view is required. To make things absolutely clear, here again are the reasons for my edits, which I restored.

1. The article title is "Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002", but in the lead section, the text "referendum on 7 November 2002" was in bold. This contravenes the guidelines of the MOS, which state firstly that there should be no links in the bold face text, and secondly that if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, bold face should not be applied to related text that does appear. Thus, I removed the bold face.
2. The text previously claimed that the referendum was held "...to establish the popular support for a proposal". This is ambiguously worded and suggests that the intention of the referendum was to establish support for the proposal, which is clearly not true. Certainly, the intention of those holding the referendum was to demonstrate that the proposal had barely any support at all, but the referendum question was neutrally worded. Thus, I changed the text to "...on a proposal".
3. The article noted correctly that reaction in the Spanish media was hostile, but then quoted the least hostile reaction from only one newspaper. This was not an accurate summary of the Spanish media reaction. The editor who reverted said "its enough to quote reaction was hostile rather than providing a coatrack for a load of offensive quotes". It is not enough to say that reaction was hostile, without demonstrating that the claim is true. And if the editor finds those quotes offensive, then they will just have to come to terms with that themselves. We do not censor the encyclopaedia. 190.45.93.157 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, when you hear someone accusing another editor of reverting them in bad faith, or demeaning their motives for doing so, thats usually an example of Projection bias - meaning they are projecting their motives onto others. Second, whenever I hear someone complaining loud and proud about censorship, they're usually up to no good. No we don't censor the encyclopedia but its also not a vehicle for people to abuse the use of quotations for political grandstanding. See WP:COATRACK, your edit didn't materially add to the article, it was simply a load of offensive quotations from the Spanish press. It can be taken one of two ways, by selectively showing just how offensive the Spanish press can be, it can stir up an anti-Spanish sentiment, or it can simply be an ugly reflection of your own views. I haven't decided yet. Another one for you is WP:BRD thats make a bold edit, when reverted, discuss before editing again. Don't edit war. WCM_email 21:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite telling that you're reverting even whilst I'm replying to you, the edit warring warning gives some good guidance, I suggest you follow it. WCM_email 21:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You haven't given a reason why you want to bold text which is not the article title. You haven't explained why you want to use ambiguous and verbose phrasing in place of simple and direct phrasing. And while you may find the views of the Spanish offensive, that does not give you the right to remove them from the encyclopaedia. The reaction was hostile, it is worth noting that, and a couple of representative quotes from the newspapers of record is the way of doing that. Perhaps you should find some representative quotes from the press in the UK and Gibraltar and add those? That would certainly not be problematic. Your insinuations are problematic, verging as they do on personal attacks. See WP:NPA. 190.45.93.157 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you've understood what WP:COATRACK actually means, by the way. It says "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." The article is about the Gibraltar referendum. Spanish reaction to that referendum is not "another subject entirely", is it? 190.45.93.157 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have given you a reason but you're simply seizing on a small part of what I said. Classic technique for simply avoiding a discussion - take it down a rabbit hole. We don't need a whole series of quotations as you insist. Its a classic example of WP:COATRACK turn an article on the sovereignty referendum into an article on the Spanish reaction. We'll see what others say. WCM_email 21:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not any such thing. If reaction was hostile, a couple of hostile quotes are obviously worth including. You simply don't like their hostility, and you're entitled to that opinion, but you're not entitled to edit this article to make it seem that they are less hostile. 190.45.93.157 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

[2] ‎190.45.93.157 (talk · contribs · ‎190.45.93.157 WHOIS). Editor has imposed his own view on the article. I have previously reverted as I believe changes detract from the article by adding a load of random quotations, they've been selectively chosen for their offensive content and do not materially add to the article content. Classic case of WP:COATRACK. Bowing out as I don't edit war, IP has repeatedly reverted, diff of edit war warning [3]. May be this guy Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP? WCM_email 21:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There were no "random quotations". They were not "selectively chosen". They are the "hostile reactions" that the article alluded to but did not report. Clearly you don't like that the Spanish are hostile to Britain owning Gibraltar, but that does not have any bearing on how the article should report their hostility. 190.45.93.157 (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP#Think he may be back? Socking, block evading IP editor has returned to re-insert a series of quotes from Spanish newspapers. In addition, by reverting has removed improvements made to the article to fix wiki formatting. Objection to the quotes is on the basis they've been selected for their offensive content and are unnecessary when it is sufficient to note that the Spanish press reaction was hostile. The quotes don't materially add to article content. WCM_email 21:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree, and your edit warring, removing sourced content. Of course these quotes, responses to the reference, are directly relevant. You're being very, very POINTy, WCM. Improve the article or get out of the way. Mind you, the only improvements in terms of article formatting were made by me, as far as I can tell. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, the original quotes that were in the article were directly relevant and indeed more relevant for an encyclopedic content in describing the Spanish reaction. The ones chosen as substitutes by the IP were unnecessary for their use of hyperbolic language. I felt they were not suitable for an encyclopedia and chosen for the language used not relevance.

I am perfectly in line with policy to remove the changes of a community banned editor and I was not edit warring. I also suggested you use the talk page rather than revert.

Please stop with the allegation of WP:POINT, I gave a good reason to the IP why I reverted them and they responded with abuse. I've always given reasonable explanation of why I opposed the changes made. WCM_email 15:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Great Drmies don't wait for a reply and just plow on and revert to impose your changes. Another admin who talks the talk and then throws their weight around when the little people disagree. WCM_email 15:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

WCM, drop the hyperbole, which is nothing more than a blow beneath the belt. I should template you for a personal attack. You are being pointy, since your edits make the articles worse. Your arguments don't hold up. That a Spanish response is hyperbole is your own POV; clearly the daily newspaper ABC didn't think it was an exaggeration: the BBC reprinted it. What you did was remove a number of Spanish responses, as if they don't matter, and you re-insert a quote from 2008 which, in my reading of the parliamentary record, has nothing to do with the referendum. You would do well to actually read the sources. You claim in an edit summary that there is support for your claim that this 2008 testimony is relevant to this article: either cite it, or get out of the way. Right now what you have is SYNTHESIS: your opinion, unsupported by sources, that it's relevant, and POV: your opinion that the Spanish response was "hyperbole" and thus should not be included. That IP editor has bad manners, but they are no worse than yours. Do you remember saying that you were going to keep your distance from this editor?

BTW, note that I have not acted in any administrative way; the last time I did so was when I blocked the IP editor for a personal attack. Your innuendo is really quite revolting. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm disgusted by this. WCM reverts a bunch of times, engaging in an edit war which prevents me from improving the article--an article which sees so little traffic that an RfC is probably the only thing I can do here--or dragging the editor off to ANI. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• Wee Curry Monster, kindly explain what you're doing in this edit, and what you mean with "rs content". What you are doing is removing reliably sourced content; what you are reinserting is content that has no connection to the article. Earlier you said "see Klaus Dodds paper". Forgive me, but I don't have the collected works of Klaus Dodd (Dodds?) on my desk, nor is any such paper cited in the article. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I was disgusted by the actions of an admin, who I formerly respected, who when I tried to discuss this didn't listen and went ahead anyway. You know what, we've discussed matters before and if I was in the wrong or even if simply I'd been unclear and left a comment open to interpretation I would be quite prepared to apologise for it. I won't on this occasion because from my perspective the situation here is you throwing your weight around.

Speaking of WP:AGF, I did keep well clear of that IP editor, I was editing this article long before he was. Nice to see that you assumed good faith about me, in favour of a guy who IP hops so he can continue abusing other editors. And personal attacks, accusing me of edit warring, being pointy, removing sourced content, you know what I consider that a personal attack I really should have template you for. For all your comments about my behavior, your own behavior has been less than optimal. Telling me to get out of your way, how else would you expect someone to take that other than you throwing your weight around.

What is preventing improvement is your reluctance to actually discuss changes when someone disagrees. The best source for describing the reaction would a neutral academic source not newspapers who generally do resort to hyperbole. The very worst thing to do is to use direct quotes from such sources, since the language does tend to be hyperbolic. And you're misrepresenting what I said, I said the language being used in the article was unencyclopedic and the quotes were chosen for their hyperbolic nature. The language I prefer to keep describes it as "hostile" and notes the Spanish Government considered it illegal and against UN resolutions. That's describing the Spanish reaction rather well and including it in the article in an encyclopedic manner.

Do you really feel an RFC is needed here, rather than two adults actually trying to discuss things in a mature manner? WCM_email 16:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Klaus Dodds paper I have at home, I will give you a reference later. WCM_email 16:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The paper I was thinking of was Gold, Peter (March 2009). "The Tripartite Forum of Dialogue: Is this the Solution to the 'Problem' of Gibraltar?". Mediterranean Politics 14 (1): 79–97. doi:10.1080/13629390902747475. There is a copy online at Peter Golds website at the University of West of England (Bristol). There is also Dodds, Klaus (December 2004). "Solid as a Rock? Britain and Gibraltar". BBC History: 18–21. Another is Gold, Peter (Nov., 2002), Rock Solid, The World Today,Vol. 58, No. 11, pp. 24-2, which deals with the period leading up to the referendum. WCM_email 22:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

WCM, it's your job to cull the material from those sources and add it to the article so that what is now synthesis is no longer synthesis. It's undeniable that 2008 comes after 2002, but that doesn't mean that the quote you want in here is directly caused by the subject of this article. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You make that comment based on research that's convinced you I'm wrong? By all means share that.

Additional sources for later [4], [5], [6]. WCM_email 12:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Spanish response

Should the article contain a 2008 comment by Jim Murphy, as in this version? Drmies (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, as proposer. The comment was made in 2008 in a hearing by the British Select Committee on Foreign Affairs (primary record linked), where Murphy, then Minister of State for Europe, responded to questions about the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006. The 2002 referendum is never mentioned in those hearings, and I submit that this response does not belong in this article since it is not a response to the subject of the article. Including it violates WP:SYNTH. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006 is a direct result of the referendum, the statement of the change in policy referred to is a direct result from it [7]. I will look to improve the sourcing later, when I have access to sources at home. I consider an RFC at this juncture to be an over reaction, there has been no attempt to discuss this matter in talk thus far. WCM_email 16:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I discussed it above but you presented no arguments and despite your lack of arguments I cannot revert you. The source you just cited is from 2002 and cannot explain why a 2008 statement would be relevant. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Untrue, you didn't discuss, you made a series of personal attacks alleging I was being disruptive and you're still doing it. Allow me a chance, I am about to go out and will respond properly in due course. In the mean time, it would be appreciated if you could stop. WCM_email 18:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, I indicated that your claimed connection is not in the source, and that chit-chat is still in the article, with the same source, except that it's now introduced by more synthesis. Good work. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support The sole object of the Referendum was to change UK Government policy on Gibraltar away from joint sovereignty with Spain. The subsequent statement by Jim Murphy is pivotal in showing that this had indeed been the outcome, rather than the attempts of Straw to dismiss the result. It is therefore important that this change is documented here. Trying to hide it is illogical. 217.45.100.11 (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll tell you about hiding when you tell me that you stopped beating your wife. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I thought the idea was to be serious and not make unfounded allegations of physical spousal abuse - suggest you delete that personal attack. However, the reasons for the referendum were to derail the sell-out by Labour. The initial reaction from Straw, Hain and indeed Murphy was to say they would ignore the result - however they found they could not and the strong statement by Jim Murphy after his first visit to Gibraltar subsequent to the referendum was pivotal in the change of direction of HMG to the demands of Spain. Perhaps your grasp of the importance of the referendum an the subsequent change in policy is too superficial. Nor should the result be relegated to the section on the Gibraltar sovereignty dispute as that 'dispute' involves SPAIN; the referendum was an expression of Gibraltar public opinion to HMG - nothing to do with any 'dispute' 217.45.100.11 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
      • If you remove the personal attack about "hiding" stuff, which is a violation of AGF. The wife-beating thing is addressed in Loaded question. The rest of your argument is, again, synthesis: it's obvious that the reaction we're talking about here is not an "initial" reaction since it came six years later, and nothing in your answer proves (let alone provides sources for the statement that) the comments were a reaction to this referendum to begin with. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - no mention of 2002 referendum in the statement, therefore to interpret it as being a direct result of the 2002 referendum is original research. 2001:4C50:19E:EF00:C18D:3AB7:5A8A:AE9 (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Not related to the referendum. If there is an article on the Gibraltar sovereignty dispute, that's the place for it. Number 57 09:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As the author of this article I am disappointed to see it being consistently watered down by Drmies who clearly does not understand the subject. Everything has a beginning and an end. The referendum sought the reversal of UK Government policy, which Jim Murphy finally delivered. This sort of thing is why I no longer waste my time editing Wikipedia. People should concentrate on creating new articles about things they know about not nitpicking. Gibnews (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Er, WP:OWN much? Number 57 17:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    • ...or WP:RANDY perhaps? WCM_email 17:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Gibnews, let me first thank you for writing this up in the first place. Now, I think I understand Wikipedia policy well enough and I don't think I'm watering down anything, but I note, again, the SYNTH step in "which Jim Murphy finally delivered". Murphy, in his comments, doesn't even mention the referendum, which was held six years earlier. You may find this a waste of time, but it's important, in an encyclopedia, to get things right. What you are essentially doing, by combining Murphy's strong words with the 2002 referendum, is claiming that the UK government indeed listens to "the will of the people" or something like that, and that the referendum indeed reflected "the will of the people". That may be so, but it is not for us to parrot someone's 2008 comments and say they apply, somehow, as an "aftermath" (as the section is now called) to the 2002 referendum.

    This new and improved section, BTW, is as synthetic as it was before. I believe it is illogical to jump from this referendum to the 2008 comments as if there is direct cause and effect. WCM, for all their inserted words, have not established that, and the added content is much better suited in an article that's a. later in the chronology and b. more general than this one. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

    • Firstly I refute the suggestion I am trying to 'own' this article. However I don't think Number 57 has quite the same access to material from the period not living in Gibraltar. Now Drmies does have a point but the article describes an important milestone in the history of Gibraltar, and one where the policy of the Blair Government was reversed. The strength of feeling is reflected in the numbers participating, and if you listen to the speech by Peter Caruana, you can hear that feeling - rather than the rather dull paraphrased comment by the Telegraph hack which is the only online reference to it. Certainly the perception in Gibraltar was that the revised policy stated by Jim Murphy was a direct result of the referendum and his visit to Gibraltar where he met with various groups and the Chief Minister. That may have been stated in the local media at the time and would provide a 'missing link. It was seen as one of cause and effect. Although I've given up editing Wikipedia due to aggravation certain editors with an infinite amount of time and money from the MAE, this is not the case here; So I intend to keep an interest in this one and help improve things. Gibnews (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I've added a source, Peter Gold, which points out the change in policy resulted from the outcome of the referendum. This also lead to the British Government to back track from its position on the new constitution, which finally enabled the 2006 consitution referendum. The Jim Murphy quote stems from the evidence to a Parliamentary Select Committee on the 2006 consitution referendum and states what the British policy now was. This isn't synthesis, you can show with secondary sources the British Government position changed because of this referendum. IMHO what is needed to improve the article further is details of the secret negotiations and the initial refusal of Jack Straw to have a constructive dialogue with Gibraltar. WCM_email 19:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

opposeThis is tangentially related to the subject. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)