Jump to content

Talk:Status of Gibraltar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2.31.130.20 (talk) at 23:19, 6 October 2015 (→‎Neutrality). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Following the suggestions of the third opinion: "I suggest breaking Proposed These additions into sections or even single Paragraphs to help Evaluate the positive and negative aspects of each Proposed change." I will proceed to propose to include a new paragraph below in the middle of the first paragraph, after of "War of the Spanish succession"in the section entitled "The capture of Gibraltar and the Treaty of Utrecht". The wording of this paragraph would be:

"After the capture of the town of Gibraltar, its civil population moved to neighboring lands and founded the town of San Roque, Cádiz, with its official motto "Very Noble and Very Loyal City of San Roque, Gibraltar where lives on". Gibraltarians established in San Roque, took with them all the documents of the municipal archive and its flag, to guarantee legal and administrative continuity of the town left by them (Sepúlveda, 2004, pp. 89-92)."

As you can see, I've removed some things regarding earlier wordings and I think I'm getting close enough to what the author of the source indicated. Is there any editor that can tell me if I can get consensus with this wording or propose alternative another one?

Thanks.--Juanmatorres75 16:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the relevance to this article? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of this article is to show that population movements have existed in this case, movements that in the long term, alter the population composition of Gibraltar. It is an important point to understand that after this verifiable fact, there was a settlement of British population in a town almost empty. As this last point (settlement of British population) is already covered in the section "Spanish position", I considered interesting to note that historical fact (which is an objective fact, not a position) in the first section, in which the facts relevant accompanying the capture of Gibraltar, as the Treaty of Utrecht, are marked ("The capture of Gibraltar and the Treaty of Utrecht"). Normally in this type of issues (territorial disputes), noting the movements of population is important, and they are historical facts that must treat them as such, not as part of a particular position.--Juanmatorres75 17:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

The Spanish population did not move out to be replace by British settlers. Some of those who left drifted back, as to the rest the ethnogenesis of Gibraltar is diverse but there was no resettlement from Britain. Your claim is not sustainable, your edit is actually WP:OR and WP:SYN. That the population left is only of tangential relevance to this aticle. In addition, we don't include such material just because you find it interesting, it has to be relevant. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


OK, change "interesting" to "relevant".

In no time I have established a causal link between the left of Spanish and British settlement, I have established only a temporal succession, you do not twist my words, please. Then, are you referring to editing my justification of the contribution I want to do as if it were the same edition I want to add to the article, which is not real, that is, you're attributing WP: OR and WP: SYN my edition on the talk page! Nor have I said anything about adding questions about the ethnogenesis of Gibraltar. I just want to say that the people of Gibraltar left his village and founded another beside of this retaining the symbols of the former. Is this relevant?, I think so, in the Gibraltar context at least, it is a significant population movement to a people who moved its identity as such elsewhere, conserving it.--Juanmatorres75 19:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

Additionally, I note that I am not by emphasizing the ethnic issue, (I do not argue if some of those who left returned later) but rather on the legal issue, ie, it's relevant to note the existing institutional continuity between the Spanish Gibraltar and the town of San Roque.--Juanmatorres75 19:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

No you just stated above that was the purpose of your edit. Whilst it may be relevant to the history of Gibraltar and is included there, its relevance here is at best tangential. If you don't address the point again, I won't reply further, but this doesn't mean you have consensus. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Last attempt. We can not agree on the degree of relevance of my contribution (if totally relevant or only tangentially is). But what if you seem to agree on is that my contribution would not be totally irrelevant. This is why I propose to add briefly (as much as possible without distorting it) the fact that you say you have a tangential relevance, since in any case has some relevance, even tangentially, and therefore deserves to be reviewed in the article, even briefly. The proposal is this:

"After the capture of the town of Gibraltar, its civil population moved to neighboring lands and founded the town of San Roque, Cádiz. The Gibraltarians, when they left, took with them all the documents of the municipal archive and its flag, to guarantee legal and administrative continuity of the town left by them (Sepúlveda, 2004, pp. 89-92)."

I think with this I propose is possible to reach a consensus, the wording can not be shorter, consistent with its possible relevance only tangential.Juanmatorres75 09:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

As an alternative to this last proposal, I think it would also be possible to shorten further the reference to historical fact, in this way:

"After the capture of the town of Gibraltar, its civil population moved to neighboring lands and founded the town of San Roque, Cádiz, moving with them all municipal symbols" (Sepúlveda, 2004, pp. 89-92) .

booking this case the explanation of the legal and administrative consequences of the fact for "Spanish position" section.Juanmatorres75 14:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

Something similar is asserted in the history section of the San Roque article. The wording is "In 1649 a quarter of the Gibraltar population perished from epidemic disease. A number of residents retreated to the area of San Roque, and survived the outbreak, believed to be typhoid. The modern settlement of San Roque [i.e, a pre-existing ancient small town] was established by the former Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar, after the majority fled following the takeover by Anglo-Dutch forces and their Spanish allies during the War of the Spanish Succession in 1704." This is sourced to Jackson, William (1990): The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar; and Gold, Peter (2005). Gibraltar: British or Spanish?. Such sources are preferable to Spanish texts which can't be understood or assessed by most English Wikipedia readers. What is your purpose? You appear to be arguing Spain's irredentist claims to territory which are fully covered in an appropriate section of the article. But the various moves to San Roque took place over many years before Spain formally handed Gibraltar over to Great Britain "for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever." So how can it be it relevant, please? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no preference to the source, I had chosen to Sepulveda because they are available directly in the article. I accept the proposed source by you.

Indeed, Gibraltarians moved to San Roque and founded the current municipality (although already existed a small population center, not municipality), in 1706. The people of Gibraltar moved there because of the violent capture of the city by the British in 1704 (they were not on vacation). The British remained all the time occupying the city (captured at first on behalf of Charles III of Spain, the Archduke Charles) some years until the property of the town of Gibraltar was formally ceded to Britain in 1713. Trying to untie the facts related (capture of Gibraltar, left its population and definitive transfer of property) due to the existence of a time lag between them is inconsistent. The left of the population of Gibraltar is produced before the cession to Britain, yes, but after the capture of Gibraltar by the British and due such capture. Really, it seems like you're wielding absurd arguments, with the intention to seem that there is a discussion. The relationship of this movement of population to the matter in dispute is quite clear, and their relevance (either directly or tangentially only), too, as this historic fact will be argued later by Spain as justification to support the position that the current population of Gibraltar is a settled population only and not original.I am proposing outline a proven historical fact only briefly, not argue anything, thus writing my last proposal testifies. Therefore, I am proposing that historical fact is outlined with a length of less than one line of text, enough length to review a historical fact supposedly tangential relevance. Really do you think this addition of less than one line of text in the article is absolutely unjustified? Juanmatorres75 17:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

Not for your reasons, that is WP:OR and WP:SYN, so no I don't think it is justified. It has already been pointed out to you, the war aims of the allies were frustrated by the departure, since the purpose of seizing Gibraltar was to win a base of support in Spain for their favoured Monarch. They did not wish to force the people out, it was a disaster for them. Specific orders were issued to protect the populace but it was an ill-disciplined force and commanders lost control of the men. The punishments handed out were severe including hangings and floggings. It seems to me that you're ignoring the past discussion to continue with the same line of argument when it has already been rejected as inappropriate - you won't achieve consensus that way. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm not proposing anything that contradicts what you're saying (I am not now proposing to add anything in the article about the violence on the population, I removed it from my proposal; nor on whether the left of this population benefited allies). I repeat: I do not intend to make any assessment of fact, just review it. I think it is increasingly clear that this is a false debate, you're editing with the sole intention of appearing a discussion, and I can not say that you do not answer to my proposals. You do not offer any alternative, just say "NO", which shows no willingness to reach consensus. Not getting consensus for the reason you really did not even trying get this consensus. Okay, I resign from my purpose to edit that part referred to the left of the civilian population of Gibraltar. When I can, I will continue with proposals regarding contributions review about the controversy the over the meaning of term "propierty" in the Treaty and the phrase "without any territorial jurisdiction", which I believe have relevance beyond doubt in this matter.--Juanmatorres75 12:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

Treaty of Utrecht

The following is the treaty text, pertaining to Gibraltar, according to http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/utrecht.htm I suggest this text could, in one way or another, be included in one of the articles about Gibraltar.

The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.

But that abuses and frauds may be avoided by importing any kind of goods, the Catholic King wills, and takes it to be understood, that the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication by land with the country round about.

Yet whereas the communication by sea with the coast of Spain may not at all times be safe or open, and thereby it may happen that the garrison and other inhabitants of Gibraltar may be brought to great straits; and as it is the intention of the Catholic King, only that fraudulent importations of goods should, as is above said, be hindered by an inland communications. it is therefore provided that in such cases it may be lawful to purchase, for ready money, in the neighbouring territories of Spain, provisions and other things necessary for the use of the garrison, the inhabitants, and the ships which lie in the harbour.

But if any goods be found imported by Gibraltar, either by way of barter for purchasing provisions, or under any other pretence, the same shall be confiscated, and complaint being made thereof, those persons who have acted contrary to the faith of this treaty, shall be severely punished.

And Her Britannic Majesty, at the request of the Catholic King, does consent and agree, that no leave shall be given under any pretence whatsoever, either to Jews or Moors, to reside or have their dwellings in the said town of Gibraltar; and that no refuge or shelter shall be allowed to any Moorish ships of war in the harbour of the said town, whereby the communication between Spain and Ceuta may be obstructed, or the coasts of Spain be infested by the excursions of the Moors.

But whereas treaties of friendship and a liberty and intercourse of commerce are between the British and certain territories situated on the coast of Africa, it is always to be understood, that the British subjects cannot refuse the Moors and their ships entry into the port of Gibraltar purely upon the account of merchandising. Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain does further promise, that the free exercise of their religion shall be indulged to the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the aforesaid town.

And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant , sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.71.21 (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant excerpts are already quoted in this article. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 11:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

The current (August 2013) edit war is not being discussed here. I have just made a request for semi-protection. Come on, interested editors! Make a start!  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 14:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your timely intervention, its quite simple really. The guidance for content should be WP:NPOV and ensuring all relevant opinions are represented. The article was tag bombed some time ago, not for reasons of improving the article but WP:POINT see [1] as the relevant points are indeed referenced. It was then eviscerated to remove all references to the opinions of the people who live in Gibraltar. Again a matter of WP:POINT. Without wishing to make an outright allegation of editing along a nationalist line, it is the Spanish position that the opinion of the Gibraltarians does not matter. Hence, as the edit was clearing favouring a national agenda in the dispute, it failed WP:NPOV by removing relevant opinion and so I reverted it. Per WP:BRD the onus is then upon the original editor to initiate a talk page discussion - [2],[3] I indicated I was willing to discuss. 192.35.35.40 (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I thank you for beginning a discussion. I trust that other interested editors, who have been more than happy to revert, will soon join us here. Cheers!  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 15:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014

As the author of much of the content and a couple of images in this article, I'm pleased to see it is largely intact and has been sensibly updated and maintained. I am however pained to read the constant reference on these talk pages to 'Gibraltarians' leaving when the territory was captured - the term did not come into being until the 1800's and the residents of 1704 considered themselves Spanish, and so they went to live in Spain. --Gibnews (talk)

The people in favour of Britain relinquishing Gibraltar and handing it over to Spain appear to me missing a fairly important factor. If Britain were to hand over a territory that was obtained in perpetuity through proper legal agreement - the Treaty of Utrecht - then that would set a legal precedent that would potentially nullify every international boundary treaty made before or since.
One of the principles of legal ownership is that you cannot give by mutual agreement something away legally and then later demand it back simply because you - or your successors - have changed your mind.
If Britain were to 'give Gibraltar back to Spain' it would open a legal can-of-worms that will have repercussions world-wide.
... still, I suppose it will at least have the perceived benefit by some of annoying the French if some future British government suddenly decides it wants its former Norman Territories back. And no doubt Mexico will be delighted to have a potentially valid legal claim to the return of places such as California and New Mexico.
Spain is entitled to request that Gibraltar be handed back to them but they certainly aren't entitled to demand it. And as for the Gibraltarians, they have long memories and many won't forget Franco and Spain's support for Hitler when they and the rest of the British were at war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Some of the language in the lead is clearly not neutral. Furthermore the lead is not consistent, claiming first that the Spanish government is currently involved only in bilateral talks (excluding Gibraltans) then claiming it is now involved in trilateral talks. My changes seems quite clear and necessary to me and I'm confused as to why someone feels an edit war is appropriate.Ezrado (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, WP:BRD, Bold, Revert, Discuss. You appear to be following WP:BRRRWD ie Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert, Warned and then Discuss. There was only one editor edit warring here, and that was the editor who chose to revert war and that you would be you Ezrado.
Second, the relevant sentence in the lead:


Have, is used, meaning the past tense and successive Spanish governments have insisted its bilateral. The previous Spanish Government signed an agreement and engaged in Tripartite talks. The current Spanish Government insists it is a bilateral manner, so your reference to the Tripartite agreement is no longer relevant.
I did explain this in my edit summary, which you've chosen to ignore. As you're now engaging in talk I will be reverting to the previous stable consensus until a new consensus text emerges.
You assert the language is not neutral but your explanation for your revert warring doesn't stand scrutiny. I await your elucidation of what the neutrality problem is. Regards, WCMemail 17:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I "discussed" the edits in each edit summary which you systematically ignored, which I naively thought would be sufficient due to how minor the original edit was. Whatever, lets just reach a consensus.
"They have insisted that the Gibraltar dispute is a purely bilateral matter" implies this was and has since been the case up until the present day (eg; "You have been extremely frustrating" vs. "You were very frustrating"). If you read through the lead before reverting my edits you would find a cited statement referencing trilateral talks since 2005. I don't see the source of conflict here.
What is a bit less clear is whether the use of the term "mere settlers" is neutral. It is my opinion that it doesn't add anything and sounds biased.Ezrado (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You discuss edits in the talk page, you do not discuss edits through edit summaries. You're not a newbie, you know this and, no, your edit summary was not sufficient. Spain continues to insist the dispute is bilateral, even whilst the trilateral forum was extant Spain insisted the sovereignty issue was bilateral, and the current Spanish Government has refused to engage in that. Its also Spain's position that as mere settlers and not a native population Gibraltarians do not enjoy the right to self-determination. It's Spain's position, WP:NPOV doesn't imply we tone it down or censor it as we don't like it or consider it biased. WCMemail 22:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish Government will not go to the UN for impartial arbitration because the Spanish know they will lose. The Treaty of Utrecht was, and still is, perfectly valid and any international court of arbitration will have to uphold it in the Gibraltarian's and Britain's favour. i.e, preserve the status quo.
This is why Spain is trying to get an agreement solely from Gibraltar, or the UK, and avoiding asking for outside help from the international community. If they do this they know they (Spain) will lose.
... and that is why Spain is asking for 'bilateral' or 'tripartite' talks, see.
"Its also Spain's position that as mere settlers and not a native population Gibraltarians do not enjoy the right to self-determination" - Spain is not the sovereign power over Gibraltar and so it is none of their damn-business.
... and if I were part of the Spanish negotiating team wishing to win over the Gibraltarians to my position I wouldn't have been so stupid as to have said such a thing.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Status_of_Gibraltar&oldid=684490769"