Talk:Status of Gibraltar

Wikipedia is not accurate to say reference to the capture of Gibraltar and the Treaty of Utrecht

The text : In that treaty, Spain ceded to Great Britain:

"the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging […] for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever."

In that paragraph is ignored by Wikipedia the Territorial Jurisdiction as Treaty of Utrecht literally said.

The UK should not authorise such activities as England is not in possession of complete sovereignty over Gibraltar: As agreed in Utrecht, Spain would not concede any Territorial Jurisdiction. This means when you talk about the Utrecht literally that England cannot dictate laws in Gibraltar, and is therefore, not in a governing position. Although in practice is ignored by UK the Territorial Jurisdiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.101.46 (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read wp:or You also need to read the treaty and ask a lawyer what 'territorial jurisdiction' means. And the territory was ceded to the Crown not a state. However, as Gibraltar is self-governing 'England' does not make laws, the elected parliament of Gibraltar has that competence. You might find This article explaining the ToU useful. --Gibnews (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Independently that you or Gibnet interpreted The article X is all one you can not take paragraphs separately for your misinterpreted.[1] The treaty of Utrecht said literally "that the above-named propierty be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction" and Wikipedia ignored that fundamental words distorted completely its meaning. About Gibraltar parlament it is a true farce. Ask to the British Crown governor. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.101.46 (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 212.145.101.46 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The article referred to is by an eminent lawyer, Guy Stagnetto QC. If you wish to discuss its contents, please write to him as interpreting treaties is outside the scope of Wikipedia. see also WP:NOT#FORUM The discussion is over. --Gibnews (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don´t know is an eminent lawyer or eminent pirate. I don´t care. Only Wikipedia should be correct the sentences "between quotes" when talk about Article X of Utrecht to be more successful and impartial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.101.46 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Political harassment

Gibnews please don't add this type of phrases, "Spanish Government continues with political harassment and restrictions despite improved relations", because the article is already quite biased towards spain. You add references said in Gibraltar press, not necesarily true references, like the phrase seems to indicate. Political harassement is an opinion. The restrictions, there is a whole section talking about restrictions. Fireinthegol (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish Government does indeed continue with its harassment, and there is a reference saying exactly that. The section describes the Gibraltar view of the sovereignty dispute. Censoring the article with offensive comments like The reference that support this is an opinion column by a Gibraltarian is racism and your comments about the Gibraltar press are demeaning. If you continue along these lines, a complaint will follow. --Gibnews (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews you can complain what you want. Firstly, Gibraltarian is not a race. Secondly, that reference is an opinion by a Gibraltarian, meaning that Spanish have multiple opinions about Gibraltar issues, and that does not mean that are valid references, because they are the interested and obviously biased factions. With the wording that you put now, it can be deduced that Spain blocks Gibraltar quite seriously, but the only block/restriction that exist is the football team, which cannot be considered political harassement. If you continue pushing POV, a complaint will follow. Fireinthegol (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC) If you want to put this phrase "political harassement" you need something more serious than denying UEFA membership. All your phrase is based on that, because I cannot find more restriction than that in your references. That is a restriction, not a harassement which is a serious word. And obviously I can find references about Gibraltar on Spanish media that talk about Gibraltarian harassement towards Spain. Fireinthegol (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite how little Gibraltar 'harasses' Spain, as we do not have the budget or resources that are deployed destructively against us. In the case of UEFA, the reference makes it clear Spanish football association has been instructed by the Government of Spain, so it is political in origin. The same is true in for example Gibraltar's membership of the IOC and the ISSF. If however, you can find any references, please insert them in the section about Spain's case and do not seek to censor the referenced and Gibraltarian opinion in the section dealing with that. You might read the article on Racism which explains how it applies to any group including Gibraltarians, and wikipedia is not a place for it. --Gibnews (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I will put in Spanish postion only facts. If you want to put facts, and opinions, put them in "Giraltar position" section, and not in the introduction. The UEFA issue is already pointed out in "Spanish restrictions", so its obviously POV pushing puting so much emphasis in it, and in the introduction. Btw calling someone racist for saying that Gibraltarian may have biased opinions can be considered a personal attack. Fireinthegol (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary if you continue with that sort of racist comment it can get you blocked, don't do it. It would be nice to see some facts in relation to the Spanish claim to Gibraltar as most of it is based on fairy tales. As regards what Gibraltarians think, the local newspapers reflect that well. Please do not remove references simply because you do not like what they say. --Gibnews (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I will not remove, I will put it in Gibraltar position, which is the section that must have Gibraltarians opinion, regards 81.39.209.75 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC) [IP=Telefonica de Espana]

Gibnews, whether the IP belongs to Telefonica de Espana or not is irrelevant. You've been asked repeatedly to stop qualifying other editors. You can't edit/modify other's comments without their consent either. That is *enough*. I've filed a complaint in the ANI. --Cremallera (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like harassment to me. Perhaps you should make a complaint about signbot too --Gibnews (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Spanish opinions

This seems to contain some contradictions, in relation to a tax information exchange agreement, I believe Gibraltar offered this, but it was declined, which is explained by your reference which says Spain does not recognize the sovereignty of Gibraltar and therefore can not sign an international agreement. Sources of Economic delMinisterio explained that any agreement should take place with the permission of the British Government and not with political representatives of the Rock..

In relation to Sr Moratinos at the press conference, I sat in front of him and have a recording. He was far to polite to shout 'Gibraltar espanol' and your reference does not say that he did. Keep it real. I've improved the English. --Gibnews (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting. I failed to read that he did not literally said that. He said "the claim for sovereignty cannot be given up" during the press conference. This was interpreted as he had said gibraltar español by that journalist. A better reference for this is http://www.elmundo.es/papel/2009/07/23/espana/17531307.html

On the taxes, the other reference, http://www.apreblanc.com/noticias/gibraltar-el-agujero-negro-de-la-hacienda-espa-ola.html, says that Spain and Gibraltar cannot sign an international agreement directly, they have to do it through UK and Spain, but it doesnt say that they cannot reach agreements or cooperation (they indeed cooperate in various other subjects). It says that Gibraltar have not contacted Spain to be removed from the Spanish listing of tax havens: "El Peñón forma parte de la lista de paraísos fiscales que elaboró el España en 1991 y, a diferencia de otros territorios como Andorra o Luxemburgo, Gibraltar no ha realizado gesto alguno para salir de ella. De los 48 países que forman parte de la lista negra que el Gobierno español elaboró en 1991, 24 ya se han puesto en contacto en los últimos meses con la administración española para firmar convenios de doble imposición que incluyan un intercambio efectivo de información." So it says that 24 territories have contacted Spain to reach agreement, but not Gibraltar.

I also have a reference of an spanish politician saying that Gibraltar government harasses Spain, http://www.diariocritico.com/2009/Julio/nacional/162873/arenas-visita-gibraltar-moratinos.html

but I dont know if it would be useful to put that. Fireinthegol (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, nobody expected him to say Spain had abandoned the claim, and it would have been really hot news if he had! He was very relaxed and seemed to be having a good time.

On the issue of tax agreements, Gibraltar has entered into agreements with anyone interested in order to make the OECD happy. They did propose one with Spain but this falls into the trap that the Government of Spain does not recognise that the GoG is competent to make agreements. HMG considers that the GoG is and that HMG is not, so nothing happens. This is a similar situation to judicial co-operation where Spain does not recognise the Gibraltar court, makes requests to the UK who cannot answer them and then Spain then shouts 'no co-operation'.

Similarly if Gibraltar contacted a Spanish organisation to be removed from their list of money laundering centres, would they take any notice - and in any event the International organisations are what matters. They do take notice and have delisted Gibraltar from their concerns.

As regards (all) politicians, they sometimes say the strangest things, but its worthwhile adding them to Wikipedia for reference, or a good laugh at their stupidity. Your reference is rather vague, you might want to check out Jose Ignacio Landaluce who seems to be the most vocal at the moment. --Gibnews (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

POV statement

I've been some time out in order to contribute instead of simply discussing. However, I see that my absence has been used to remove some NPOV tags that were not refuted in any case.

The section is this one:

Finally, it is pointed out that there is in fact no principle in International Law or UN doctrine that can displace the inalienable right to self-determination. In this regard, in 2008, the UN 4th Committee rejected the claim that a dispute over sovereignty affected self-determination, affirming it to be a basic human right.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd406.doc.htm | title=Following intense debate, Fourth Committedd approves amended omnibus text on Non-Self-Governing Territories | publisher=United Nations General Assembly. Department of Public Information | date=20 October 2008}}: {{quote|The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) would have the General Assembly reaffirm the inalienable right of the peoples of 11 of the 16 remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories to self-determination by an “omnibus” draft resolution it approved today}}</ref>

I remember the rationale above:

1. Has the UN C24 a doctrine on Gibraltar? Yes, it has. Just to provide a source, you can see here the resolutions of the Committe in 2008. It has different resolutions on each territory (or groups of territories) included in the list of non-self-governing territories. It has a doctrine on Western Sahara, other on New Caledonia, other on Tokelau, other on Gibraltar (it refers to Decision 63/526, can be seen here), and other on American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands (the last one of the Falklands is from 2006).
2. Does the resolution we're referring to relates to Gibraltar? No, it relates to American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands. Gibraltar has its own resolution (decision in this case).
3. Has any secondary source given any relevance to the resolution we're referring to with regard to Gibraltar? No. It has been requested.
4. Has any involved party given any relevance to the resolution we're referring to with regard to Gibraltar? No. It has been requested.

So, is there any reason, according to the Wikipedia policies, to give any weight to something that a) does not refer to Gibraltar; b) is not considered relevant by any reliable secondary source; c) is not considered relevant by any involved party?

Of course that an extensive information about the UN statements on Gibraltar should be included in the article, but that's other issue.

It's really boring to explain again that without a source "pointing out" what is being asserted in the sentence (item 3 above), such a mention is simply both original research and POV edition. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly does refer to the dispute as there was an attempt at the C24 meetings to change UN policy on the universal application of the right to self determination to exclude those cases where there is a 'sovereignty dispute' - he two cases are Gibraltar and the Falklands. As Gibraltar was clearly involved, it was mentioned in depth in the local media so there should be some references. I will provide them. The objection to inclusion seems hard to understand. --Gibnews (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, you've been asked for references for almost a month. It was your responsibility to provide them, as you were the one who included the POV statement. Instead, you removed the NPOV template. I wouldn't say it's surprising. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC) PS: and no, it does not refer to "an attempt at the C24 meetings to change UN policy on the universal application of the right to self determination" but to the specific cases of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, as the source clearly states.

If article 2 had included the sovereignty dispute wording it would have been applicable to Gibraltar and the Falklands:

2. Also reaffirms that, in the process of decolonization, and where there is no dispute over sovereignty, there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which is also a fundamental human right, as recognized under the relevant human rights conventions;

But as it doesn't, article 2 is not applicable to the Gibraltar and the Falklands:

2. Also reaffirms that, in the process of decolonization, there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which is also a fundamental human right, as recognized under the relevant human rights conventions;

That makes perfect sense :-) Dab14763 (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The other POV dispute

In the economy section it is stated: "Similarly positive assessments have been made by international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF).[33][34][35][36]" But none o the 4 references work. I also remove some supposed claims by the Spanish "government" without reference. I can admit that they have been claimed by some spaniards, not by the government. Fireinthegol (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no one answers, I'll remove unreferecend facts. If you want to revert, please provide sources. I also remove the phrases that include "political harassement" as it is false, POV, and misleading. Fireinthegol (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding contributions

I'm interested in adding some information in summary are:

1. Rejecting British personalities on the British occupation of Gibraltar. Source: FAES PAPERS

2. Gibraltarians leave their city. Reasons. Settlement in San Roque by Gibraltarians. Legal significance. Source: Sepulveda. (History prof UNED). (This is already present in the article)

3. Criticism from Guy Stagnetto Spain's Supreme Court on the interpretation of the phrase "without any territorial jurisdiction" in the Treaty of Utrecht. Source: Supreme Court ruling and opinion in press of Stagnetto.

4. Waters around Gibraltar: disputed status. Source: News "EL MUNDO", Max Planck Encyclopedia Public International Law (MPEPIL) and EU study. Inclusion of Article 15 and 298 of the UN Convention of the sea.

5. Dismissal of the appeal by the government of UK and Gibraltar in the TEU on environmental protection claiming Spain on the waters around Gibraltar. Reason: unfounded appeal. Source: Europa Press Agency

I request to other editors report any discrepancy (with specification and justification).

--Juanmatorres75 10:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

1. The reference at FAES is a) a WP:SPS and not acceptable as a source. b) an opinion piece, we present facts not opinions. This is an encyclopedia not a debating forum.

2. Why they left? Your edit was completely misleading. The British and their allies most certainly did not wish the inhabitants to leave, the purpose of seizing Gibraltar was to provide a base for gaining support of the local people for the monarch favoured by the allies. The violence that did happen was contrary to the instructions given (ie officers lost control of the men); the claim that they violence was deliberate to force them to leave is demonstrably false.

3. See 1. facts not opinions. This is your WP:OR.

4. We already cover UNCLOS, the information you wished to add was your WP:OR and not relevant content.

5. We already cover this in a neutral fashion, your edit was misleading claiming it recognised Spanish sovereignty. It didn't.

As Gibmetal77 has pointed out, a lot of work went into dealing with this topic in a neutral manner, with removal of POV material introduced by nationalists of all persuasions. People will not stand by and allow the clock to be turned back by the introduction of partisan material. NPOV requires that we cover the debate in a neutral manner, based on preferrably neutral academic sources not the partisan material produce by political organisations. We don't achieve NPOV by presenting individually the British, Spanish or Gibraltarian POV. You've already been blocked for edit warring and you've been hit with a huge clue stick that your POV edits are not acceptable. Drop the WP:STICK. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

1. OK. Then, if I manage to find the statements made by these people (Bright and Gardiner) in a history book or journal, the source would be valid and therefore I can add to the article. Is that so?

2. At no point saying that violence was deliberate with the intention of expelling the population. I just reproduce what the source says: that violence by the British was the reason why the Gibraltarians left there, although that was not a deliberate intention of the British. In any case, I suppose if I delete the causal link between violence and the left of the population and instead of saying "by Admiral Sir George Rooke and his troops", I say "by the troops of Admiral Sir George Rooke" then is okay. Is that so? And with San Roque I suppose no problem.

3. The fact is that the Supreme Court issued a order with an interpretation of the phrase "without any territorial jurisdiction" and Stagnetto criticized this interpretation and gave another. The fact this controversy illustrates the differences in the interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht. The fact is the existence of opposing positions on an issue.

4. The articles of the convention I want to add are important to note that there are disputes between countries (especially of sovereignty) that, if prior to the convention itself, they are excluded from the jurisdiction thereof (art. 298), and to identify the importance that the Convention itself confers to historical reasons in some cases excluding the general rules of the Convention (art. 15). On the following claim (WP: OR) is so general and vague that I cannot answer, but, if you consider that the” Max Plank Ecyclopedia of Public International Law”, or the study of the EU are not valid sources, say so explicitly, like you did with FAES. Please, do it. Also, remember that in the beginning the article said "British-claimed territorial waters" and was changed by Gibmetal77 to "British Gibraltar Territorial Waters" without justification or source, then add an absurd allegedly provocative link. But I suppose that don’t matter but I will have to justify every comma.

5. I disagree with the attribution of intentions you ascribe me. In any case, I suppose if I find the text of the resolution and it actually says that the appeal is "unfounded", I can include it, and well, plus we got a source for the "neutral fashion" cover. It’s very neutral, sure, but without source.

Ultimately, I think we can consider that there is provisionally "consensus" in paragraphs 1, 2 and 5, with the conditions set. Regarding points 3 and 4 I await your response to my allegations, before resorting to a third opinion. --Juanmatorres75 08:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

3. Regarding the fact controversy over the interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht and specifically the phrase "without any territorial jurisdiction" and the scope of "propriety", propose to use as source the article "The Legal Status of Gibraltar: Whose Rock is it Anyway? "J. Simon Lincoln, from the Fordham International Law Journal, if this source is considered better than the order of the Court and the Stagnetto article. --Juanmatorres75 09:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

I suppose I'm entitled to expect the same diligence in this debate to find consensus that the diligence demonstrated by the editors erasing my contributions. That is why I think I can consider is definitive consensus on items 1, 2 and 5, with the conditions stipulated, also because there is no refutation of the sources proposed in sections 3 and 4, I think it can also be considered that consensus has been reached on this point.--Juanmatorres75 10:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

Additionally, in paragraph 4 referred to the disputed waters, I propose as a source article "The Anglo-Spanish Dispute over the Waters of Gibraltar and the Tripartite Forum of Dialogue" by Inmaculada González, Law Faculty, University of Cádiz, published in "The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law"--Juanmatorres75 12:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

I ask other editors: both editorial suggestions of sources to review the following topics:

A. Left of the Spanish population of Gibraltar after his capture and his establishment in neighboring lands, founding the town of San Roque. B. Legal controversy about interpretation Utrecht Treaty between Spain and Britain over whether the cession of Gibraltar implies transfer of sovereignty or property without jurisdiction only. C. Existence of a dispute over the waters around Gibraltar and its reasons. D. Existence of certain exceptions in UNCLOS relating to the determination of territorial waters in adjacent areas (article 15) and the existence of certain types of disputes (sovereignty) excluded from UNCLOS (article 298)--Juanmatorres75 18:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)