Talk:Gibraltar

Sources

• Primary sources
• Secondary sources

New approach?

The talk page has died down here, but the "non-neutral" tag remains. Can the people who are disputing the article's neutrality point out the specific sentences they believe are not neutral? Thanks. Also, for the regulars, I'd say, let's try a new approach for matters relating to the territorial dispute: instead of trying to agree on what we need to add (ie things like "if we mention X then we must mention Y") let's agree on what we can move to the Disputed status of Gibraltar and History of Gibraltar articles. For example, we could deal with the long-running history section dispute by moving this strikethrough section to History of Gibraltar:

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.[10][11][12] By 7 August order was restored but almost all the population fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.[11] Gibraltar subsequently became a key base for the Royal Navy, first playing an important part prior to the Battle of Trafalgar.

The politics section could be treated thus:

Gibraltar is a British overseas territory. The British Nationality Act 1981 granted Gibraltarians full British citizenship.

Under its current Constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal democratic self-government through an elected parliament.[24][25][26][27] 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.[28][29][30][31][32][32][33]

Both the British [34] and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised.[5][35][36][37] On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.[38] Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list[39] and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.[40][41] The Gibraltar Parliament is elected for a term of up to four years. The unicameral Parliament presently consists of seventeen elected members, and the Speaker who is not elected, but appointed by a resolution of the Parliament.[42] The Government consists of ten elected members. All local political parties oppose any transfer of sovereignty to Spain, instead supporting self-determination. The main UK opposition parties also support this policy and it is UK Government policy not to engage in talks about the sovereignty of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar.[43]

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is simply removing facts certain parties find unpalatable, in effect censoring the article. The reason for the NPOV tag is that he Government of Gibraltar section does not include an accurate description of the manner in which Gibraltar is governed. That is why I placed it there and it should remain until the description is accurate. The manner in which Gibraltar is governed is not a subject for the Disputed status of Gibraltar.

As to the rest I am not at the present time permitted to comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not censoring the information: the information would be preserved in Gibraltar's in-depth article space. It's an overview article - let's keep it simple and concise, in the process allowing us to move forward from this intractable situation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with slimming down certain parts of the article, I've been saying that for the past two years - but was shouted down then and since. However, certain facts should be included because of their notability, including certain facts you now wish to remove. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not proposing to remove them from the encyclopaedia. Let's think of the bigger picture, rather than just this article. The information stays on Wikipedia, we just cut down this article. I think - I may be wrong here - much of the content you want to remain got added to the article as a counterbalance to the "Spain thinks Gibraltar is still a colony" additions. I'm suggesting we move all of this to Politics/Disputed Status - including wording like "almost complete self-government". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with slimming certain parts down, difficult not to as those proposals were in fact my own - 2 years ago. I disagree with some of your proposals on Government. Gibraltar is self-governing, even the Spanish Government acknowledges its status as a self-governing BOT. The relevance of the C24 list needs to be explained - in the correct context. I came up with a compact description it was a few lines. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Can the people who are disputing the article's neutrality point out the specific sentences they believe are not neutral?

No, because we're not allowed to. I suggest you look in the archives.

Per AE decision, the dispute has to be resolved by binding RFC. Given that they also tell us that there is no problem at all with outright accusing other editors of acting in bad faith and that they actively encourage us not to make any attempt to explain any reasons for our objections to any edit or existing point but simply to veto any change proposed without further comment - and that that veto can prevent a new consensus from forming - you can imagine what I think of this decision.

For my part, RL commitments have meant that I simply have not had time over the last few weeks to get to the RFC. I intend to start it once I get an appropriate window. Pfainuk talk 19:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk: per AE decision, you guys have to resolve your disputes by binding RFC. I wasn't party to the latest disputes and AE rounds. That said, I'm sure that noone there would object if we all started working together cordially. WCM: as your issue is with the Gov and Politics section, I removed the tag which applies to the whole article (the NPOV tag remains at the G&P section). I hope that is OK with you. In terms of the G&P section, the article I'd propose to move the detail to is Politics of Gibraltar. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No that isn't alright with me, there are more NPOV issues than that - I'm effectively not allowed to speak about them. I would also not agree with moving that detail to Politics of Gibraltar. Nor do I agree with removing tags until disputes are resolved. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please tell me, out of these sections, where you see NPOV problems: Etymology, History, Government and politics, Geography, Economy, Demography, Education, Health care, Culture, Sport, Communications, Transport, Police, Military, Town twinnings. Government and politics has a NPOV tag. I do not see where else you are questioning the neutrality? Please think of the innocent reader who stumbles across this article: the first thing they see is this banner about the article as a whole, when it's only certain sections that have the "problems". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

btw I made two bold edits, one to History and one to Politics and Government, so please reread them before answering. No content has been deleted, it has just been moved to History of Gibraltar (except for material already covered there, such as San Roque) and Disputed status of Gibraltar. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You're asking me to comment on subjects where I am gagged by AE from commenting. The dispute remains, so should the tag. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear though, the fact that you are under an editing and talk page restriction does not prevent others, including me, from making edits to the article. The AE enforcement decision is not a de facto "the page stays the same forever" decision - it's a decision on you and your editing of this article space. Anyway, I'm sure that the AE decision does not prevent you from answering this question. You didn't initiate the discussion, I did, and I'm asking you civilly to civilly give me an answer. If the Arbitration Enforcers have a problem with us being civil to each other, I'll certainly defend you and say that they are being ridiculous. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You say: "I'm sure that noone there would object if we all started working together cordially." Trouble is, the decision had nothing to do with behaviour - on the contrary, they decided that accusing other editors of bad faith was completely fine and that editors should be encouraged to edit disruptively. So far as the admins at AE are concerned, we're effectively allowed to behave as badly as we wish, provided that we do not actually discuss content while doing it. Pfainuk talk 21:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Answering TRHOPF's question (I hope I am not running into forbidden ground as per the AE; if I'm wrong, I would kindly ask some admin to remove my comments):

• One of the key subjects of this article is the population of Gibraltar (their history, demography, politics, culture...)
• In 1704 Gibraltar was captured, all right; this historical military and diplomatic fact is notable and relevant.
• But several other very notable facts took place, regarding Gibraltar's population: it suffered some very significant abuses, and almost the whole of them moved away. The largest part of them moved to a place called San Roque, which would later gain the status of "village of San Roque" and keep some administrative and demographic continuity with pre-1704 Gibraltar.
• These facts are much more widely mentioned in secondary sources than several other facts that nobody proposes to move from the History section of this overview article. (I personally think this point is very important).
• Therefore, the proposal would move some notable facts from the overview article, while keeping other less notable facts about Gibraltar. I don't think this would be consistent.

I mean, in 4 days of August 1704, something happened and the population of Gibraltar moved away. This is a major event in the history of Gibraltar. The proposal excludes this event (the exodus of Gib's population) and many events surrounding this major historical episode.

I don't mind about the other proposal, but I understand that someone would want those facts to be kept in the lede (even though they are very detailed).

Thank you TRHPF for trying to tidy up the article. If I am able to do it, I will give my opinion when asked. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your comment is a violation of the AE rules, which prohibit you from "any discussion concerning any events, occurrences, or incidents that occurred between 1600 AD and 1900 AD, if such event, occurrence, or incident took place in, or is otherwise related to, Gibraltar, broadly construed". Please remove such discussion from the above comment, and I suggest that you do not repeat such violation. Pfainuk talk 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Pfainuk, I saw your comments regarding this issue and -taking into account that you are under the same AE rules- thought that it would be OK to comment as well. Anyhow, I will try to have someone more neutral (and an admin if possible) decide about my comments here. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a comment of mine that involves "any discussion concerning any events, occurrences, or incidents that occurred between 1600 AD and 1900 AD, if such event, occurrence, or incident took place in, or is otherwise related to, Gibraltar, broadly construed" in my previous discussion here, please bring it to my attention. So far as I can tell, the only editors who have done this in the above are you and Red Hat. While the AE restriction is patently ridiculous, it is still an AE restriction and I have made effort to avoid breaking it. Pfainuk talk 15:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Imalbornoz: just because more has been written by academics about the details of the capture of Gibraltar than, say, events in the 19th century does not mean that a potted history of Gibraltar like this should devote more page space to it at the expense of the 19th century. The capture itself was notable - this is mentioned and that is all that needs to be mentioned in an overview article. If the reader wants to know more, they click on the History of Gibraltar link. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

TRHOPF, you touch a very interesting point (with a more general view, not regarding this particular episode). I have many doubts about which criteria we should use in order to decide the inclusion (or not) of a fact in an overview article. My own opinion is that the degree of attention given by academics should be one of the criteria, although I agree that it should not be the only one.

Other criteria should be used as well, such as its impact on the subject of the article (but, again, how do we measure that impact?), notability (but, isn't this very related to the degree of attention from reputed secondary sources?), NPOV (but -sorry, I am repeating myself again-, isn't NPOV the result of weighting the different views of secondary sources?) ...

That is my own personal (and humble) opinion, but I'm not sure about its compliance with WP's policies and guidelines...

What criteria do you propose (in general)? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible to define a hard and fast rule for this. One guide might be the sorts of potted histories you get in travel books, where they too are limited to a few choice words. Reading the Lonely Planet's history in their Andalucia book, it's not far off what we have now, since my edit yesterday, save for mention of the fleeing population. NB I'm not proposing use of Lonely Planet as a reference, merely as an indication of how others who have to write summary histories treat each event. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well fuck me gently with a chain saw, did you just repeat my argument from two years ago? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Shockingly, I agree with Red Hat. On the subject of travel books, just because two sources may be valid does not mean that two sources are equal in weight - I will listen to Simmel on trickledown economics before I listen to OK! magazine. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wonders will never cease! BTW I added back mention of the fleeing population, but this time simply saying "Campo de Gibraltar". I hope this is an acceptable position for all: it's concise, Imabornoz gets his mention of the fact that the population fled, WCM doesn't have mention of a town he feels was founded 2 years later, and the reader can click on Campo de Gibraltar or History of Gibraltar to find out more, about both the capture of the town itself, and of the towns where the population fled to. Now - for another potential wonder - would it be possible for everyone just to agree that we're done with this and we can move on? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not allowed to comment on an edit I proposed 2 years ago in a way that would suggest I approved, disapproved, endorsed or condemned in any shape, way or form. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin Intervention?

[1][2] For information of all concerned. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page. I advise WCM and the three other restricted editors not to continue the discussion here, until such time as they have opened the required RfC. If you need to discuss the restriction itself use my talk page (or that of T. Canens) but not this one. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Olympic Committee

The article contained references to an Olympic Ctte for Gibratltar without providing any sources. I have deleted the reference until apt. sources can be included (I previously flagged citation was needed). WP:Verification etc. 84.203.74.43 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Special Member State territory of the United Kingdom.

Is Gibraltar a a Special Member State territory of the United Kingdom? Is there any source for this? What I mean is this: Does EU law recognise Gibraltar as a United Kingdom territory?....I am really looking for a specific answer based on references to EU legal sources; my understanding from the EU Treaties is that the EU deliberately takes no position on sovereignty as regards Gibraltar. Any takers for this query? 84.203.74.43 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that Spain recognises British sovereignty over Gibraltar, it would be quite surprising if the EU didn't. Pfainuk talk 20:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Joe Bossano accused Britain of repeatedly overlooking Gibraltar in its negotiations with the European Union, citing, as an example, the Union's companies directive. "To avoid doubts, it defines what a company is in each member state. Well, the Gibraltar Companies Ordinance {Act} is not there...We've got a nightmare situation in our constitutional relationship,...It is a case of criminal negligence on the part of the UK. They are responsible for us as a colony, and they took us into the EC in 1973." Ref: JOHN HOOPER IN GIBRALTAR. The Guardian (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Manchester (UK)] 22 Nov 1993 Proquest (User talk:MacStep) 21:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Log on with

Re User Pfainuk...I don't really understand your comment; Spain does not recognise British sovereignty there I think.

Re Joe Bossano...The comment tended to back up what I thought...that the EU does not recognise British sovereignty..but I was looking for something more definitive (for or against). So any help would be appreciated. 84.203.74.43 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a common misconception. Spain disputes only the extent of British sovereignty in Gibraltar, not the fact of it. References are in the article.

Re Joe Bossano, the point is that it is Britain who takes responsibility here. Note also that Gibraltar became part of the EU in 1973, not 1986, as is clear from the 1972 Treaty of Accession and from the article Special Member State territories and the European Union. Pfainuk talk 19:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Gibraltar a Member State? No. Did it get a special mention in the Treaty on European Union? No. How come it is in the European Union? Because, prior to British entry, the European Communities Act 1972 (UK) made provision to include the United Kingdom, together with (for certain purposes) the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar ^Ref MacStep (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk - No one asked whether the UK takes responsibility for Gibraltar (obviously it does). You seem to be suggesting that the 1972 Treaty of Accession is evidence that the EU has taken the position that Gibraltar is a UK territory. But that Treaty does not mention Gibraltar at all - [3]; cross-referring generally into a Wikipedia article (obviously I've read it but it doesn't answer my question) doesn't get us anywhere either. My question really isn't that complicated to understand; it's not a question about UK laws or the UK's position - it is the question I set out above; I've put the question in bold.

MacStep - No one asked if Gibraltar was a Member State; You are right that it did not get a special mention in the Treaty - A logical question that flows from that is WHY is it not mentinoed? It is dealt with indirectly by "Article 355(3) (ex Article 299(4))"which applies the treaty to "the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible", a provision which in practice only applies to Gibraltar. Why this peculiar provision? Why is Gibraltar not listed like any of the other territories (e.g. Isle of Man and others)? You quoted Joe Bossano pointing to the difficulty relating to Company Law for Gibraltar because of discrepancies; why do these discrepancies arise - its a related question. Again, is this because the EU takes no position on the question of sovereignty over Gibraltar? No one has gone near dealing directly with my question yet. I'm 100% open to informed views based on references to EU law; I'm not interested in POV, just a proper answer 84.203.74.43 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The point I made is included in the article I gave you and the reference is in the article I pointed you at. If you think that article doesn't answer your question then I suggest you reread it. What you have there is not the full treaty, as is made obvious from Article 1, Section 2 of the document. The points made by Special Member State territories and the European Union are both accurate and accurately referenced.

And in any case, you're ignoring the fact that Spain recognises British sovereignty over Gibraltar. As referenced in this article. You're effectively saying, with no evidence beyond speculation, that the EU takes a position that is very significantly more pro-Spanish than even the Spanish government argues for. This is not a logical argument. Pfainuk talk 18:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk - I could not make head nor tail of what you said in your first para above.

Re me ignoring that Spain recognises British sovereignty - the Wikipedia article says it disputes it so I can't make much sense of that either - I am still no further on in finding an answer to my question. 84.203.74.43 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If a Wikipedia article says that Spain disputes the existence of British sovereignty in Gibraltar then that Wikipedia article is wrong. This one doesn't. Spain's position is that Gibraltar is under British sovereignty, but with limited extent. Spain also argues that Britain should give sovereignty of Gibraltar to Spain. This is all referenced in this article, and the reference is the official position as expressed by the Spanish Foreign Ministry. I find it highly unlikely that the EU takes a more pro-Spanish line here than the Spanish government does.

The treaty you cited said this:

“ The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties establishing the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community necessitated thereby are set out in the Act annexed to this Treaty. The provisions of that Act concerning the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community shall form an integral part of this Treaty. ”

In other words, what you cited is not the full treaty. This should be obvious anyway - the idea that you could add three new members to such a complex organisation based on nothing but a four-page treaty (including title page) is absurd. The Acts that this refers to do make reference to Gibraltar, as cited by the article Special Member State territories and the European Union. Pfainuk talk 20:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right that the Act makes reference to Gibraltar; that is useful to know - the question as to why the Treaties don't is outstanding and why the peculiar language in Art 299(4); Was that language an attempt to fudge on sovereignty over Gibraltar?

About the Spanish position, there is an entire article (very poorly written) on the dispute here on Wikipedia; it's so badly written that its hard to ascertain much from reading it. What you said above does not exactly clarify matters either. What on Earth does accepting some one's "Sovereignty" but with "limited extent" mean?!

Here are a few quotations from the Spanish Government's website (various docs; just google Gibraltar within the domain gob.es):

• "The British colony of Gibraltar is an anomaly in today‟s Europe. It poses security problems for Spain and Europe in several domains, which require effective solutions."[Spanish Security Strategy document] - Calling Gibraltar a "colony" does not suggest respect for British sovereignty there;
• 51-2009. COMMUNIQUÉ OF THE MINISTERIAL MEETING OF THE FORUM OF DIALOGUE ON GIBRALTAR - Last para reads "We look forward to being able to reach agreements within this framework for the next Ministerial meeting of the Forum in 2010. We have reaffirmed that, as was the case with the Cordoba Statements, any agreements in these areas would have no implications whatsoever regarding sovereignty and jurisdiction." Why are they mentioning sovereignty etc here? What position are they reserving on; clearly there is some dispute on sovereignty here - otherwise it would not be mentioned.
• "There are four aspects to the approach, which we’ve adopted in these discussion; Preserving Gibraltar’s unique way of life, greater self-government and internal self-government for Gibraltar; practical benefit through cooperation and putting this long-running dispute about sovereignty to rest." - Jack Straw in 2002, quoted on the website; why is he referring to a dispute about sovereignty if there is none?
• "There are four aspects to the approach, which we’ve adopted in these discussion; Preserving Gibraltar’s unique way of life, greater self-government and internal self-government for Gibraltar; practical benefit through cooperation and putting this long-running dispute about sovereignty to rest." - Another statement from the Website; why are the UN General Assembly urging talks etc; if sovereignty is settled, what is there to talk about?

On the whole, I think it is clear there is a sovereignty dispute in play here. The Wikipedia article on the whole issue of such low quality, it's nigh impossible to make out anything much from it; but even those quotes above show there is a sovereignty dispute. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)