Talk:Gibraltar

RFC - Final destination of Spanish exodus

A RfC has been repeatedly mentioned. I don't think it has been requested yet. Should we? In that case, should we agree on the approach? (one of us includes it, Atama includes it, ...; scope of the RfC; other details...) Or should one of us just go ahead? What do you think? Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Atama said he would start one, I suggest we wait. Justin talk 15:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll start it below, but it's mostly about the larger Wikipedia community helping decide what's best between the arguments that all of you have regarding San Roque, so you're the best ones to present each side. I'll just begin the process and state the basic points as best as I know them and let everyone else fill out the details and your reasons for wanting to include/exclude San Roque and other details about the exodus. -- Atama頭 16:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Gibraltar article mention San Roque?

Should the main Gibraltar article include information about the town's population founding San Roque following a mass departure after the town was surrendered to British forces? One suggestion is to include that detail of the exodus, and other details, in the History of Gibraltar article and leave it out of the main article. But others feel that the information is too important to leave out of the summary in the main article. -- Atama頭 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Those involved in the dispute

User:Ecemaml
User:Cremallera
User:Imalbornoz
User:Gibnews
User:Justin_A_Kuntz

Statement by Ecemaml

Hi all, first of all, thank you for taking part in this Request for Comments. Atama's done a great job in the mediation but, as he points out, all of us have been inflexible enough to make a definite deal.

I'd like to set first the framework of this issue.

The disputed article talks about Gibraltar, a former British colony, now a British Overseas Territory, part of the European Union. However, there are no separate articles for the British entity and for the city (that is, the article deals with Gibraltar as a whole, not following, for instance, the approach of Taiwan and the Republic of China). A brief summary of the history of Gibraltar is as follows: Gibraltar was a Spanish town, captured to the Moors in the fifteenth century that become the head of an extensive municipal term (the Campo de Gibraltar) for two centuries and a half. It was captured in 1704 during the War of the Spanish Succession by a mainly Anglo-Dutch force on behalf of one of the claimants to the Spanish Throne, the Archduke Charles (a Habsburg). As a result of the takeover, the Spanish population of the city left it, settled down in different parts of the municipal term. In 1713, the town, yet occupied, was ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht. In 1713, the history of British Gibraltar formally begun (I focus on this issue since one of the recurrent arguments are that "Gibraltar is not Spain"; well, Gibraltar "was" Spain for two centuries and a half and only was only de iure British since 1713). Therefore, talking about the Spanish period of Gibraltar is perfectly valid. Doing it otherwise would be a evident POV.

The disputed section deals with the capture of Gibraltar in 1704 and the destiny of its population. It's has been argued that once the town was captured (I remember, on behalf of a claimant Spain king) nothing that happens outside the walls of the town (again, I remember that Gibraltar was an extensive municipality in 1704 and remained so, at least formally, until 1713; what nowadays is Gibraltar is of course nothing more than the town) is relevant to the article (there is a graphic statement in [here]: "The main thing to know is the Spanish lost, left and are never coming back"). There has been a long mediation process handled by Atama on the way to describe the capture. Though not confortable with the final result, Cremallera, Imalbornoz and me have agreed to accept a compromise with the text. However, there has been no compromise in how to deal with what happened with the Gibraltar population once they left the city.

My first approach was simply using reliable secondary sources to assess the best way to deal with it. You can see a survey of secondary texts in here (yes, I'll remove extensive quotations once this issue is settled). Mind that only English-speaking bibliography (although it could suffer from systemic bias, I've preferred to use it to avoid any propaganda suspicion). However, if you take the effort to read them (they're just four excerpts), you'll see the following: the Gibraltar population left the head of the municipal term (the very town of Gibraltar) and scattered through the municipal term, but mainly in San Roque (you'll notice phrases such as "the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque" or "Most Catholics (..) transported themselves and their movables across the new frontier to the Campo de Gibraltar, and especially to San Roque").

The important issue here is that all historians of Gibraltar mentions San Roque (and acknowledge that it was the main settlement of the Gibraltar refugees). That is, the movement of mostly of the population of Gibraltar to San Roque is something that is unanimous and extensively described by any secondary sources dealing with the issue (not to talk of Spanish bibliography). That is outside any doubt. That is, as long as Wikipedia principles with regard to original research are concerned, it's factually accurate and supported by any relevant source to ask for the mention of San Roque in this stage of the history of Gibraltar (remember, we're talking about Gibraltar as a whole).

There is an extra point to defend the relevancy of San Roque to the history of Gibraltar. San Roque establised itself as the "continuation" of Gibraltar (as it kept its historical standard, granted by the Catholic Monarchs, its establishment privilege, its coat of arms, its records, its city council...). And it did it in the Gibraltar municipal term, taking over the whole of the Gibraltar municipal term. That status was formally recognized in 1706, when the status of the town of Gibraltar was still dubious (it was not British until 1713). Mind also that the status of San Roque was not recognized until the failure of the contrasiege laid by Spanish and French troops in 174-1705 (in which Gibraltar inhabitants took part, see Simón Susarte). It can be argued that the Gibraltar population left the town in many occasions (that's right and should be mentioned), but this time is the first (and only) time in the history of Gibraltar that the regufees keep a vivid (and legal) memory of its roots and its relationship to the lost town.

The current version of the Gibraltar article does not mention (of course only in the section related to the history of Gibraltar, again, not the history of British Gibraltar) anything about the Spanish municipality of Gibraltar (its Campo). It does not mention San Roque. It does not mention its standard, its coat of arms, the motto granted by Philip V ("My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo."). Not mentioning the latter information might be right (as it's mostly relevant to San Roque in itself). But not mentioning the former (that most of the Spanish population of Gibraltar settled down in San Roque) is, IMHO, a blatant POV.

There is a question that should not be forgotten. The fact that Spain actively claims Gibratar to be transferred back to Spain. Spain's pressure during the Franco's dictatorship went further as closing the communication with Gibraltar, which caused a extraordinary suffering to Gibraltarians. It possibly contaminates all discussions related to Gibraltar. When during the Franco's dictatorship, the dictator tried to twist the Gibraltarians hand (he didn't treat their own citizens much better), one of the arguments that the dictatorship used was that the population of Gibraltar was allegedly "artificially planned" to the prejudice of the original population which "had been expelled". Moreover, when the Gibraltar question was analyzed by the UN Committee on Decolonization in 1964, the mayor (a Francoist official) of San Roque was given a hearing as a representative of the 'Town of San Roque where the most noble and loyal city of Gibraltar dwells' (that's only a translation of the San Roque's motto). He described San Roque as the direct continuator of the old town of Gibraltar, occupied by the English, having been established by the original and real Gibraltarians ['gibraltareños' in the original text] and to its inhabitants as the descendants of the original and real Gibratarians [same comment] or the legitimate Gibraltarians [same comment]. Gibraltarians are described as the current population of Gibraltar. I understand that Franco's statements (about real and not real Gibraltarians) deeply hurt Gibraltarians. However, IMHO, only because a fact is malliciously used it does not mean that such a fact must be hidden as long as it is accurately described, without introducing assessments (remember NPOV summary: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves").

Finally, with regard to "undue balance", at the moment, the section on history is 135-line long (cutting and pasting the text in a standart word processor). The section devoted to the "Spanish" and Habsburg Gibraltar is 12 + 12-line long (12 in the section named "The Spanish period" and 12 in the opening section named "The British period", which should be renamed to "The Habsburg period", as most of the historians do; otherwise is a new POV). What I'm proposing (see below) add just three lines to the overall text. Mind also that most of what is listed in the section "The Spanish period" is a minor incident that is not recorded by most of the historians dealing with the History of Gibraltar. Nothing is said, however, about the royal donation to the town of Gibraltar to establish its municipal term, for instance.

To sum up (and thank you if you're reached this point), I can't see any valid reason to hide the fact that most of the Gibraltar population that left the town in 1704 established in what nowadays is San Roque, as long as such a mention is included in the proper place, the section on history dealing with this period of time. I'm not proposing a paragraph, only one sentence (in bold the text currently in the article):

“ By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed for the Campo de Gibraltar. Most of them took refuge around the hill of San Roque, inside the municipality of Gibraltar, and created a settlement which would later become the town of San Roque and be granted the arms and constitution of Gibraltar. ”

Besides, I'm proposing that the first two paragraphs in "The British period" (including my proposals) are set in a section named "The Habsburg period".

Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the RfC to which I respond. San Roque, as the destination of inhabitants fleeing from Gibraltar, is notable precisely because of the fact which so annoys some people. That is, the historical continuity of the town with Gibraltar. Ecemaml has kindly provided suitable sources which support his suggestion. Support the brief mention, per Ecemaml.

Weak Oppose the idea of setting the first two paragraphs in "The British period" into a new section named "The Habsburg period". If anyone wishes to do so I would suggest first presenting evidence of not only de jure claims and fictions, but also of actual control at this time, to demonstrate that at the time the Hapsburgs had more influence over Gibraltar than the British. Periodization can only be tentative, of course, but I suggest that the Hapsburg control was in name only and left no notable legacy.

I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Richard, you've raised an interesting point. I insisted two much in the San Roque issue and not in the Habsburg one. My suggestion is not actually related to de iure claims and fictions. The issue is that the British, as time went by, begun to increase its control of the town (however there were Dutch garrisons in the town until 1713). Stating that Gibraltar was British in 1705 or 1706 is factually wrong. Stating it in 1711 was true although as a mere occupation. However, it's not me the one to argue about this topic but secondary sources.

Let's make a survey among historians (the ones I quote in Selected Quotations...): Hills devoted four chapters to the 1704-1713 period: Gibraltar under 'Charles III of Spain' 1704 (Siege 12), Gibraltar under 'Charles III of Spain' 1705 (Siege 12 cont.), From 'Spanish' to 'British' Gibraltar 1706-1711 and Britain acquires Gibraltar 1711-1713. As you can see, this author if far from using "British" as an adjective for the whole period. Jackson is quite explicit: Hapsburg Gibraltar: The Eleventh and Twelfth Sieges, 1693 to 1713. Gibraltar. A History, by Maurice Harvey is also explicit: Gibraltar for the Habsburgs: 1704-1713. So, from a Wikipedia point of view, there is no reason not to label this period as Habsburg Gibraltar (even if between 1516 and 1700 Gibraltar was also Habsburg). However, if an ultrasimplification for this article (not for History of Gibraltar) is desired, it could be valid to use "British Gibraltar", although it's factually wrong for the first years of the period. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose although I might admire the attempt to deny that Gibraltar is British, and to claim that the real Gibraltar and Gibraltarians are in San Roque (founded 1706) on the basis that they stole things that were given to Gibraltar, None of this has any place in an article about Gibraltar. At the point that the Spanish inhabitants ran away from future conflict and justice for their crimes, they ceased being any part of the territory of Gibraltar as it has been since that date. --Gibnews (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Gibnews for your statement. After reading it I guess that you haven't even read my statement since you seem to talk about completely different topics. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose This article is already overly long and the facts about San Roque are relevant to San Roque not necessarily Gibraltar. The appropriate place for details of the events are the History of Gibraltar not an overview article of this nature. Justin talk 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope this will be my final comment here: San Roque's ongoing relationship to Gibraltar is what makes the matter sufficiently notable for a brief mention in this Wikipedia article, but mentioning them does not imply support for any Spanish claim to Gibraltar. We are describing a minor historical fact, any discussion of its dubious relevance to land claims belongs in another article. Just my opinion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

San Roque's ongoing relationship is no more or less with Gibraltar than any other town in the area, and certainly less than with La Linea, because the latter adjoins. The reason that some editors want to include it and build it up is for political purposes as its used to justify the Spanish irredentist claim suggesting that the people living there have a title to Gibraltar. The 'minor historical fact' if it is indeed a fact rather than a myth, belongs in the history of Gibraltar article, and the article about San Roque itself and not in the main Gibraltar article, where we are struggling to be concise and the information on Gibraltar post 1704 is more significant and interesting to people in general. --Gibnews (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Justin A Kuntz

Some of the above statements are not entirely correct, in fact I would go so far to state that it is actually disingenuous.

One side of this dispute has been flexible, they have pointed out that the detail of the mention of San Roque belongs in the article History of Gibraltar, whereas this article being more general and an overview, then details of the ultimate destination of the people who left in 1704 is not suitable. The other side insists absolutely it must be mentioned, with additional details and have not been prepared to compromise on that.

The problem with this article is that it is already too long by wikipedia standards. Before this dispute blew up, we were in the process of reducing its size. Hence, we are reluctant to add significant additional detail. As this is an overview article we cannot cover every single aspect of what happened and in summarising the events we have to prune some facts. The people who left in 1704 played no further part in the history of Gibraltar, nor were there any consequences to their movement and so the details of what happened to them is not necessary for this article. A reader who wishes to know more can simply look at the greater detail on the History of Gibraltar.

Now this position has been explained but the dispute has gotten somewhat bad tempered, with accusations of bias, suppression of the truth, or even vetoing any mention of San Roque; clearly a false accusation since we suggest not unreasonably that it be mentioned on the history article.

I am rather glad that Ecemaml has mentioned in balance a rather nasty and racist aspect of the Spanish claim, that the populace of Gibraltar are not the "real" Gibraltarians but merely implanted colonists whose views are of no consequence. It should also be mentioned in the interests of full disclosure that this extreme Spanish nationalist viewpoint has been espoused off-wiki by one of the protagonists pushing for this proposal (though he does now disown them).

To single out San Roque is also inaccurate, since as noted in Sir William Jackson's Rock of the Gibraltarians the population dispersed in the Campo de Gibraltar seeking temporary homes, with some travelling as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga. The fishermen and their families moved into the ruins of Algeciras. The most important settlement was established around the Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." The city council, banner, and records were moved there, and San Roque become Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar.

So whilst San Roque was one of the main settlements it was not the only one. Further the details belong in the article on San Roque but not necessarily here.

Now a compromise was suggested that mentioned the population left for nearby areas of Spain, wikilinked to the Campo de Gibraltar. This was previously rejected out of hand because it didn't mention San Roque.

So I would suggest the compromise we put forward of mentioning the Campo de Gibraltar and leaving the details for the History of Gibraltar, facts relevant to San Roque are already mentioned in San Roque, Cadiz. It provides due coverage in what is an overview article, wikilinks to find more general information and the two articles History of Gibraltar and San Roque, Cadiz provide the details. This provides the coverage that apparently people desire, without overburdening this article with details of nearby Spanish towns.

One final request, can we please avoid flooding the talk page with contentious argument to avoid smothering any discussion by the none involved. Justin talk 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Answer to Justin's statement

It's interesting the way to approach the issue by Justin, I must admit. I could go point by point but it would be too verbose, so I'll try to focus on the key elements of his statement. Most of it is simply a set of provocations and slanders towards the rest of participants of this RfC. I won't play that game, although I could (for example, one of the parties is the one that has been openly described as POV editor, and not by the other party). I'm not particularly interested in these role-playing aspects of wikipedia. I'm here to write good articles.

I'd focus, however, in specific statements:

• "Some of the above statements are not entirely correct". However, you haven't provided any indication about which not "entirely correct" statements I've made.
• "One side of this dispute has been flexible, they have pointed out that the detail of the mention of San Roque belongs in the article History of Gibraltar". I beg your pardon but, if your "flexibility" is "accepting" that San Roque may me mentioned in History of Gibraltar (something that already happens as it's a fact extensively mentioned by any historian working in the topic), it's possibly because my poor English prevents me from understading what you mean with flexibility. It'd be so generous by "one side"...
• "The other side insists absolutely it must [not] be mentioned"
• "The problem with this article is that it is already too long by wikipedia standards". Well, I don't know which standards you're mentioning. However, only to provide a comparison, the Gibraltar article fits into 20 standard pages of a word processor (if you wish the configuariont details I can provide them). The UK article (which does not include details prior to 1707) fits into 31 pages (I understand that there is not any rule that requires a dependent territory to have a shorter article that a state).
• "Before this dispute blew up, we were in the process of reducing its size." Here you have sections or paragraphs that could be got ridden of the principal article: the interesting but irrelevant anecdote related to the "Conversos" in Gibraltar (simply because it's omitted by most of the historians of Gibraltar), mentions to Minorca, the mention to the "British neutral ground" in the history section (it would belong to the articles on disputes and, at most, as a mention in the communications section, since it affects the airport), the whole section "Spanish Civil War" (as it focuses in irrelevant military incidents), the mention to 1981 honeymoon of Charles and Diana, the excesive detail on the Cordoba agreements, the incidents in the "British waters" (which besides going into too much detail, omits, as usual the fact that such waters are claimed by Spain, another POV in the text), the details on the 2007 election (recentism), the section on the Eastside Development, the details on the National Day (recentism), the whole "tercentenary" section (recentism), the whole section on the Falkland Islands and a severe reduction in the Attempted IRA Bombing issue (recentism). It would reduce the size of the article to 17 pages. However, we're arguing for 2 lines of text.
• "The people who left in 1704 played no further part in the history of Gibraltar, nor were there any consequences to their movement and so the details of what happened to them is not necessary for this article." Playing further part or not in the history of Gibraltar is an entirely new concept in History study (the first time I've heard of it and possibly most of the historians in the world would ask for a new job). If we followed such a weird approach, we'd never mention the Neanderthals, Tariq ibn Ziyad, the Battle of Gibraltar, the Archduke Charles, the Battle of Gibraltar, the operation Felix or Władysław Sikorski as none of them played "further part in the history of Gibraltar". However, this time San Roque seems to be unacceptable. Is it related to being currently a Spanish town?
• "So whilst San Roque was one of the main settlements..." No, it was the main settlement, not "one of the main settlements". It's amazing that just after quoting Jackson ("The most important settlement was...") you contradict him claiming that it was just "one of the main settlements". However, I can't see any problem in mentioning Algeciras y Los Barrios also
• "Now a compromise was suggested that mentioned the population left for nearby areas of Spain, wikilinked to the Campo de Gibraltar. This was previously rejected out of hand because it didn't mention San Roque." No, it has been rejected simply because it's not accurate. Stating that there was a wave of Italian inmigration to America in late 19th and 20th century is truy however vague. Stating that there was a wave of Italian inmigration to America (mainly to Argentina and the United States) in late 19th and 20th century is not only true but more precise and simply 7 words longer.
• "without overburdening this article with details of nearby Spanish towns." Which details?

Here you have my proposal, stripping most of the "details"

“ By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed for the Campo de Gibraltar. Most of them settled nearby, in which later become the town of San Roque. Others in Algeciras an Los Barrios. ”

Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you find it interesting, I prefer to simply discuss content but felt the need to defend myself given that you opened the statement by attacking the people holding an opposing viewpoint.

"However, you haven't provided any indication about which not "entirely correct" statements I've made."

OH but I did, you claimed we'd been inflexible, whereas we had. In fact I think you'll find that the principle authors of the compromise text was Gibnews and myself. The record is on the archive page, equally the record is there with you coming close to derailing compromise by re-introducing disputed text. I would urge anyone to check this out for themselves.

"I beg your pardon but, if your "flexibility" is "accepting" that San Roque may me mentioned in History of Gibraltar"

Thank for proving my point, that is a compromise, in return your position is to angrily slam your fist on the table demanding it MUST BE MENTIONED IN THIS ARTICLE AND ONLY THAT IS ACCEPTABLE.

"Well, I don't know which standards you're mentioning."

There are clear guidelines for the size of articles, we're already over them. This is an overview not a tome on a small piece of history. As an administrator your professed ignorance of guidelines, well assuming good faith, that surprises me.

"Playing further part or not in the history of Gibraltar is an entirely new concept in History study "

Ah I see criticism by ridicule, how enterprising, it also happens to be a clear sign of someone losing the argument. You may want to consider that. However, the point I make is a perfectly valid criteria for deciding the facts to include on an overview on the topic of Gibraltar. Conversely not for a historical article but then we've been through that.

"No, it was the main settlement, not "one of the main settlements"

No, the sources say it was the most important settlement, there is a difference.

"No, it has been rejected simply because it's not accurate."

Lets not try to move the goal posts after the goal has been scored, the referee has blown the final whistle and Scotland has won the world cup shall we. The precise reason it was rejected was because it didn't mention San Roque.

And sorry but the text you quoted isn't supported by the source, your favourite author Jackson quotes

• William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. pp. 101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. :

“ On 7 August a dejected procession filed out of the Land Port with Queen Isabella's banner at their head, followed by the city council, the garrison with their three brass cannon, the religious orders, and all the inhabitants who did not wish to take the oath of allegiance to Charles III. Some four thousand people left the city; only about seventy of the original Spanish inhabitants took the risk of staying behind in the town that at the time had twelve hundred dwellings. (..) Then they disperses into the Campo seeking temporary homes. One of the leading city councillors offered to keep Isabella's banner and the city records in this country house. Some people travelled as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga to find refuge. Most of the fishermen and their families moved into the ruins of Algeciras and restarted not only their own lives there but the life of Algeciras. Other families settled nearby at Los Barrios that had grown into a small town by 1716. Members of the religious orders found havens in the monasteries and nunneries throughout southern Andalucia. But the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." The city council, banner, and records were moved there, and San Roque become Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar. ”

Emphasis added, I note that the source supports the compromise we suggested almost perfectly. It does help to include the full quote and to not cherry pick only the bit you like. It does give a rather different perspective. Justin talk 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I do love a spot of irony, "Most of it is simply a set of provocations and slanders towards the rest of participants of this RfC. I won't play that game" then goes on with "although I could (for example, one of the parties is the one that has been openly described as POV editor, and not by the other party)." Irony, not to mention chutzpah, so thick you could eat it with a spoon. Especially noting your naked attack on Pfainuk. Justin talk 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And I love the criticism of the article as wp:recent The attempted IRA bombing was an international news story which is still rattling around, it is one of the landmark events in Gibraltar (and the IRA's) History. There are at least six wikipedia pages about it which are still hotly contested and subject to edit wars. The attempted terrorist attack by the Argentines is less well known, but is interesting in that at the time the Spanish quietly put them on an aircraft - one would expect something better in the post 9/11 world. Of course there is a precedent from WW2 described in Lionel Crabb. It may be that Spanish readers are more interested in where exactly the spanish who ran away from future conflict in 1704 went. Mentioning the Campo Gibraltar was rejected only because it did not support the myth of San Roque, Cadiz being the 'real' Gibraltar. The history of Gibraltar post 1704 is extensive, better documented, and a lot more interesting and appropriate to most people. --Gibnews (talk)

Addendum

Just to comment on one aspect of the logic claimed for this proposal, that many authors of historical texts mention San Roque, yes they do. I'm sure reams of citations will be produced for that. However, the logic that because authors mention it in history books it must be inserted in this article is flawed. If we're obliged to mention every single fact that an author deems relevant, we could never have a short article. Noticeably other encyclopedias don't feel the need to mention it [1]. Justin talk 22:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose specific mention of San Roque - to my mind the appropriate question to ask seems to be whether the foundation of San Roque in particular, as opposed to the departure of the townspeople in general, has had any significant practical impact on the later history of Gibraltar. For a summary history such as this, I think this is a fair test: details can go on more detailed articles. Neither side has argued, and the article doesn't suggest, that the foundation of San Roque has had such an impact; as such I do not believe that it needs to be mentioned explicitly - particularly if, as Justin suggests, San Roque was not the primary destination for the former townspeople of Gibraltar (as opposed to the largest single destination for those same townspeople). Pfainuk talk 23:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pfainuk, nice to see you here again. I thought that opinions from uninvolved people was requested, but anyway, your comments are welcome. I've already asked Justin on your statement about that only events with "significant practical impact on the later history of Gibraltar" (in the best case it leads to recentism, in the worst to POV, as the most recent period, the British, would be privileged) must be mentioned. Following your approach I assume that Neanderthals, Tariq ibn Ziyad, the Battle of Gibraltar, the Archduke Charles, the Battle of Gibraltar, the operation Felix or [[Władysław Sikorski] should not be mentioned at all. It's strange that such removals hadn't been suggested in the past.

On the other hand, your statement ("particularly if, as Justin suggests, San Roque was not the primary destination for the former townspeople of Gibraltar") is surprising. I didn't thought Justin was a reliable secondary source. Unfortunately, what Justin "suggests" is simply untrue. Let's see:

• William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. p. 101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.:

“ Some people travelled as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga to find refuge. Most of the fishermen and their families moved into the ruins of Algeciras and restarted not only their own lives there but the life of Algeciras. Other families settled nearby at Los Barrios that had grown into a small town by 1716. Members of the religious orders found havens in the monasteries and nunneries throughout southern Andalucia. But the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque (..) ”

• Stephen Constantine (2009). Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704. Manchester University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-7190-8054-8.

“ Most Catholics, perhaps 1,500 families, maybe 5,000–6,000 people, transported themselves and their movables across the new frontier to the Campo de Gibraltar, and especially to San Roque ”

Unfortunately, as the historians on the topic suggest San Roque was the primary destination for the former townspeople of Gibraltar. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your own source contradicts the assertion you make "Most of the fishermen and their families moved into the ruins of Algeciras and restarted not only their own lives there but the life of Algeciras.". The sources describe San Roque as the most important, whether this is simply a language issue I don't know but the most important is not synonymous with most populace. Justin talk 22:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Further Pfainuk played no part in the dispute, his comments are perfectly valid. The ad hominem attacks are out of order. Can we expect anyone who opposes to be subject to such attacks? Justin talk 22:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I draw a distinction between "the primary destination" and "the largest single destination". Perhaps I should clarify this distinction further (this may be a language issue or it may be me expressing myself badly). If San Roque was the "primary destination", then a decent-sized majority of the former townspeople of Gibraltar went there, and there was no significant concentration anywhere else. If it was merely the largest single settlement then sizeable groups ended up in various towns in the Campo or in Andalusia, but more ended up in San Roque than in any other individual town. By this measure, for example, Moscow is not the primary city in Europe, merely the largest single city in Europe.

Both you and Justin cite a source that suggests that San Roque may well have been the largest single destination, but not the primary destination for the former townspeople of Gibraltar - so I cannot accept that that suggestion is "simply untrue".

On "significant practical impact on the later history of Gibraltar". Plainly, we're trying to summarise the history of Gibraltar here - major points of Gibraltar's history obviously have to go in. But we really shouldn't be going into much more than the major points - the rest can go to a dedicated article. The founding of San Roque is not a suitably major event in the history of Gibraltar. The exodus is, but the founding of San Roque isn't. It may well be sufficiently significant in the context of a summary history of the dispute, or in the context of a summary history of the Campo de Gibraltar, but not in a summary history of Gibraltar itself IMO.

Note that I don't say impact on modern Gibraltar, but rather on the later history of Gibraltar. If the existence of San Roque had become a significant part of the historical narrative later on - in the Napoleonic Wars or World War Two, then the circumstances of San Roque's founding would have to be explained. But there's no evidence of that. Pfainuk talk 23:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are good points, Pfainuk. First of all, please notice that the history of Gibraltar and the history of the Campo de Gibraltar prior to 1713 are pretty much the same issue. It was a township as a whole (a single "administrative division"). The frontier and all that mess comes after the capture and subsequent cession in 1713 (with San Roque replacing Gibraltar with regard to the coat of arms, local council...). In 1704 there was a massive migration of the population of Gibraltar within the township as a consequence of its siege and capture. It is a significant historical incident and as such is addressed by every cited historian. There's really no point in locating the origin of this exodus but eschewing the journey's end. And not a single secondary source proceeds this way, as far as I know.

As a response to your reasoning, the town of San Roque has indeed influenced the history of Gibraltar. It has been a base for every following siege of the fortress, its people has participated in such blockades, has suffered raids and attacks of the british troops and has had its impact to this day in events such as the UN Committee on Decolonisation assemblies. Mentioning San Roque would provide the reader with a better understanding of Gibraltar's history as a whole, and of its relations with Spain, in particular. Best regards. Cremallera (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

But San Roque wasn't the destination, the sources say dispersed into the Campo de Gibraltar (supporting the proffered compromise), then going onto to found Algeciras, San Roque and going farther afield. Yes San Roque was the most important as the Spanish governance was transferred there but this fact is relevant to San Roque not Gibraltar. The UN Decolonisation Committee reference is relevant to the Disputed Status of Gibraltar.

The one thing I would agree merits further discussion is the point where it has impact on the subsequent history of Gibraltar as the basis for future assaults on Gibraltar. Lets hope it doesn't get swamped in the usual acrimony. Justin talk 00:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin, sources are pretty much unanimous in stating that althought the hermit of San Roque wasn't the only terminus, it was the destination of a majority of the townsfolk, who settled there. As for the UN Decolonisation Committee not being relevant to Gibraltar, well, that's your opinion. As I've stated previously, the criteria to assess objective relevance values to the information should be coverage amongst secondary sources. I was just responding to some good points raised by Pfainuk here. Regards. Cremallera (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you, perhaps, cite any major event in later Gibraltar history (so, after San Roque was founded) where an understanding of the background of settlement in San Roque is crucial to the understanding of the events that took place in Gibraltar?

You argue that the history of Gibraltar and the history of the Campo are the same prior to 1713 based on their being part of the same administrative division. I would suggest that it is perfectly possible for different parts of a single administrative division to have different histories or to be affected by events in different ways - particularly where the administrative division includes both rural and urban areas.

But regardless, the reason why I suggest that that it may be relevant in the context of a summary history of the Campo de Gibraltar is that it is a significant town in its own right. Equally, the background of the foundation of La Línea or of Algeciras would be relevant to such a history. But, like Algeciras and La Línea, San Roque is not part of the modern British Overseas Territory, and this article's summary history should, IMO, concentrate on the history of the BOT and of the town, leaving out other historical events unless they are immediately relevant to the history of the town.

And that brings me back where I started. The sieges are perfectly well understood without an understanding of the history of the town where those besieging were based. The UN Decolonization Committee meetings do not credibly constitute a significant event in Gibraltar's history - they are not significant enough to be included in what is intended to be a short summary history. If they ever have an important practical effect on Gibraltar then I may reassess my view here, but they haven't so far. And even if they do count as a significant event, it would still not require an understanding of the history of San Roque to understand the meetings. So, as I say, is there a major event in Gibraltar history post-1706 where an understanding of the background of settlement in San Roque is crucial to the understanding of the events that took place in Gibraltar?

That said, I may quit at this point. I don't desperately want to get drawn back into the big Gibraltar hoo-haa. There was a request for comment, so I answered. You now have my answer. Though I should say, if you're worried about POV on Gibraltar-related articles, I rather think you're concentrating on the wrong one. Pfainuk talk 19:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cremallera

This article reviews, albeit briefly, most of Gibraltar's history in the appropriate section. The territory has been inhabited since the Stone Age, later populated by the phoenicians, carthaginians and Vandals; it has been part of muslim iberia until conquered by the Kingdom of Castile following the Reconquista, and of Spain since the establishment of the Spanish Crown in 1479, until its cession in 1713. In 1704 it was captured by Anglo-Dutch troops on behalf of the austriacist side of the War of the Spanish Succession, and its population fled from the town, but not from the township, to settle down mostly in the Saint Roch's shrine nearby. Franco-Spanish troops tried to recapture the fortress between 1704 and 1705, eventually lifting up the siege. At this point, in 1706, King Philip V of Spain granted the aforementioned settlement the status of "city". The Crown of Great Britain obtained Gibraltar in 1713, by the means of the Treaty of Utrecht.

All this (and much more) is covered in the history section of the article, except the foundation of the neighbouring town of San Roque as a direct consequence of the 1704 capture. Not every existing municipality can claim to be cause of the foundation of another city. Neither historian disregards this connection in the works concerning Gibraltar's history. You can read some related excerpts of the following books "Rock of the Gibraltarians", "Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar" and "Gibraltar. A History" (written by Sir William Jackson, George Hills, and Maurice Harvey respectively) here. Allen Andrews' "Proud Fortress. The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar" alludes to this incident too, and so does Ayala's "Historia de Gibraltar" (in Spanish, and being quoted as a source by the historians mentioned above) here. I'd like to add that all those unanimous reliable sources constitute the framework by which we understand this particular piece of history, and therefore should be the main criterion to assign objective relevance values to that information, as opposed to some editors' very respectable opinions. And I've used this argument before. Justin, above, anticipates this and states:

• "Just to comment on one aspect of the logic claimed for this proposal, that many authors of historical texts mention San Roque, yes they do. I'm sure reams of citations will be produced for that. However, the logic that because authors mention it in history books it must be inserted in this article is flawed", and "If we're obliged to mention every single fact that an author deems relevant, we could never have a short article". Of course I am not suggesting to verbatim quote every single word of those books. That is absurd. However, when a specific notation is considered cogent enough to merit publishing by every available reliable source, and thus there is consensus amongst scholars and historians, we can assume its relevance per WP:V and WP:RS.

• "The problem with this article is that it is already too long by wikipedia standards". This has already been discussed also. Whilst I agree with him on principle as I consider it too long as well, I can't see how preventing reasoned and abundantly sourced editions complies with WP:SIZE policy. Besides, splitting this article or trimming it down merits a talk page section on its own, and the involvement of several editors to discuss exclusively this point. Count on me then, but for now, we are dealing with another debate.

• "Noticeably other encyclopedias don't feel the need to mention it [2]". Other encyclopedia(s), or Britannica, to be precise, have no bearing in Wikipedia. To be fair, the provided feature does not mention a great deal of the information this article includes, like the "one-year investigation and analysis of 235 countries and territories by Jane’s Country Risk which listed Gibraltar as 5th most prosperous and stable worldwide, and the highest ranked British territory" present in the lead section, the fact that there was "one incident that resulted in the death of Gibraltarians occurred in January 1938 when a submarine of unknown origin, though probably Italian, sank the SS Endymion, a small freighter taking a cargo of coal to Cartagena, which was in Republican hands" in the history section, or several "did you know" mentions on the likes of "In the film The Captain's Paradise, Alec Guinness plays the captain of a ship that travels between Gibraltar and Morocco", or "In 1952 American country singer Frankie Lane had a song called "The Rock of Gibraltar", which made it to #20 in the US Top 40". The discussed addition of San Roque's creation complies with WP:DUE further than any of those examples.

• "Some of the above statements are not entirely correct, in fact I would go so far to state that it is actually disingenuous", "One side of this dispute has been flexible", "Now this position has been explained but the dispute has gotten somewhat bad tempered, with accusations of bias, suppression of the truth, or even vetoing any mention of San Roque; clearly a false accusation since we suggest not unreasonably that it be mentioned on the history article", "I am rather glad that Ecemaml has mentioned in balance a rather nasty and racist aspect of the Spanish claim". Well, I'm not going to tell you whether all those qualifiers are correct or not. That's what archives are for.

And thanks for reading it all! Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment "Other encyclopedia(s), or Britannica, to be precise, have no bearing in Wikipedia." Other encyclopedias are sources too and provide a more objective and independent measure of whether a fact is relevant to an overview article, than detailed treatises by professional historians focused solely on one aspect of the History of Gibraltar. And I don't suggest we mention every single word, (lets not try to invalidate the argument with sarcasm eh?), but make the point that you can't summarise if you mention every single detail from a more focused text.

Also compare apples with apples, not with oranges as it seems the people pushing ever so hard to have this measure added like to do. This is an overview article, it by definition covers a range of topics such as films that depict Gibraltar. Expunging such details to include details of an unrelated town would make the article all the more poorer.

And addressing the first point last, there has only been a push to include ever more details about a town tangentially related to the focus of the article.

Well, I'm not going to tell you whether all those qualifiers are correct or not. That's what archives are for. Indeed they are, so much so I thought it worthy of emphasising that point again. Someone objectively viewing those archives will get their own picture rather than any carefully edited highlights.

I see the appeal to avoid tendentious arguments fell on deaf ears, oh well, never mind. The RFC will attract fewer comments as a result. Justin talk 17:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:PSTS covers using encyclopedias as sources. It's allowed, but encyclopedias vary in terms of reliability. I would imagine that Encyclopedia Britannica would be considered one of the more reliable ones out there. On the other hand, I believe that Cremarella is reminding us that Wikipedia does not have to mirror any other encyclopedia, especially since unlike Britannica it is not paper. -- Atama頭 17:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is a reliable source, most would consider it authorative, but just to also make the point that only selecting the sources you agree with, ignoring sources that conflict, selects a predetermined outcome does it not? Justin talk 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point. Ecemaml, at least, has argued that this article should mention San Roque because every historian does, but Cremarella says that we should ignore Britannica's omission. -- Atama頭 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've argued both, Atama. That's what I tried to explain: on the one hand, Justin, please mind that the absence of statements can't be interpreted as a statement of absence. Thus, you are very entitled to judge San Roque as an "unrelated town" to Gibraltar. However, please understand that Encyclopedia Britannica does not support this opinion, neither do historians Sir William Jackson, George Hills, Maurice Harvey, Allen Andrews nor Ignacio López de Ayala, who have authored a bunch of the existing secondary sources that deal with the issue at stake, and have written otherwise.

On the other hand, Britannica, like any other encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. WP:RS remarks that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources". Of course, I don't mean that Britannica isn't a good source, nor that using an encyclopedia to write an overview isn't a valid approach. What I am saying is that we can't compare tertiary sources to secondary sources to assess the relevance of the information they provide (or the lack of it).

And finally, I am not advocating to expunge such "details" at all. It's been quite amusing to learn that "In the anime series Mobile Suit Gundam SEED, Gibraltar serves as a major military base for the ZAFT forces" ;) What I propose is to include the main destination of Gibraltar's inhabitants after the capture of the town in 1704 as well, just like every available secondary source I know of does. And that's it. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

But the fact you're ignoring is that it is an overview rather than the detailed historical texts you prefer, that it provides an objective and independent example of the core facts that are relevant to Gibraltar. The examples you have cherry picked are all detailed historical texts and no one is arguing that it shouldn't be mentioned on the History of Gibraltar, so please would you stop the tendentious arguments on the false premise that bears no relation to the issue at hand. Further criticism by wikilawyering doesn't impress anyone, the article is based on secondary sources but just because a secondary source mentions a fact, does not mean it has to be repeated. That is the logical fallacy you just don't seem to grasp, sources don't dictate the content of an article consensus does. No one is saying we can never mention San Roque, merely the overview of Gibraltar isn't the right place. Please discuss the issue at hand, rather than trying to paint anyone who disagrees with you as suppressing the truth, wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs.

And finally as regards the tufty nonsense in the Cultural section, that was the prime candidate to be trimmed if you'd bothered to read the archive (I know how much you like to drag things up from the past). But what stays and what goes is decided by concensus. Remember concensus, that annoying wikipedia policy that says people have to agree, not what you can wikilawyer or bulldoze by edit warring. Justin talk 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Just because a secondary source mentions a fact, does not mean it has to be repeated. That is the logical fallacy you just don't seem to grasp, sources don't dictate the content of an article consensus does". Right. And when every secondary source mentions it and the only reason preventing consensus is an opinion based on what a tertiary source does not state, where's the logical fallacy? And please, spare me the epithets regarding "wikilawyering", my "tendentious" arguments, or "cherrypicking" (up to 5 distinct) references. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What else would you call it, using excuses to ignore sources that contradict the pre-conceived idea you picked a series of sources to support? Its unsurprising that they re-inforce the initial presumption is it not? I have explained the logical fallacy but feel free to continue with the tendentious arguments and ad hominem attacks. I fear you'll find that it doesn't re-inforce your argument, rather it appears like you have no confidence in it. Also the thread become tl;dr. Ciao. Justin talk 22:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Excuses? There's a clear difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources, Justin. Please, do read this. And I don't intend this to be an attack. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, I guess the point went over your head, tell you what, why not let participants in the RFC decide for themselves, I've said my piece. We shall see. Justin talk 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact there are many differences between the Britannica Gibraltar article and the Wikipedia article. A few examples: Britannica's introduction says that Gibraltar is a "British overseas territory" while WP says that it is a "self-governing British overseas territory"; also, Britannica does not mention the Jane report, or some movie where sir Alec Guinness played the captain of a boat that covered the line between Gibraltar and Morocco, or the Mobile Suit Gundam SEED anime series, or... --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So what Imalbornoz, unless we plan to return to your pet hobby horse of denying that Gibraltar is self-governing territory, denying that it has a measure of democracy that independent observers described as the epitomy of how elections should be conducted, or insisting that the people living and who were born there are imported colonists with no rights. Criticism by ridicule is not productive. Justin talk 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Atama, I have nothing more to say that what the policy states: secondary sources are preferred to tertiary ones. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Imalbornoz

All the historians that have been cited as sources for the History section in the Gibraltar article (most of them English) have considered the following to be relevant enough to be mentioned in their books: Almost all the population of Gibraltar left their village on 7 August 1704, and most of them settled around the chapel of San Roque (6.5 kilometers away from the Rock). Most of these historians also mention that this settlement became permanent and was granted the status of "city" two years later when it was considered as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo" by the then King of Spain, keeping the public records, the standard, etc of the town of Gibraltar. The article currently does not mention San Roque as the final destination of most inhabitants of Gibraltar after their departure in 1704. Some editors argue that the article is already too long and "San Roque" is not relevant enough to be mentioned in the History section of the Gibraltar article.

On the other hand, these same editors are happy to include in the article many other issues which most sources don't consider relevant enough to be mentioned in their books. For example, only three paragraphs above the capture of Gibraltar[3], the article describes that some Sephardim left for "Cordoba" after a stay of only a couple of years in Gibraltar.

If we are going to judge the relevance of events according to their being mentioned by secondary sources, the "San Roque" episode should be considered more relevant than the "Cordoba" episode -for example- and also many other events that have much less coverage in secondary sources than San Roque. Therefore, I think that excluding "San Roque" from the Gibraltar article is not justified.

I have my own opinion about the relevance of "San Roque" in the history of Gibraltar (I honestly think that the fact that the biggest part of previous inhabitants of Gibraltar settled down only 6.5 km from their old homes after the capture of the Rock, and stayed there to found a city keeping historical continuity with the old town of Gibraltar is very relevant). But probably it should not be my opinion which counts, but the relative coverage in secondary sources of this event vis a vis other episodes that are indeed mentioned in the article. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that the forced exile of Sephardim Jews to Cordoba had an impact on their future persecution under the inquisition, whereas the voluntary movement of the population from Gibraltar had no lasting consequences. So please can we compare like with like, instead of trying to pervert it as an example of unequal or preferential treatment. Implying a racial motive for the position of those opposing is dirty pool and kind of pointless since I am in fact half-Spanish. The tendentious arguments and ad hominem attacks are unproductive; they poisoned the previous discussions and have entrenched positions. Please will you just stop. Justin talk 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Ad hominem attacks"? "racial motive"? "dirty pool"? "tendentious arguments"? Have you read my statement? Can you (Atama) explain Justin that none of those is present in it? (or, in case I have incurred into any of those, can you tell me so that I can apologise?) I'm afraid we need to cool things down, or Justin won't listen to me anymore. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"On the other hand, these same editors are happy to include in the article many other issues which most sources don't consider relevant enough to be mentioned in their books." That is an ad hominem attack. Further the accusations of unequal treatment are on the basis of the race and faith of the people involved. We have also discussed the allegations of unequal treatment previously, so bringing them up again was bound to raise tension. Justin talk 00:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I do have a question I've been meaning to ask. One of your sources claims 6000 settled at San Roque, all of the comtemporary counts put the Spanish population of Gibraltar at 4000. Given that a significant chunk of the population settled in Algeciras, Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga it seems unlikely does it not? Further all of the cultural references you keep making are to pronouncements of the Spanish King are relevant to San Roque, Cadiz but ceased to be relevant to Gibraltar and its future development and history in 1704. Its relevance is a historical detail, that belongs in the more detailed History of Gibraltar. Co-incidentally I think its relevant to mention, that whilst you're seeking to add more details to an overview, you're also seeking to remove details of the events of 1704 from that article. Its bizarrely inconsistent to argue for expanding and overview while seeking to expunge details where they are relevant. I for one just don't get it. Justin talk 21:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

For your info:

• Stephen Constantine (2009). Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704. Manchester University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-7190-8054-8.

“ But this time the civilian population’s concerns for their safety under British control were compounded by not unreasonable fears of mistreatment by Protestant troops. Most Catholics, perhaps 1,500 families, maybe 5,000–6,000 people, transported themselves and their movables across the new frontier to the Campo de Gibraltar, and especially to San Roque.[note 9].

[note 9]: Caruana, Cloud, p. 6, suggests a total population before the siege of about 6,000, whereas Hills, Rock, pp. 176–7, estimates a civilian population of 4,000–5,000.

”

You're welcome. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC) PS: on the other hand, where does your weird statement "significant chunk of the population settled in Algeciras, Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga" comes from? None of the sources (but you, and you're not a source) talks about "significant chunks"

Your favourite source Jackson, since when you quote the full text he points out the fishermen and their families settled in Algeciras. I'm so sorry that I used colloquial English, is your argument so weak that you're reduced to semantic arguments about English usage? Or was that just an attempt to get a rise and reduce this to a senseless confrontation again. Don't you get it, I'm not biting. Justin talk 23:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't necessary. Ecemaml, it's not helpful to call Justin's statement "weird", even if you disagree with it. It's not like he made a completely inappropriate remark or tried to change the subject, he was questioning the accuracy of the source. Justin, there's no need to attack Ecemaml over this, it's reasonable to question whether or not the number of people settling in other locations after leaving Gibraltar are "significant". It's not a colloquialism, it's original research or personal opinion if you can't attribute it to a source, or at least an exaggeration. -- Atama頭 23:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its unhelpful to point out there are major discrepancies in what the sources say, particularly about numbers. Equally it is not unreasonable to point out that the very source Ecemaml quotes points out that MOST fishermen and their families chose to reside in Algeciras. Since fishing was one of the main occupations, in Gibraltar the use of the colloquialism "signficant chunk" is perhaps poor grammar but neither inaccurate, nor OR, nor personal opinion. It might tentatively be described as an exaggeration at a push. However, I merely asked why there were more people settling in San Roque than apparently left Gibraltar according to the sources being used and it is not an unreasonable question. One source (Hills) quotes an eye witness with 4000, another speculates at around 5-6000 and yet another quotes 6000 founding San Roque. Things don't add up between sources, so can we actually address that rather than attacking the person making the observation. Justin talk 23:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Procedural request

Any chance we can move the comments by outside parties to a separate section? The extended arguments by participants are making the comments that you've requested difficult to spot. Don't want to do it myself without consensus that it's fair enough since it's a little close to editing others' comments, but I think it would be useful... Pfainuk talk 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think it's a pretty good idea. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hence, my appeal to avoid tendentious arguments by the participants....doesn't seem to have been taken up though. :-) Justin talk 21:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. To start another heated discussion is of no use and it can scare away potential outside commentators. If we really want some outside commentators at all, inside editors of the Gibraltar article (myself, Ecemaml, Cremallera, Justin, Gibnews, Pfainuk,...) would better refrain from commenting. And maybe we should also move somewhere else the comments we have made in the RfC so far (maybe except for each inside editor's "statements"). I am ready if you are. --Imalbornoz (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pfainuk has played no part in the discussion and is not a party to the dispute, so why are we trying to remove his comments? I'm sorry but I did appeal for no further tendentious arguments, since the attempt to denigrate the other side started with the very first statement. I have only defended myself and I'm not going to see that expunged, nor would I like to see the attempts to bait Gibnews into making an ill-tempered remark.

I'm happy for the RFC to proceed on the basis of the arguments, I won't make any further remarks provided you and your friends do the same. But I feel there should be at least one further disclosure from your side. Justin talk 22:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Pfainuk has nothing to do with any party in this RfC or with this article... just an outsider. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pfainuk has played no part whatsoever in this dispute as you well know, diffs taken out of context, really plumbing the depths now aren't we. This RFC is doomed, it will be smothered by your tendentious comments. Justin talk 22:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of him being a regular editor to this article or not, Pfainuk is as entitled as any of us to state his opinion. Definitely. If we could just wait for other comments, please... Cremallera (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I was simply surprised by Justin's statements on Pfainuk being an unrelated editor. His comments are obviously welcome, just as any other involved one. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So, a diff from fifteen months ago and proof that I haven't edited the article since July. You'll forgive me if I don't find that compelling evidence that I'm involved in this dispute... Pfainuk talk 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course Pfainuk is welcome to comment. I only included him in the list of inside editors because one of the versions of the paragraph under dispute was proposed by himself in the talk page last September [4]. Again, shouldn't we just limit ourselves to the statements and put our comments somewhere else? I just want to leave more room to outside editors. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) How would you all prefer this to be structured? I agree that some comments can be lost in this discussion with the long statements and back-and-forth between disputants. I had considered creating a subpage, like Talk:Gibraltar/RFC Statements and moving the statements there, but then I wasn't sure whether the responses to the statements should also be moved because some of the comments from outside participants are replies to those statements. But leaving the responses without the statements would remove the context and make it more difficult to understand the comments.

What about collapsing the statements? Anyone who wants to read them can expand them to do so, but when not expanded the RFC section would be much smaller. How does that sound? -- Atama頭 23:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, it's the comments from us inside editors (who just can't resist the temptation to respond when one of us makes yet another comment) what is the problem, clogging the RfC and -possibly- scaring outside commentators. I think that collapsible parts of the discussion are a very good idea, but I would include any comment coming from us, not the statements (or -at least- not just the statements). How does that sound? --Imalbornoz (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If we had gone with my initial suggestion of merely stating our arguments that would have worked. But it immediately started with a statement that made certain allegations about other editor's motives and that poisoned the well. Now I would suggest we stop the comments, leave the narrative as it is and hope for a response. But I fear that the tl;dr response will put off participants. I don't agree with removing or moving responses as it will ruin the narrative. We are where we are. Justin talk 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside Imalbornoz, you might like to let Ecemaml know that the Demographics of Gibraltar was drafted with your help and is sourced, seeing as he seems intent on edit warring to keep it out. Justin talk 00:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Justin. It's not really practical to selectively collapse replies, nor should it be necessary. An RFC is an attempt to bring outside opinions into a debate, but that doesn't mean that opinions from insiders are unnecessary nor unwelcome. I do agree that a monopolization of the debate by involved editors is likely to drive away such outside opinions. There are many occasions where I've dropped into an article talk page, looked it over and saw a long page full of heated debate between people and just moved on. It can feel like stepping into a feud (and that's pretty much what it is). Most people are reluctant to do so.

All I can say is to try to keep things civil. Don't bait others, don't assume anyone is baiting you, and don't rise to the bait. If this blows up into a big fight then I think that ArbCom is the last resort and that's pretty messy. The Arbitration Committee, if it accepts a case, is likely to pick carefully over everyone's conduct and I wouldn't be shocked to see someone given restrictions or even a topic ban. I'd like to avoid that if at all possible. -- Atama頭 00:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] The bottom line is that all the information about what happened at that time is unreliable, most of the histories simply quote what others have written, but changing the wording slightly. The only important thing is that the Spanish inhabitants left and since then Gibraltar has developed and prospered. That is what the article should be focused on and not what happens in San Roque as that has an article of its own which has grown from a simple whinge about 1704 to something more useful. --Gibnews (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather than move comments by outside parties to another section, could I suggest that a list of the arguments pro and con should be presented? I might do this over the weekend if other diversions fail me; I would cut, paste and rewrite. The relevant arguments are quite short and if we can agree on what they are we can then, I hope, move on towards a consensus on what the article should include, free from sniping about motives. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's fine with me. Thanks! --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No objection from me, you're a brave man for trying though. Good Luck. Justin talk 12:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, be my guest. Thanks! Cremallera (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Jane's Country Risk Index

Hi all, I've changed the phrasing of the mention to this extraordinarily relevant report.

There are two main reasons. The first one is that it's misleading in the sense that it suggests it has taken one year to analyze Gibraltar. The second and most important is that the report is only about "risk" and not about "prosperity". The source of the mistake is not in the wikipedist that included the text but in the source, which takes some "literary" licenses when describing the report. The Times talks about the most stable and "prosperous" nations. However, when other news agencies talk about this report, only mentions "stability" and not prosperity. See Reuters and UPI. Furthermore, if you go to the original source (that is, Jane's and its parent company, IHS), they talk only about stability (see press release by Jane's, description by Jane's and explicit mentions to Gibraltar in IHS press release and report summary). --Ecemaml (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I see it pays to read the references you quote because the report summary cited says something different to what you assert. --Gibnews (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What seems definitely worthless is wasting our time in your ridiculous assessments. Let's see:

• Summary of the report:

The Jane’s Country Risk Ratings measures the stability of all 235 country, territory and political entities in the world.
The ratings provide a holistic assessment of the various factors that affect stability. The service measures 24 factors across five fundamental categories—political, social, economic, external and military and security.

• My edition:

According to the Jane's Country Risk Ratings 2008, which measures the stability of 235 countries, territories and political entities in the world, Gibraltar is the 5th most stable territory worldwide, and the highest ranked British territory.

So, at the end, the one who's lying it's not me. --Ecemaml (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC) PS: how does your edition complies with your statements about about avoiding "excessive detail"? Double standard? Possibly yes.

I am trying to avoid saying people are lieing because its offensive when you do it. However you are implying that the report only deals with stability, and the reference you cite explains the reasons for their assessment of stability which is based on a large number of critera, so its useful to bring that out by way of an explanation of what is meant, otherwise the term is meaningless. Its a common misconception, particularly in the Spanish media that Gibraltar is a 'parasitic state living off Spain rife with drug smuggling and criminality', rather than a stable prosperous law abiding community., which is implied by this sort of independent assessment. In this case the detail is significant. In the case of comings and goings in Spain 305 years ago by people who subsequently played no part in Gibraltar history, no its not. Now its been explained, perhaps you could insert it in the es.wikipedia so that the readers there are better informed. I would do so but my edits tend to be reverted and people criticise my use of language. --Gibnews (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Umpteenth edit war by Justin

After the edit war created when I allegedly tried to "make a point" including some Spaniards among the Gibraltar-born people, I have to recognize that this time Justin has surprised me once again, since I didn't expected him to start yet another edit war with no apparent justification. Let's see.

Unfortunately, I've got very familiar with Gibraltar-related issues, so, when I read the following text in the section on Demographics, something sounded very strange to me:

“ By 1753 Genoese, Maltese, and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population. Other groups include Minorcans (due to the links between both British possessions during the 18th century; immigration begun in that century and continued even after Minorca was returned to Spain in 1802 by the Treaty of Amiens) Sardinians, Sicilians and other Italians, French, Germans, and the British. ”

The first strange issue was the lack of mention to Jews in Gibraltar, as I know they were one of the main "nations" in 18th century Gibraltar. The second was the lack of mention to the Spaniards, as they has been for the whole history of British Gibraltar more than the Portuguese. The third, and even weirder, was the mention to Maltese people. It's widely known that Malta become a British territory in 1802 so it was impossible such a massive presence.

Well, in this point I could have included a {{fact}} template. But it was not sensible, as I have the means to access the right information. I took one of my books (William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.) and looked for the information. It provided information about the 1753 census (I don't know which this specific date has been chosen) and got the following figures: British: 351; Genoese: 597; Jews: 575; Spaniards: 185; and Portuguese: 25; without further mentions to other nationalities. I was right (Maltese out; Jews and Spaniards in). So, I included the following text:

“ By 1753 Genoese, Jews, British, Spanish and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population. ”

For me, it was simply a "routine" task (fixing an obvious mistake). To my surprise, Justin A Kuntz reverted my edition with a weird edition summary "happens to be sourced and correct, ask Imalabornoz who helped draft it on Demographics of Gibraltar". As I've shown, the paragraph was neither sourced nor correct (as I had verified data with a proper source; today I've double-checked it with other source and, as couldn't be otherwise, the same data is provided). So I reverted, explaining why ("your edition doesn't happen to have a source (Maltese stock in 1753? :-D). I have provided one (Jackson) and unless you provide a source on the 1753 census (I did) I needn't ask anyone"). Well, I thought it was solved, but unfortunately wasn't. New reversion by Justin, with a new and weird edition summary ("FFS will you stop edit warring over every fucking thing. IT IS SOURCED ON Demographics of Gibraltar"). Obvious to say that Demographics of Gibraltar does not talk about any census or similar information dated in 1753).

So, at the end, I wonder why this is happening. Is it because my text includes any banned word? Which one? Can we bet? --Ecemaml (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC) PS: this section is on the "disputed" text. The edit war is discussed here

You could simply take up my suggestion of asking Imalbornoz or perhaps even Gibmetal77 who also helped in drafting the demographics article, seeing as whatever I do, or suggest, will be turned around and twisted. You could also just stop trying to needle all the time, the reason for my request to stop using my talk page, try also reading WP:BRD. Justin talk 00:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice small talk, Justin, but the issue remains. Why do you insist in including false information in Wikipedia? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll say this but once. Ecemaml needs to calm down and get a perspective on editing wikipedia. Its all too easy to form a view that his edits are designed to provoke edit wars and disputes. We have been here before with edits to Communications in Gibraltar Of late I've found a couple of instances where references introduced do not support his edits, there is evidence of looking for trouble and we had the fiasco over CO2 emissions and an attempt to derail the compromise on 1704 plus trying to change the start date of ww2. I note he shows up in the most unlikely places eg Peter Hain with contentious edits. This is not a personal attack, and although reluctant to start a RFC on his behaviour if it continues that is the next logical step. With the time and effort that we have all put into the pretty worthless discussions on this page, a number of new articles could have been created. I really don't want to spend my remaining time this way. --Gibnews (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

-)

Your usual defamations, Gibnews. The most interesting thing is how you see a trouble in the most unsuspected editions. It's too boring. Can you provide any diff of your dubious statements? No, as usual. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that it would be better if we made a summary of the Demographics of Gibraltar main article. It's true that I helped to reorganise it. It used to be more similar to the current section in the Gibraltar article (a bit disorganised, mixing history with ethnic groups...). I intended to summarise it in the Gibraltar article, but then we got tangled in the History section. My approach would be to use a similar structure to the Demographics main article, including other demographic issues which are mentioned in the Demographics main article (not only ethnic origins) such as genre, ages, etc.; I would put less emphasis in the history of ethnic groups, as this is not a History section but a Demographics section. Regarding the ethnic mix, I would mention the main reasons for this ethnic mix (summarising what is distributed between several ethnic groups in the Demographics main article) and then list the different ethnic groups and their approximate size. I think this approach is more similar to the Demographics main article. What do you think? --User:Imalbornoz (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Imalbornoz, your suggestion is pretty good. I can try, as the books I have are very good. However, the current statements are false. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, thats what we did on the Demographics article. Perhaps Gibmetal77 would also be interested in drafting the text. Justin talk 12:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you haven't been able to explain why you reverted my editions, I'll fix them again. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not rising to the bait, I simply restored the content you destroyed. Justin talk 23:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, you go on not having any reason to restore weird statements (obviously unsourced) such as the presence of Maltese population in Gibraltar in 1753. So, did you talked about vandalism? --Ecemaml (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not getting into an argument, you have a nice day now. 21:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the Demographics section so that it better summarises the Demographics of Gibraltar main article. It surely can be improved but I think it is now a more accurate "Demographics summary" and less "disputable" at the same time.--Imalbornoz (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a good effort, my apologies for doubting you, I've self-reverted. Justin talk 21:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

Although one can guess at the ethnic origins of people from names on the electoral roll, its misleading because of marriage, and eligibility. The term 'Spanish Gibraltarian' is an oxymoron as to be Gibraltarian one must be British, although it is possible to be British with dual nationality, Spain does not allow it. Its also a sweeping statement that the Spanish population left in 1704 - a good number came back which is why there are so many Spanish names in Gibraltar. Since Spain joined the EU there is nothing unusual about actual Spanish nationals living in Gibraltar and they are enumerated as such in the 2001 census. --Gibnews (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

San Roque, the arguments

The Rfc by Atama was: :Should the main Gibraltar article include information about the town's population founding San Roque following a mass departure after the town was surrendered to British forces? One suggestion is to include that detail of the exodus, and other details, in the History of Gibraltar article and leave it out of the main article. But others feel that the information is too important to leave out of the summary in the main article.

The subsequent debates do not seem to have settled a long-running discussion, which I suggest has too often become sidetracked by irrelevancies. I'd like to propose a week for consensus on the arguments - the arguments only, not the answer - for and against the proposal that something like the following comment should be included at the end of the first paragraph of the British period section of the Gibraltar article: "By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed for the Campo de Gibraltar. Many of them settled nearby, within the previous territory of Gibraltar, founding the town of San Roque, Cádiz. Others went to Algeciras and Los Barrios."

Comments are invited. I propose to edit them ruthlessly, removing in particular anything that I think is a personal comment or in any other way brings irrelevancies into the issue. I may put such comments into a separate section, but in any case the two subsections below will contain the briefest statement of the arguments that I can produce. In effect I will be taking ownership, for a week, of this section. If you don't like it, well, this is Wikipedia and you can edit as you wish. But if you can support this process for a week, keeping this section to relevant arguments with supporting links, we may hope to produce a brief consensus statement of the arguments. (Some will find some of these arguments tendentious or feeble or both, but please keep your opinion of the arguments out of this section until the 21st.) This in turn may help us to arrive at a reasonably courteous consensus on the issue.

Arguments for inclusion

(Numbered purely for convenience, no further implications intended)

1. The facts (as drafted above, hereinafter just "the facts") are verifiably included in several reputable English-language histories of Gibraltar. No such history has been produced which omits the facts. They are found to be more notable to reputable historians than several points which have been included without controversy.

2. The town of San Roque has, because of the facts, some legal and demographic continuity with Gibraltar. It is within the former territory of the Campos de Gibraltar. Many of the previous inhabitants of Gibraltar settled in San Roque, which kept Gibraltar's historical standard, granted by the Catholic Monarchs, its establishment privilege, its coat of arms, its records, its city council. Thus it has some legal and demographic continuity with Gibraltar. This is notable to both Spanish nationalists and Gibraltarians.

3. Gibraltar can claim the unusual distinction of having founded San Roque.

OK, thanks for your patience. Do we have any further comments on the arguments to be included, or is my summary tolerable? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that "The facts (as drafted above, hereinafter just "the facts") are verifiably included in all of the reputable History of Gibraltar books by modern historians that have been used for this History of Gibraltar section."

I would also add a new point saying that "The facts can be considered more notable (according to their inclusion in all of the reputable History of Gibraltar books that have been used for this History of Gibraltar section) than some other events that the article does include in the History section (which are not present in most the sources that have been used). Therefore, the facts should be considered to pass well above the "notability" standard that is used in the History section of the article."

I would agree with Gibnews that San Roque is not part of Gibraltar according to Spanish law. I would only say that "The town of San Roque has,because of the facts, .."

I would put part of the previous point in a new one: "The new settlement around the chapel of San Roque was, at the time of the facts, inside the territorial limits of the municipality of Gibraltar."

I have decided to only propose the points above in order to avoid conflict. If it's alright, I will include them as arguments from the "pro-inclusion" side. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PS: I don't know if it is us "conflicting editors" ;-) who are supposed to edit the arguments away or it is you (Richard Keatinge).

Could you leave it to me? Just until the 22nd? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course! It's just that I wasn't sure of the procedure. Thank you very much for your effort. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

One thing about notability. I think that this is the main issue, if it is argued that the article is too long (which it probably is). I think that it is relevant whether reputable secondary sources find it relevant enough. The problem is... how much is enough? According to all editors, the fact that Cordoba was the final destination of "Pedro de Herrera" and his Sephardim who only stayed for 3 years in Gibraltar is notable enough. Here we have a benchmark, only 3 paragraphs above the capture of Gibraltar.

Let's compare their notability according to Historians:

• Maurice Harvey: Gibraltar. A History. - San Roque: page 68 - Pedro de Herrera: pages 51-52
• Frederick Sayer: The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe - San Roque: page 117 - Pedro de Herrera: n/a
• Allen Andrews: Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar - San Roque: page 54 - Pedro de Herrera: n/a
• Edward G. Archer: Gibraltar, identity and empire - San Roque: page 34 - Pedro de Herrera: n/a
• George Hills: Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar - San Roque: page 176 - Pedro de Herrera: n/a
• William Jackson: The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar - San Roque: page 101 - Pedro de Herrera: n/a
• Stephen Constantine: Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704. - San Roque: page 15 - Pedro de Herrera: n/a

Result: All 7 historians mention "San Roque". Only one mentions the Sephardim episode.

Furthermore, if you look it up in Google books, only one book with "Gibraltar" in its title mentions "Pedro de Herrera"[5]. On the other hand, besides the 7 reference historians, you can see that San Roque is mentioned in 228 instances[6] (quite a few of them are about the History of Gibraltar, and some of them are not, but you can take a look and see that the quantity of references to the San Roque episode is pretty relevant).

I therefore propose that a new argument be added: "The San Roque episode is well above the notability standard of the History section of the article. It is overwhelmingly more notable to historians than other events that are recorded in this section and are not under dispute (in spite of the length of the article)."

On the other hand, I don't think that it has been argued by the "pro-inclusion side" that San Roque is (or is not) notable to Gibraltarians and Spanish (nationalists or not); it has only been argued that it is notable to secondary sources dealing with the History of Gibraltar (most of them neither Gibraltarians nor Spanish, but British Islanders).

Thank you again for all you effort. --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We have other examples of relative notability of San Roque vis a vis other issues in the History section. I have compared the number of hits in googlebooks.

San Roque: Number of books with the word "Gibraltar" in the title and "San Roque" in the text:

• San Roque: 99 books (I've quickly counted more than 20 of them describing the historical episode of most inhabitants going from Gibraltar to San Roque)[7]
• San Roque: 15 books (with the word "History" in the title, as well as the word "Gibraltar")[8]

Other events that are currently described in the History section: Number of books with the word "Gibraltar" in the title and a keyword relative to the event in the text:

• Abd al-Mumin or Abd al-Mu'min: 7 books[9]
• Pedro de Herrera: 1 book[10]
• HMS Arethusa: 1 book[11]
• HMS Hunter: 1 book[12]
• Deutschland: 13 books[13]
• Guernica: 4 books [14]
• Endymion: 6 books[15]
• Jose Luis Diez: 6 books[16]
• Sikorski: 6 books[17]

I think this would be enough evidence to support including the argument of San Roque being much more notable for historians than at least 9 other events currently (and undisputedly) included in the History section, wouldn't it? --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Its known as selecting the evidence to fit the desired outcome. All you've done is illustrate there are a lot of books on the Spanish claim to Gibraltar sovereignty. Gee whizz batman. Justin talk 22:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You can count more than 10 History of Gibraltar books describing the episode (independently of the Spanish claim). That is more than 10 times more notable for historians dealing with Gibraltar than Arethusa, Hunter or Pedro de Herrera; or +/- twice as much as Guernica, Endymion, Jose Luis Diez or Sikorski. I don't need to talk about the Spanish claim, but about the History of Gibraltar (the Spanish claim is probably an additional argument for the notability of the episode, but I'm not talking about it in this point). --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A more pertinent question would be: "How many overview articles on Gibraltar in encyclopedias mention San Roque?" But then the answer won't be to your liking. Try it, its illuminating. Justin talk 22:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As it has been said before, WP is not other encyclopedias. Anyway, how many encyclopedias mention many other things that are currently included in this article? For example: Pedro de Herrera, Arethusa, Endymion, Guernica, Sikorski, Jose Luis Diez, Deutschland...? I am not saying that we should delete those items. I am saying that the following argument be added to the pro-inclusion list: "The San Roque episode is much more notable for historians than many other issues included in the History section". --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see, something that is a reasonable proposition but contradicts you is airily dismissed, with it has to be said no real justification. And you'll also ignore the flaws in your own argument when they're pointed out with no attempt at counter argument. Interesting. Justin talk 23:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the purpose of this process not to comment on opposing arguments? Thanks.--Cremallera (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed but if you ask a question, don't be surprised if you get an answer...oh the irony. Justin talk 09:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

According to this process, all questions about arguments were understood to be directed to Richard Keatinge until the 21st. Mine surely was (and is). Sorry, Justin, if I let you understand otherwise (maybe I should not have answered you either). On my discharge I must say that I didn't want to be too direct to a person who is making the effort to help us out, out of pure altruism. Apologising in advance, and not wanting to be too annoying to him, I will state it more clearly now: Richard, what do you think about the argument I propose? --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC) PS: I must admit I haven't payed much attention to the "encyclopedic argument", given that it is a criteria currently and evidently not applied in this article: Gibraltar in WP is 2.8 times larger than in Britannica (e.g.); I've preferred to take an empirical approach and compare the notability of other events currently mentioned in the History section of the WP article vis a vis the notability of the San Roque episode.

If you're going to rubbish an argument I will reply to defend it, this isn't a blank cheque to provide knocking copy. You can either remove it or I will rebut it. Rubbishing an argument after admitting you hadn't actually considered it isn't helpful either. Justin talk 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Thanks Imalbornoz for doing the research. I'd rather not comment on your argument just now, but I hope we can all agree that it and the counter-arguments have been adequately summarized in my now-numbered list. I do have opinions on which arguments are relevant to our encyclopedic task, and which are of decisive importance. But before I express them I'd like to ask for a consensus that the arguments for and against inclusion are well-represented, and then for comments on which arguments should be excluded as not relevant to an encyclopedia, and which are of high importance. Before anyone starts on my biases, let me say that despite one grandfather born in the County Cork and another in Mumbai I'm British and nobody's ever questioned my patriotism. My Spanish is limited to what I picked up on a cycling trip in the Andes in 1984; the perra gorda, for example, was news to me and I can merely read Spanish with some difficulty. I will however do my very best to achieve a neutral point of view and I hope a consensus on the original issue. Please follow here with reasons why some of the numbered arguments are, or are not, relevant. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the summary. I'm afraid I have been pretty much out of WP since the 24th of December, so I didn't get to see the final version until now. I think that the summary pretty much puts together the pro-inclusion arguments. I would only like to point out that (in point no. 2) "This is notable to both Spanish nationalists and Gibraltarians" is a bit too restrictive (especially in the term "Spanish nationalists). Also, it has not been used by anybody as a pro-inclusion argument. In fact, it is notable to many Spanish non-nationalists (as well as nationalists), many Gibraltar nationalists (and non-nationalists), and many other British and non-British nationalists and non-nationalists. If you look, you will see that the fact in point #2 is notable to sources interested in the History of Gibraltar and to sources interested in the disputed status of Gibraltar (independently of their nationalism). I think it would be more accurate to put it that way. --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against inclusion

(Numbered purely for convenience, no further implications intended)

1. The town of San Roque is no more than a fairly close neighbour of the modern British territory of Gibraltar, the actual subject of the article.

2. San Roque is described as the most important settlement to result only because the administrative functions were transferred there, but many of the residents dispersed elsewhere into the Campo de Gibraltar, founding Algeciras and San Roque, some going even farther afield.

3. The people who left Gibraltar played no further part in the history of Gibraltar, nor were there any significant repercussions from their departure.

4. The article is too long already and the facts surrounding the founding of San Roque could be trimmed for brevity in what is an overview article. Other encyclopedias do not mention the facts.

5. The facts belong in the History of Gibraltar article not necessarily an overview article.

6. The facts are only notable to people who want Spain to have sovereignty over Gibraltar.

7. San Roque's claim to be the real Gibraltar is irrelevant to Gibraltarian, UK, or international law. Such claims can be offensive to Gibraltarians.

OK, that's my summary of the arguments. Edit away please, aiming for a better summary of the arguments. Just, for the moment, what the arguments are, with links if required. Comments on their value we may leave for later. last update by Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat distracted by having to give my partner intravenous antibiotics for her inexplicable thigh abscess, sorry to impose on your collective patience, but she is now on the road to recovery and I hope that our list of arguments is now tolerably complete. I have some suggestions about which should actually be accepted as relevant to an encyclopedic article, and which should not. But I would like your comments first on the relevance of the above numbered arguments, please insert them here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, editors involved in this dispute are currently observing a moratorium agreed here to cool the air over the festive period. I'm sure you'll understand if there is no comment from these editors until 27 December, when the moratorium ends. While I'm not formally signed up to the moratorium, I will also hold off on any substantial comments until then.

I'm glad your partner is getting better and wish you (and everyone else) a very merry Christmas (or other holiday). Pfainuk talk 22:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for a late reply, I promised Narson to avoid editing Gibraltar articles for a few days. Yes thats fine by me. Justin talk 22:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I'd dispute "legal and demographic continuity with Gibraltar and is within its former limits. For some purposes, it is part of Gibraltar. This is notable to both Spanish and Gibraltarian nationalists."

Replace with "The Spanish assert that the people of San Roque, being the decendents of the Gibraltar population of 1704 are the real 'people of the territory' " - This is offensive to the Gibraltarians.

There is NO legal connection between SR/GIB. Its not part of Gibraltar. Not sure if I should directly edit the above, if so please replace the wording and/or edit this comment accordingly. --Gibnews (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gibnews. I have tried to incorporate your ideas into what I hope will be an agreed statement of the arguments. Please tell me if the results above are something that you can accept. And keep on suggesting, everyone. Remember, this is an exercise on agreeing what the arguments are. Right, wrong, or factually incorrect are aspects to worry about later. I'll be particularly pleased if anyone can come up with a really good summary of an argument they don't personally agree with. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

For some purposes in Spanish law, it is part of Gibraltar. No, haven't seen that anywhere. The only common thing is the "Gibraltar - San Roque refinery" and they have dropped the Gibraltar in its name. --Gibnews (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion of legal and demographic continuity depends on a specific definition of "Gibraltar" based on the administrative divisions of Spain prior to 1713 (the Campo de Gibraltar). I would note that this is an article on the Town and British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar (generally now known as "Gibraltar" as opposed to the "Campo de Gibraltar"), ceded to the United Kingdom in 1713, and recognised as British territory by Spain.

This is an important point that I think a lot of people miss. Spain considers Gibraltar to be British territory. It disputes the location of the border and it disputes the extent of British sovereignty as regards territorial waters and airspace, but that's it. Spain fully accepts that Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory and is not part of the Campo de Gibraltar.

Under Spanish law, I believe there is legal continuity between the former administrative division of Gibraltar and the modern Campo de Gibraltar. But there is no legal continuity between the former administrative division of Gibraltar and the modern British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar (the subject of this article). There is some demographic continuity, as San Roque was founded by some of those who fled the Town of Gibraltar in 1704. But this only applies in one direction: it is possible for Gibraltar to be important in the history of San Roque without San Roque being important in the history of Gibraltar. I would contend that this is the case. (last two sentences added Pfainuk talk 19:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Now, on to my argument, which I do not believe is represented above: that the circumstances surrounding the foundation of San Roque are not directly relevant to an article on the Town/BOT of Gibraltar (as opposed to the Campo de Gibraltar), as they have not had a significant impact on the important events in the later history of the Town/BOT of Gibraltar, or on the modern Town/BOT of Gibraltar. Pfainuk talk 18:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But Pfainuk, this article isn't about the BOT of Gibraltar, it's about the territory of Gibraltar which happens to be a BOT as of 2002. Perhaps the approach Taiwan/Republic of China might have been more sensible, but the current article hasn't such a focus. Cheers. --Cremallera (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the purpose of this process is to not comment on opposing arguments... Justin talk 11:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It is - we'll come on to comments next week. I hope to rescue the actual arguments from the wrangle. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Roger that. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing the Border

"Motorists, and on occasion pedestrians, crossing the border with Spain have been subjected to long delays and searches by the Spanish authorities. Spain has closed the border during disputes or incidents involving the Gibraltar authorities, such as the Aurora cruise ship incident and when fishermen from the Spanish fishing vessel Pirana were arrested for illegal fishing in Gibraltar waters.[88]"

Could this be expanded to show that, in an NPOV, that the Spanish border guards hold up the traffic on purpose for no apparent reason using this source?. The source holds a lot of info so could probably be used to add/reference quite a bit of other stuff too. Just my thoughts. Wouldn't want to destabilise the page by starting an edit war - imagine that!! :P Willdow (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't read the source, Willdow. The link doesn't work for me. --Cremallera (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC) PS: I've seen what the problem is, and edited your comment accordingly. I hope you don't mind. If you do, just feel free to revert this edition of mine. Cheers.

Well, it can't say it for certain, just that it is the opinion of the Foriegn Affairs Select Committee. There is some fun detail in there (Such as suggestions for Article 227 proceedings), but they might be more suited for the disputed status page rather than the general. I'd have no objection to a single sentence on this page though, or an addition to existing, laying out that parliament finds the delays to be illegal/without merit. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Its really something that belongs in the history of Gibraltar article, as currently the malaleche seems to have been shelved and the Guardia would rather hospitalise Spanish protesters trying to obstruct the frontier than stand by and watch it happen as they did with the fishing dispute. In fairness current delays are more due to the increase in traffic as people come to believe there will be no delays than the seven hour manufactured ones from the past. --Gibnews (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its more historical than anything else, the main issue is the traffic problems as Gibnews notes. Even mentioning the traffic problems caused an edit war with certain editors. Ho hum. Justin talk 15:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with possibly including the little mention of 227 in the disputed status page. I notice that the Committee cite references throughout. If it is the case that edits were undone that referred to this report, can anyone see how to view what the Committee is refering to at the bottom of the report? ie. "FCO statistics setting out hourly delays clearly demonstrate the problem.[14]" refers to: "HC 366, Ev. pp. 53-60." with no forwarding link... Good thing they're not writing that on Wikipedia or it would all get reverted for not linking to their sources! Willdow (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I believe that HC refers to a specific report of a House Committee, it is the publishing number. For example, the government response to the Report on Biofuels being Sustainable or not is HC 644. We probably have a digital copy available in the office if you want me to have a look next time I'm in? --Narson ~ Talk • 18:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe if you're near London you can visit the House of Commons library to see such reports. Some are published online and they're going through the backlog. Try http://www.parliament.uk/. Regards, Justin talk 00:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Although delays currently have more to do with the inadequate infrastructure at the frontier. Traffic engineering is not rocket science and its all too easy to believe that the current situation is a reflection of a strategic desire by Spain to restrict movement in and out of Gibraltar rather than the tactical delays and 'go slows' of the past. --Gibnews (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps that 'Spain' has better things to do with the tax-money than improving the infrastructure of a 6 square km piece of land which isn't Spain. Like building hospitals or high speed railway to France or Portugal. Don't ya think? Cheers.--Cremallera (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A helpful comment? Justin talk 09:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It was a quite civil way of telling Gibnews that vilifying *any* government here in the talk page is pointless. He has done that before, but he shouldn't do it hereinafter. Any more questions? --Cremallera (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK if you think it was civil and helpful and in no way retaliatory, fine. Simply...marvelous. Justin talk 10:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly civil. We do share some history here already, thus possibly you read my words with a preconceived idea. But the response has been largely more considerate than the statement it is replying to. Tell me, do you approve Gibnews' comment? Because I can't understand why you are engaging me instead of both of us, if you have to. And last but not least, I can't see how our little dialogue is in any way helpful at all either. --Cremallera (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Gibnews who persuaded him to try mediation? No I don't appreciate everything Gibnews says and have told him so on many occasions. We've known each other long enough to know each other's position and to be honest I doubt he'll change much. But at least he is direct and honest in his opinion, even if I don't share them. And given the way Spain has treated Gibraltar over a period of time, his attitude while not entirely acceptable is understandable. On the other hand you were the one preaching at AN/I about not ratcheting up tension, yet here you are doing just that. I haven't seen Gibnews being preachy at any point. No I don't see this little dialogue as helpful in any way at all either but its been interesting. The old deflect attention from my conduct onto someone else's defence? Interesting. Justin talk 14:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Very true, and although its wikipedia policy to assume good faith from editors, the Government of Spain is not an editor or so I hope. On any topic editors will disagree and hopefully achieve consensus, Justin does what he feels is right and so do I. We don't have to agree on everything. In relation to improving the frontier, freedom of movement of people is an EU obligation and it has been suggested that the traffic situation is bad for la Linea. But this is not the place to discuss such things. --Gibnews (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't wish to intrude on your conversation, but why has this section turned into another bickering episode? I have been away for five days and have come back to see what progress had been made on my initial comments (closing the border if you have forgotten). Instead I come back to see more discussions which seem all too common on this talk page. I don't pretend to be perfect or even overly academically gifted, but honestly?? I feel like a teacher telling off naughty school children!! I'm pretty new here and therefore consider myself to be more of a neutral outsider looking in on things. Please please please don't think that I am having a go at anyone, but on this section of the talk page, I notice that what Gibnews and Justin say could potentially be interpreted as having negative bias towards Spain. Yes? But at the same time, Cremallera's comments don't seem the best way to go about pointing this out... As I said, I don't want it to seem that I'm singling anyone out, or for anyone to think that I'm having a go at them; there are some very good contributions from all three people I have mentioned amongst others, but enough with the counter-productive bickering!! For the sake of the article!
If anyone thinks I've got the wrong end of the stick, or am missing the point, please let me know... Willdow (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can get them to stop, you are a better man than I. I'm at the stage of just giving up and going to find something more productive to do like slamming my head into a large wooden structure while imbibing neurotoxins. So, want to come for a pint Willdow while everyone else argues on the internet? --Narson ~ Talk • 12:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan Narson!! I feel that perhaps by the time the arguing finally stops, the slamming of one's head into a large wooden structure may be rather involuntary considering the amount of pints that will be consumed waiting!! Willdow (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"I notice that what Gibnews and Justin say could potentially be interpreted as having negative bias towards Spain". What I say? Pray tell what exactly? At the risk of giving Narson a headache... Justin talk 23:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You are both right. And I apologise for rising to the bait. It's just that I am already tired of this particular editor constantly maligning a country or its government pointlessly. The above comments aren't even the last time in this row (here are some diffs to illustrate my statement). Am I really expected to just endure this forevermore? Are there any alternatives to it? I am sincerely open to suggestions. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If the things I say are unfounded, you would be right. But the Spanish position is as stated in a research paper thus:

The first inevitable step in resolving the Gibraltar issue as is the case with any problem is to state the terms. These terms, from a Spanish perspective are basically to; recover sovereignty over the territory of Gibraltar by means of negotiations between the two interested governments according to UN resolutions.

With due regard to existing Spanish-British commitments over the disputed territory and the proposals as tabled by Spain, to; satisfy all requirements of both negotiating sides, and to have due regard to the greatest extent possible to the interests, aspirations and legitimate wishes of both the populations affected by the problem in the local areas; the inhabitants of the Rock and of the Campo de Gibraltar.

The principal objective for Spain is the recovery of sovereignty over the territory. Everything else is secondary.

Where Spanish governments have done bad things, there is no harm in Wikipedia saying so. UEFA ! --Gibnews (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, I agree that the UEFA thing was a bit below the belt. As was the veto by Spain against Gibraltar in the Single European Sky initiative... _Will^Dow 09:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdow (talk • contribs)

I appreciate that it's easy for me/us to mock, having not really been involved in the nitty gritty of it all. I respect you for standing your ground and I can only imagine the frustration from both sides. As a relatively new person, I can only hope that the procedures put in place to deal with things like this will eventually succeed in making a breakthrough. I prefer to stay neutral and not take sides, but if I see discussions getting a little off track, I can butt-in and try to add a voice of reason in proceedings. I'm not watching all the pages that are subject to these disagreements (relating to all things Gibraltar), but if someone would like to pop them on my talk page I could have a look. That's not to say that I will look down upon you all and be the voice of God...!! Haha, but hopefully a voice of reason amongst others. Willdow (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to drop in at any point, I'm prepared to listen to an independent viewpoint always. But if I disagree I'll say so. Justin talk 23:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I've started on RFC on these articles here [18]. Justin talk 20:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Moratorium

Please see this section for a suggestion. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Cremallera (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Restarting Discussion

The mother article. So what troubles the Gibraltar page?

1. Scope of the term Gibraltarian; Does it include pre-conquest persons? What guidelines should we use to decide who is notable in either cas?
2. What level of statistics are acceptable for this page?
3. Perhaps attached to the above, do we need to create a subarticle for the Economy of Gibraltar?
4. The article in genera has become very large, do the above ideas help?
5. Should San Roque, the spanish town on the other side of the border, be included due to its links with Gibraltar?
6. The border closures: Are they important? To what are we attributing them? Is this sourced?

--Narson ~ Talk • 14:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide

I read somewhere that Gibraltar had a very high CO2 per capita rate (because of water desalination?). I checked List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita but the latest worldwide data is from 2007, and Gibraltar ranks high but under the US. Is it relevant enough to be mentioned? --Error (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No and you're walking into a minefield. The US has published some flawed statistics which calculate CO2 per capita on the basis of fuel imports, ignoring the fact that a lot of fuel purchased in Gibraltar is for Spanish vehicles (its cheaper in Gibraltar) and Gibraltar being a port has a lot of fuel for bunkerage. As a result it produces a meaningless statistic but it has been used to malign Gibraltar for having a high CO2 output. Regards, Justin talk 21:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Error, you can read the whole story in the archive. The US statistics are not flawed or meaningless at all. That's simply the way they calculate them. And that's sensible given the fact that although not "emitted" in Gibraltar, such fuel is sold by Gibraltar and therefore, it's responsible for it. It's simply that, given that it gives a "bad view" on Gibraltar, it must be carefully hidden. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The study is flawed, the DoE admit that. Gibraltar sells on the bulk of the oil imported - its ludicrous to say Gibraltar is 'responsible' for it any more than the country it is bought from from. If anything its the end consumer. But this simply presents an excuse to engage in cheap Gibraltar bashing, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. --Gibnews (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"The DoE admit that" Where? When? How? How can happen that we're arguing and the DoE has admitted that his own statistics are flawed? Sources, please. --Ecemaml (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC) PS: on the other hand, your statement "its ludicrous to say Gibraltar is 'responsible' for it any more than the country it is bought from from" seems interesting. It could be explained to the US DoE in order to change their way of producing statistics. Up to then, there is no problem with providing the information and letting the reader decide. The text was this:

Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Gibraltar were 4.551 million metric tons in 2007. Due to its relatively small population, Gibraltar had in 2007 the higher per capita carbon emission in the world: 159.063 metric tons. However, upon the publication of the statistics in March 2009, the Gibratar-based Environment Safety Group heavily criticised the report as it could suggest Gibraltar is "a world leader in carbon dioxide emissions" and linked the figures to both the small population and the vast amount of fuel sold locally for export for Spanish cars (fuel is less expensive than in Spain) and to the bunkering service for international shipping. Therefore, they explain that Gibraltar does not emit such high carbon dioxide levels locally.

Good to see we are so focused on content. Ecemaml? Don't make such obvious barbs. Justin? Don't respond to them. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to remove them after thinking better of it. Justin talk 23:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The mention to "bad view" ("bad light", in fact) is not mine. However, I apologize for having mentioned it. However, the issue remains. Information about the CO2 emissions is not available. --Ecemaml (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Information on CO2 emissions is NOT available. There are no figures for it. --Gibnews (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar is NON-self-governing

Gibraltar is not a self-governing or independent territory. It is a Non-self-governing territory of Great Britain. There are many sources which say so. Here is the UN Sixty-fourth General Assembly (Fourth Committee) statement from October 2009 [19]:

[...] Non-Self Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the United Nations Charter and on specific Territories, including Gibraltar, New Caledonia, Western Sahara, American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States Virgin Islands, Tokelau, and the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

Please accept this verifiable information and stop reverting it. JCRB (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to any opposing opinion, I agree that the lead cannot offer just one POV on this subject: it should be a summary of all issues and POVs or none in the lead and all detail in the rest of the article. There are objective limits to Gibraltar's self-governance and also other POVs, such as the UN's (a not irrelevant example of a different POV).

This issue was posted in some noticeboards, and some outside editors commented on it, then the San Roque discussion came and this discussion was put in the freezer. Just to summarize some of these outside comments:

• "Pehaps a solution is to save the self-governing discussion for later in the lede... I don't actually see a need to mention the fact that Gibraltar is self-governing in the opening sentence. Styalisticly, the opening sentence should briefly and simply identify the topic of the article. You are answering the question: "What is Gibraltar?" And the answer to that is geographical: "Gibraltar is a peninsula at the mouth of the Mediterranian Sea." Once you have established that, you can mention its political status: "It is self-governing territory in all matters except defense (which is controled by the United Kingdom)." as a second sentence. Just a suggestion." Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• "I think Blueboar has the right idea." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• "Question, are there British Overseas Territories that are not self-governing?" Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• "In which case, I don't see the need to mention that Gibraltar is self-governing in the lede at all... the self-governance is part of being a BOT (or at least is the norm for BOTs)... just say it is a BOT without the qualifier that it is self-governing and discuss what that means in terms of governance later." Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2009
• "What it looks like to be is that the EB and the BBC ares proven to be unreliable sources in this particular--they summarized too briefly. The official statement of the two governments involved is the best source. The CIA is probably interpreting that the UK will ensure financial stability though they have no obligation to do so." DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (My own note: DGG was referring to the fact that the UK officially says that Gibraltar is self-governing in all issues except "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service", even though the EB is the current source for the lead)

I believe these third party opinions are enough to bring some food for thought on the current lead. My own opinion (stated several times, sourced on the documents by UN, Government of UK, etc.) is that 1) Gibraltar has some degree of self-government, although it's clearly not equivalent to what any reader would interpret as a "plain vanilla" level of self government; 2) the UN considers Gibraltar as a "non-self governing territory" (I will respectfully add that this is something that the Government of Gibraltar, the UK -most of the time- and almost all Gibraltarians strongly disagree with); 3) to plainly state that Gibraltar is a "self-governing territory" without mentioning the current unusual limits to that self-government or the fact that the UN and Spain do not share this view is clearly non-NPOV. Furthermore, the citation in the lead (sourced on the Encyclopaedia Britannica) is out of context: the EB does not only say "Gibraltar is a self-governing BOT" but adds "in all matters but defense" (and even that does not reflect all the exceptions, according to the Government of UK).

Therefore, I would respectfully propose to either a) leave any reference to self-government to the Politics section (like Blueboar proposed), or b) summarise ALL the issues and POVs (limits to self-government and the view of the GoG, the UK, the UN and -for example- Spain in the lead. I do not consider this a nationalistic proposal, but a proposal trying to improve the NPOV or/and accuracy of the lead. --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Right you're not a tendentious editor but you're going to take the opportunity of this disruptive editor raising this again to bring it up again. And we've been over it again and again and again and again and again and again. You shopped multiple forums AND YOU DIDN'T GET ANY SUPPORT. Gibraltar is self-governing and this is nationalist POV nonsense to try and deny that Gibraltar is self-governing to portray it as a mere colony. All the arguments you've put forward have been comprehensively rebutted time and time again yet you come back with the same thing.

You'll revert the removal of a disruptive comment and no doubt you'll edit war to keep it. Nothings changed I see. Justin talk 22:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see above, my comments DID GET SOME SUPPORT... from THREE outside editors!!! Also, some "inside editors" such as Red Hat and Narson:

• "The FCO describes [2] the situation as "Gibraltar has a considerable measure of devolved government". But then again, we can see in this reference [3] Gibraltar is described as "a self-governing community, at least as far as internal affairs are concerned". So my view is that it's fine to say Gibraltar is self-governing, if it is stated that this does not include foreign affairs and defence, but we must also state the fact that Gibraltar is on the UN list, whatever inhabitants of Gibraltar (or otherwise) think of said list." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• "I agree with Red Hat on this. That it is self governing should be included, that there are large bodies who claim otherwise should be included. We are not about what is right (moral imperitive) or even what is correct, but what is verifiable and notable. A large body of the UN complaining is notable and I am sure verifiable, though it may not represent an absolute 'truth' (I am an internationalist, but even I accept that many parts of the UN are non-neutral and are not exactly gospel on many matters)" --Narson ~ Talk • 10:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have always said this issue should be retaken when we were done with Demographics and San Roque (BTW, the Politics section should also be reviewed in detail at some moment, as it is inaccurate in some issues regarding the competences of the GoG and the Governor).

Regarding disruptive editors, I don't know about them (and I've promised not to talk about anyone's attitude in article talk pages). Maybe the comment above is stylistically a bit too blunt (considering it deals with a very sensitive issue for some editors). But I can say it clearly only talks about content (seen from the POV of the UN -a POV respected by many), is sourced, and deserves to be read. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Except you're taking those comments out of context, the UN is referred to later in the article. This is the lead and I don't why I'm bothering to reply because we know how this will go, we'll patiently discuss this, think we have an understanding and you'll go straight back to the same argument again. Its the very definition of tendentious editing. Nothings changed. There isn't any agreement and you will not wear people down with tendentiously repeating the same crap. Which part of NO don't you understand. Justin talk 23:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

The above comments obviously referred to the lead, given that the opening of the discussion clearly stated it ("Since April 2009, the first sentence of the introduction to this article has the expression “Gibraltar is a self-governing (...) territory”"). You can also see direct references to the lead in some comments (e.g.: "(...) I don't see the need to mention that Gibraltar is self-governing in the lede at all (...)" Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2009). Everybody has admitted that the UN's position and some limits to self-governance are mentioned (much) later in the article.

Let me state this clearly: I think that, in case self-governance is mentioned in the lead, it should keep a NPOV (summarising all POVs and all limits to self-governance). The fact that other POVs and limits to self-governance are mentioned several tens of paragraphs below does not make the lead of this article NPOV and accurate enough, especially in such a sensitive question as this one. The fact that the lead has to be short does not justify that it only includes one POV and forgets very important limits to the statement it makes, even if they are included later in the article.

In case you think you won't be able to reach an agreement with me only by discussing in this page (which is very possible, given that you are again saying things like "There isn't any agreement and you will not wear people down tendentiously repeating the same crap"), what would you (and other editors) propose to do? --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC) (PS: I would thank you if you could graciously avoid using the word "tendentious" -or derivatives of it- when you refer to me, or the word "crap" when you refer to my comments: some people could interpret that you are being offensive. Also, I would feel a bit better and I think it would help me to avoid talking about your attitude if you could apologise for those comments. I'm making these recommendations because I think they will help us to better reach consensus -and make the process a bit less uncomfortable, slow and painful. Thank you)

Leave it as it is. And I will graciously avoid words like "tendentious" when you stop the practise of continuously returning to the same point again and again ad nauseum, the record is in the archive. That is the very dictionary definition of tendentious. And I use the word crap, because you repeat the same tired worn argument, long after it has been rebutted. If you prefer I'll use the metaphor flogging a dead horse, only in this case the horse is no more than skeletal remains that have long turned to dust. For the record of the uninitiated you filled the page with tendentious arguments, failed to get a mediation to rule in your favour, shopped round the NPOV noticeboard, the RS noticeboard etc. And you're still returning, taking the advantage of the brief return of an editor who disrupted the article for months, to take the opportunity to fill the page with more tendentious argument. We won't reach agreement because it has already been demonstrated that no one agrees with you and you still continue to return with the same tired worn and discredited arguments.

What precisely do you expect? Come on, we've been through this again and again and no one agrees with you, the discussion was drawn to a close and everyone agreed with that except you. What are people going to think other than you're trying to wear them down with tendentious arguments, constantly repeating the same arguments again and again and again. And you've returned to exactly the same position as when you started months ago. NO. Justin talk 09:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be a convenient lie for the Spanish irredentist claim to assert that Gibraltar is non self governing. The only evidence for that is that its on the UN list of non self governing territories and it is SPAIN by its actions in the UN and intransigence by the UNC24 which prevent delisting. In the meantime Gibraltar has moved on constitutionally.

The reality is that Gibraltar is self-governing, albeit with some limitations but since joining the EU no European nation can claim to be fully sovereign as we all have to implement EU directives. Its important to include the words in the introduction to dispel the idea that Gibraltar is 'a colony' which it is most certainly not although some like to pretend it is. Because a delusional POV exists with no basis in fact there is no need to include it.

Gibraltar IS self Governing and its something of sufficient importance that it has to be said in the lead. To assert otherwise is nonsense and to argue about it at great length is indeed tendentious. --Gibnews (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, regarding the mediation, the reason for the failure to get a mediator clearly lied in the explicit lack of will from some editors (for example, "To be honest after the frustration of discussions with this editor always return to re-iterating the same point repeatedly, I am disinclined to think that mediation will serve any useful purpose." Justin talk 16:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)).

Regarding outside comments: it seems you did not accept and now don't remember the opinion of outside editors proposing to change the lead, such as (Blueboar, Peregrine Fisher, and DGG.

Regarding other inside editors: You don't seem to remember Narson's or The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's comments, proposing to change the lead in order to include other POVs and summarise the limits to the self-governance of Gibraltar (which you recognize as verifiable, but don't accept in the lead). JCRB also seems to be in favour of changing the lead.

Justin and Gibnews, I agree that we've all made a very important effort discussing this issue over and over amongst us, with no result. Are you ready to say you don't want to work any more towards a consensus (for example, asking for outside help)? Or are you ready to now accept a mediator? Which will it be? --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar is self-governing, like sovereignty its not up for 'discussion and negotiation'. --Gibnews (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going through the same again, full stop and whatever, delude yourself by taking comments out of context if it makes you feel better. Justin talk 22:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I don't intend and -for sure- do not propose to go through the same again: We have already gone through it and -although it was worth the try- it has clearly not worked. I propose to try new ways to solve this dispute.

What has already been tried (chronologically)?

• Discussion between inside editors in this talk page: We surely spent many hours and Kb and everybody ended up in the same position. I wouldn't want to go through it all again, unless we get some outside help.
• Informal Mediation: One side clearly stated they did not have the will to support this method of dispute resolution. Therefore, it did not work.
• Noticeboards: we got a few interesting outside comments and proposals (see above (Blueboar, Peregrine Fisher, and DGG's comments), but they seem to have been dismissed. So this does not seem to work.

What has not been tried yet?

• Ask at a Wikiproject
• RfC
• Formal mediation
• Arbitration

Justin and Gibnews, which of these methods are you ready to use? Or are you saying that you just won't accept any? --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Some editors in this page believe they are the owners of the Gibraltar article and try to monopolize its contents. I have seen this before and there is no need to prove it. Except this time they have the cheek to call other editors "disruptive" when it is they who disrupt the improvement of the article by blocking information they don't like. What is your game Justin? You don't like the verifiable truth about Gibraltar? Stop calling editors "disruptive". You and others are beating about the bush presenting personal interpretations and biased sources which serve your POV about the territory being "autonomous". The United Nations says Gibraltar is non-self-governing. Period. If anything, the fact that it has some degree of self government can be explained in the Politics section. The lead should read "Non-self-governing". JCRB (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That might be your POV however Gibraltar is generally considered self-governing since the 2006 constitution. In practice only the elected Government makes laws and controls the territory. Turning to the UN, yes Gibraltar is listed by the C24 who meet twice a year, and any attempt to change Gibraltar's status is blocked by ... Guess who ... the representative of the Kingdom of Spain. Said committee consists of members from countries with less democracy than Gibraltar, and who refuse to visit the territory to see for themselves. The C24 is of such little importance that the GoG has decided not to attend any further meetings. Its in stasis. Meantime Gibraltar is self-governing whether you like it or not. --Gibnews (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not insisting on my POV. I am insisting that the lead should include the UK's POV and the UN's POV (which is the POV of several countries, some of which might be more democratic and some others less so) because they are notable, relevant and verifiable:

• UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office: "Status: British Overseas Territory" "The Constitution thoroughly modernises the UK-Gibraltar relationship. Key elements include limiting the responsibilities of the Governor to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service, thereby reversing the previous practice and giving Gibraltar much greater control over its internal affairs."
• United Nations: Gibraltar is one of the "Non Self-Governing Territories listed by General Assembly 2002" (more updated info on the General Assembly POV about Gibraltar from the 63rd session here, here, and here). Also: “Non-Self-Governing Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” and “The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar.” [20] (pg. 3)

This has already been discussed between us, and none of us has moved from each one's position. You say you don't want to go all over it again (I don't either). Are you ready to move on to some of the options that have not been tried yet? Which one?

• Ask at a Wikiproject
• RfC
• Formal mediation
• Arbitration

Or you just don't want to try any of those options in order to reach consensus? Please tell me which option it is that you prefer. Thank you. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The leave it alone and move on option. But I wonder if you really consider that Gibraltar is not self-governing, who is responsible for it? The present and previous governors are under no illusion as to their powers under the 2006 constitution. --Gibnews (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Insist? You insist? Well you've already had my answer multiple times so please refer to the archive. To be precisely correct, it was considered by multiple editors none of whom you convinced and you've already shopped around multiple forums. You're still tendentiously peddling the same line. TBH no one is responding because its a case of you've tried one option, failed and will just tendentiously carry on and on. DR is for when there is a dispute, its not for one editor to try and impose their will on everyone else. Justin talk 22:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That Gibraltar is Non-Self-Governing is my POV? What are you talking about? It happens to be the United Nation's POV. Give it up, will you? This is about verifiable information, not your personal opinions. Plus, we don't care who is trying to block or change the status of Gibraltar in the UN. Go and complain to Ban Ki-moon if you don't like the list. For the last time, stop blocking verifiable information or we will go to arbitration/dispute resolution. JCRB (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm being completely naive and uninformed, Gibraltar has it's own constitution, it's own Parliament, and it's own Governor (what is the role of a Governor if the "colony" is non-self governing?"). BBC News's country profile section states: " Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy". The fact that Gibraltar remains on the UN list shouldn't necessarily mean that Gibraltar IS non-self governing because as far as I can tell, that is the UN's POV. Other members in this UN group have publicly made it known that they are at a loss as to why Gibraltar is still on this list. If stating that Gibraltar is self governing can be classed as a POV (when there are reputable sources that disagree) then I reckon that constantly changing the article back to non-self governing is purely reinforcing the UN's POV. The UN seems to be the only official source I can see through numerous searches who think that Gibraltar is non-self governing (other sources just refer to the UN list, like here). I always disagree with edit wars - I get the feeling that a certain editor is on some sort of lone crusade of stubbornness because they found one source and are trying to force it into the article against consensus... I will not revert as I don't want to get dragged into this lengthy edit war, but simply adding my thoughts here. _Will^dow (Talk) 10:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all to represent it as the UN viewpoint is misleading. The UN viewpoint is enunciated by the General Assembly or the Security Council. The list is maintained by the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation, Gibraltar is only present because the UK placed it on that list in 1947. What is a colony was left to nation states to define, so for example the satellites of the former Soviet Union could have been classified as colonies according to some definitions, similarly China's occupation of Tibet but because nation states chose not to list them they never have been. Gibraltar remains on that list solely because of political pressure from the Spanish Government.

Secondly to describe the view of a UN body as neutral is perhaps attractive but in practise nothing could be further from the truth. The UN C24 was designed for a noble purpose but has long been subverted into a political football used by nation states to advance territorial claims as opposed to its original purpose of assisting the peoples of colonial territories to become independent. Its also interesting to note that the nations on the C24 are collectively far less democratic than the supposedly none self-governing territories that they are supposed to assist.

Thirdly, the UN C24 has a rather bizarre definition of what defines a none self-governing territory. The UN originally defined a "non-self-governing territory" as one that was none of the following:

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

So the definition used by the C24 to define that list bears no relation to the actual amount of self-government that is conducted.

Fourthly, further complicating the issue is that British states have constitutional arrangements that are ambiguous. The Governor has many theoretical powers but in practise the Governor defers to the Gibraltar Government. As an example, in theory the Governor has responsibility for the police, in practise that is undertaken by the Government of Gibraltar. So the raw theoretical powers are used as a stick to try and push for an edit that is misleading as to the degree of self-government.

Now as regards the view of the C24, it is not as JCRB alleges suppressed, rather it is actually in the article already and has been for some time. There is a certain amount of nationalist motivation in pushing for this edit and its purpose is to skew the article to support a particular POV. It is not so much a case of a lone crusade of stubborness but a sustained campaign to skew the POV of the article. Justin talk 10:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That is basically the situation, The UN C24 meets twice a year, Spain blocks any progress, so things there are stuck in a timewarp of the sixties, in the meantime Gibraltar has moved forward and what happens in the UN has no significance to the governance of Gibraltar. The UN is very important and effective at some things, this is not one of them. --Gibnews (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what is being put forward here - a UN committee isn't the word of god; it's biased as to what it's members vote (or veto in Spain's case) for. Just because Gibraltar is stuck in the rut of being on this list doesn't necessarily mean that Gibraltar is actually none-self-governing. It would appear to be an almost 60 year old, out-of-date list. I think it would be inappropriate to cite a UN list as a means to define Gibraltar as a rock solid none-self-governing colony. _Will^dow (Talk) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, Gibnews. That is basically what I wished to add too and this is how I view things as an uninvolved third party, Gibraltar is now like Singapore before the country/territory gain independence (Singapore was a crown colony before 1959) from the United kindgom, with the latter taking care of all matters pertaining to external defences as well as foreign affairs while the former is left to take charge of all local matters. Whatever happens at UN was because of a boycott from Spain, not because of the local's decision to be non-self governing. In fact, this should be reflected clearly in the article instead of having so much argument about UN's strange viewpoint on this point. For more references, look no further than at Cyprus... the only difference is that it is spelt out more clearer than Gibraltar, albeit also with some bloodshed along the way. That is all. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that a lot of original research is going on. No reliable source says that "Gibraltar is self-governing British Overseas Territory 'PERIOD'" If we look at different sources, what we see is that:

• The Foreign & Commonwealth Office says in the lead of its country profile that Gibraltar is a "British Overseas Territory" (PERIOD)[21]; also (in the Politics section) "Gibraltar has a considerable measure of devolved government." and "The Constitution thoroughly modernises the UK-Gibraltar relationship. Key elements include limiting the responsibilities of the Governor to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service, thereby reversing the previous practice and giving Gibraltar much greater control over its internal affairs."[22]
• The UN says that "Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory"
• Spain says that Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory

Some more information:

• To answer Willdow's question about the Governor, he should know that the Governor reports to the UK Secretary of UK Commonwealth & Foreign Affairs (in whose election Gibraltarians have absolutely no say at all). Therefore, the matters controlled by the Governor are in fact under the Government of the UK (not self-governed by Gibraltarians). In fact, for example, in 2007 it was the Governor (remember: reporting to the UK Secretary of Foreign Affairs) who suspended the Chief of Justice –after complaints from law firms-, while the Chief Minister of the GoG emphasised “the GoG’s complete distance from the process”[23] pg. 80; or some controversy about the Governor appointing the new Chairman of the Police Authority shortly before the Commission that should have advised this appointment was constituted [24][25][26]).
• To complete the POV of Spain and the UN (which should be notable enough to be in the article, independently of whether I or you or any other editor agrees with it), I think I should explain their position (even though it is a bit complicated to explain, even more for a non-native English speaker). They say that Gibraltar is not self-governing for the same reason as Western Sahara:

• Most people living now in Western Sahara are Moroccans and many Western Saharans live in exile in Algeria
• But the UN (and Spain among others) consider that all Western Saharans are the people of the territory (because they are the descendants of the people who lived in WS before the occupation by Morocco) and Moroccans living in WS are people in the territory (they are the descendants of people who came because of the occupation by a foreign power)
• The UN and Spain (and other countries) consider that the right of self-determination (and to self-governance) should be exerted by people of the territory, not the people in the territory.
• In the case of Gibraltar, the UN says that the people of the territory are the Spanish people. Of course -being a bit realistic for a change- the UN does not say that UK should return Gib to Spain and that's all; the UN says that the Governments of the UK and Spain should reach an agreement so they stop having a dispute about Gibraltar. They almost did with a proposal of shared sovereignty some years ago (in 2004, I think), but it was rejected by Gibraltarians and the public opinion in the UK.

I don't say that I completely share these POVs. I only say that they exist and are notable (as much as Gibraltar's POV). I think it is not NPOV to reflect only one of these POVs (Gibraltar's) and silence the others (UK's, UN's...) in the lead of the article (even if they all are reflected in some section 100 lines below).

Justin and Gibnews already know this (so I am sorry if I have bored them), but given some of the questions I have seen I thought I had to make some explanation.

Regarding the current dispute: I think we should go to dispute resolution and solve the current dispute. What do you think? I am starting to get a bit worried by the lack of response. --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the Governor may be appointed by the FCO but the appointment is done with the consensus of the GoG, they can't impose a Governor. Again this is simply taking advantage of the ambiguities of the unwritten elements of the constitution and the difference between theoretical and actual powers. The same with the police, the Governor may in theory have that power, in reality it is the GoG who makes the decision. Now you can't say you have never had this explained because you have.

And again it isn't what the UN says, it is what the UN C24 says. Big difference.

And to say the UN says the people of Gibraltar is Spanish is utterly ridiculous. The UN calls for Britain and Spain to resolve the dispute, it does not say how or demand that Britain gives in to Spanish demands.

Reliable sources do say Gibraltar is self-governing.

And then I have this strange feeling of deja vu, because we've been through this before and you return to the same points long after they've either been explained or rebutted. Justin talk 00:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, it seems you have not even read the news about the appointment of the Chief of Police by the Governor before the Commission that should have advised this appointment was constituted [27][28][29]).

Even the Chief Minister says that Gibraltar is not self-governing about internal security matters: "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers." [30] (page 4).

I am sure we have talked about this before (I was only repeating it for outside editors who have commented here). Given that you are not convinced by my arguments, and you (understandably) don't want to read them over and over, don't you agree we should try a new step of dispute resolution? --Imalbornoz (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You make some amazing claims about the UN, I would like to see a reference that supports the view that they say the 'people of Gibraltar' are Spanish and that the Gibraltarians have no rights as they have only lived here for 306 years. The Governor fulfills a similar role to the Queen, and actually reports to her rather than the FCO. His role in suspending the CJ is consequential to the seperation of the judicary and the state, which is a feature of 'good governance'. I'm sure the monarch in Spain has similar functions. The UN does not say anything about Gibraltar being non self governing, although its on a list for historical reasons. Sometimes Spain thinks there is no Govenment of Gibraltar at all, yet other times they have lunch with its leader. Its all a mystery to me. However its pretty clear that Gibraltar is self governing. --Gibnews (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Let us see, I'll show you some sources about the UN (I hope that after you read them you don't keep sticking to your view and are able to change your mind about the UN position). It's a bit complicated (the UN language is like that, unfortunately):

• UN General Assembly's Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (resolution 1514): "5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom." and "6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."[31]
• The UN (its General Assembly) said in the resolution 2353 regarding the issue of Gibraltar, talking to the administering Power (UK) and Spain: "Recalling its Resolution 1514 (XV) of the 14 December 1960" and "Considering that any colonial situation which partially or completely destroys the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and especially with paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)(...)" "Declares the holding of the referendum of 10 September 1967 by the administering Power to be a contravention of the provisions of General Assembly resolution 2231 (XXI)"[32]

What does it mean?

• Key words: "national unity" and "territorial integrity". It refers to the UN's position that the people of Spain is deprived of the unity of its territory. Therefore, it considers that the people of Spain is the people of the territory.
• Key words: "referendum" and "a contravention" It means that a referendum held among Gibraltarians does not advance the self-determination of the territory. Therefore, it considers that the people of Gibraltar (or the UK) is not the people of the territory.

It's a complicated language, but that's what it means (if you have any doubt, think how the UN could say that any territorial integrity would be under threat if its position were that the current Gibraltarians were the people of the territory).

Regarding the Governor: He simply reports to the Secretary of State (not the Queen). For example, please read the article 54 of the Constitution of Gibraltar: "54.-(4) The Governor, with the prior approval of a Secretary of State, may disregard the advice of the Public Service Commission in any case where he judges that compliance with that advice would prejudice Her Majesty’s service."

I don't know of any normally self-governing country whose head of state may disregard the advice of its people (notice that the Public Service Commission is responsible for appointing the Supreme Court, for example) but reports to the Secretary of State of a foreign power. I agree that Gibraltar has a degree of self-government in many issues. But its Constitution is not at all consistent with what a layman may think as "plain vanilla" self-governance.

Anyway, even the Government of Gibraltar says that it is not plainly self-governing. Even the Chief Minister says it has strong limits: he says that it has "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers." [33] (page 4).

Finally, I think that all relevant and notable POVs should be included: the UN General Assembly's, the UK Government's, the GoG's. Sorry for the verbose comment, but I thought we should be accurate. --Imalbornoz (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah so you admit that the UN never actually said the things you claimed. I'm all in favour of the principle of territorial integrity, as it rules out the Spanish claim to the Isthmus which is an integral part of the territory of Gibraltar. The assert that the Gibraltarians who have been here for 306 years have no rights is absurd. Gibraltar today is the product of their work and taxes not the decendents of the defectors. UN Resolution 2353(XXII) (1968) seems rather bizzare, but Britain was very unpopular in the UN at the time. The world has changed from the time when Spain was a fascist state and the US needed it as a base to stockpile nuclear weapons in the cold war. The 2002 referendum and the 2006 constitutional referendum are more significant and were not. I think you missunderstand the role of the Governor. If anything Gibraltar has MORE open government than larger states due to its size - we have the advantage of being able to meet with the Governor and the Chief minister informally wheras I doubt you sit next to your king in church or meet Sr Zapaterro in the supermarket. However, the bottom line is that Gibraltar IS self Governing, Spain does not like it as that diminishes its outdated inhuman claim, and you are flogging a dead horse over this and asserting that the real Gibraltarians live in san Roque. --Gibnews (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"I don't know of any normally self-governing country whose head of state may disregard the advice of its people", well how about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In theory, the Queen can sack the Prime Minister, dissolve Parliament and impose direct rule. The Queen is Head of the Armed Forces and the Police Force, in theory she can take direct command of the Armed Forces and the Police. However, in custom and practise, that would never ever happen. Many of the powers you claim for the Governor may well be in the constitution, custom and practise is very different. Again this has been explained to you, yet you persist in the same line of a literal interpretation of the consitution in the full knowledge it is misleading as to the way Gibraltar is governed.

The limit of the language and the way it is used in the lead implies internal self-government as had been repeatedly explained to you.

And if you look at the territorial integrity clause, this was intended to stop nation states artificially breaking up dependent territories to keep control of natural resources etc. It was never intended as an argument for nation states to deny the right of self-determination to the people of dependent territories. Thats a perversion of the UN principle. Its more perverted to try and argue that this means the real people of Gibraltar are Spanish and let me guess whats next, the current population mere squatters?

This is nothing to do with NPOV, these proposals will skew the article to favour a particular POV. Justin talk 09:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Gibnews, I have only explained the UN General Assembly's position. It has never changed (or do you have any General Assembly declaration contradicting the previous statement about Gibraltar?). On the other hand, I have not said that I share the opinion of the UN. I have only said that it is notable. Also, I have never said that the people in San Roque are the "real Gibraltarians".

Justin, the complete sentence about "normally self-governing countries" was "disregards the advice of its people but reports to the Secretary of State of a foreign power." Do you know of any equivalent normally self-governing example? Or are any equivalent cases all "special" (as opposed to normal) self-governing cases?

The lead would imply the degree of self-government that Gibraltar has even if it only stated that "Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory" (all BOTs have a degree of self-government), as outside editor Blueboar proposed in the noticeboard some time ago (an outside comment that you seem to have forgotten). Maybe you should think about it again.

In any case, we are all repeating old arguments. I will ask this once more: which next step of dispute resolution are you ready to accept?

• Ask at a Wikiproject
• RfC
• Formal mediation
• Arbitration

I have proposed you to accept a dispute resolution alternative six times in this talk page (not counting the mediation requests that were disregarded in August); you can see my previous requests to you in this talk page: 08:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC); 13:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC); 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC); 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC); 22:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC); 06:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC). I think that disregarding seven requests would be enough to start to suspect that you just don't want this dispute to be resolved. Please tell me that you wish to move on to one of those alternatives. Thank you. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You see dispute resolution as a process to force people to accept your agenda, that isn't what it exists for. Your "mediation" request that you refer to asked for "mediation" to impose your edit. We aren't repeating the same old arguments, you are. Justin talk 12:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see dispute resolution as a way to get the process to flow more easily, and avoid personal attacks. Really, I don't know where the heck you might have got the idea that I have ever wanted to "impose" anything through mediation (maybe you should take a look at the archive of the mediation request in order to remove that prejudice about me...; in case you find me trying to "impose" anything, show me, so that I can either clarify it or apologise). If you want a current example of my idea of mediation, you can just take a look below at the mediation process on the San Roque episode.

Does your answer mean that you accept or reject any of the following? In case of accepting, which one do you prefer?

• Ask at a Wikiproject
• RfC
• Formal mediation
• Arbitration

(sorry for repeating questions -this is the 8th time- but -as usual- 1) you have not answered me yes or no yet; and 2) I try to assume good faith for as long as possible and wait for a good answer -in this case putting faith in that you will at some time accept the dispute resolution process). --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading the reference you supplied, the Chief Minister's address to the UN C24 in 2007, there may have been some confusion over what he says and his refutation of the arguments used by the Spanish representative, this is part of his argument hightly appropriate to this topic and he says it better than me, being a QC :

“ our ex-administering power does not, under our Constitution, retain a legislative or executive role or power in Gibraltar. In her attempts to undermine the significance and effect of our new Constitution, Spain has recourse to a number of arguments which are simply wrong. She points to various aspects of our Constitution in an attempt to demonstrate the continuing power of the UK and what Spain calls “the administering authorities in the person of the Governor”. These remarks, most recently made by the Spanish Representative at the Grenada Seminar, demonstrate a clear lack of understanding by Spain of the Constitutional model and of the proper legal analysis of the relationship that it creates. The United Kingdom Government has no powers in Gibraltar under our Constitution. It has no legislative powers and it has no executive powers. Under our system of Government, as in much of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is the head of State and the source of all executive and legislative authority in Gibraltar. In exactly the same way as in the UK itself, Australia, Canada and the other Commonwealth countries. The Queen is separately Queen of all territories recognising and acknowledging Her as Head of State, including Gibraltar. Powers vested by the Constitution of Gibraltar in the Governor are vested in him as Representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second in her capacity as Queen of Gibraltar, and not in Her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom. The Governor is not the representative in Gibraltar of the Crown in right of the Government of the United Kingdom. ”

“ Accordingly on each occasion that Spain points to powers of the Governor or of the Administering Power as demonstrating that Gibraltar must therefore still be a colony because these are powers of the administering power, she is completely wrong in law, based on a failure to properly understand the constitutional status of the Queen as our head of state, of the Governor and the Constitutional relationship between the UK and its Overseas Territories, in consequence of which Spain systematically misrepresents the position. ”

I hope that helps explain the position. --Gibnews (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the same address, the Chief Minister says:

“ The new Constitution is now in place and in operation. It maximises our self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers. All other matters are the competence of the Gibraltar Government, the Gibraltar Parliament or other Gibraltar legal institutions. ”

As far as I know, "all areas of self Governance except X" is a clear recognition that self Governance does not apply in those X areas (defence, external affairs and internal security). Isn't it? Therefore, it can be said that, "according to the Chief Minister, Gibraltar is not self-governing in the areas of external affairs, defence and internal security." On the other hand, the UK Government and the UN add to those exceptions the area of "the public service".

We have already discussed about this same issue. I haven't been able to convince you to a) include the UN POV and the Government of Gibraltar POV and the Government of UK POV or b) leave any reference to self-government to the Politics section with these arguments. I have not been convinced by yours to only leave "self-governing 'PERIOD'" in the lead. For the 9th time, do you accept any of the following options for dispute resolution?

• Ask at a Wikiproject
• RfC
• Formal mediation
• Arbitration

Please, let's not go over the same issues again and again. Thank you. --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Chief Minister is very much of the view that Gibraltar is self-governing, as is the last Governor. But I fear repeating the facts will not convince you, because its politically convenient to think of Gibraltar as a British colony rather than a self-governing territory inhabited by Gibraltarians with the right to self-determination. I don't think its productive to discuss this further. --Gibnews (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Text removed

Just to note that I have removed the term "self-governing" from the lede as it is uncited and we have at least one excellent source saying the precise opposite. As disputed and contentious material it should remain out of the article until the matter is properly settled. If both views can be properly sourced then by all means discuss the dispute, otherwise go with the one that can be sourced, but please do not reinsert any reference to self-government at this stage. I agree with the comment at the top of this thread that stating one POV as fact in the lede when there is a competing POV with apparent parity of sourcing is unacceptable (WP:NPOV forbids this, in fact). Guy (Help!) 16:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted. There was a very (and I stress very) long discussion where there was no consensus to remove 'self-governing'. Please re-start the discussion if u wish, but please don't act unilaterally. I don't suspect you've actually read over the previous discussions, otherwise you will be aware that the source that says "the precise opposite" has been challenged. (Btw, it's cited to the Encyclopædia Britannica).RedCoat10 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Its neither disputed, nor contentious but does tend to upset those with an agenda to use Wikipedia as a platform to advance a nationalist agenda, who must now be laughing their cocks off at your intervention. This is absolutely fucking marvelous. I back Redcoat10, 100% for reverting. We don't need intervention to back up people disrupting this article, its precisely this kind of half-arsed ill-informed half-cocked and half-baked drive by admin intervention that gives admins a bad name and drives productive editors off wikipedia. Justin talk 17:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not really a very helpful statement, Justin. I am looking at this as a complete outsider to the dispute, I've read as much of the discussion above as I could without having the whole lot of you blocked for egregious stupidity and irredeemable lameness, and now we come back to the standard, foundational principles of Wikipedia: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS. The source that says it is not self-governing is highly credible. The sources that say otherwsie are, in many cases, not specifically addressing the issue of self-government so are less likely to be accurate because the fact is not specifically checked. Removing the text "self-governing" makes perfect sense at this time, since several of you appear to believe that a see-saw edit war between the "right" version and the "wrong" version is preferable to removing what is self-evidently both contentious and disputed (or we would not even be here) and of decidedly questionable relevance in the first sentence.

I look forward to being accused of some nationalist POV, but I expect that people won't be quite that stupid.

My suggestion to you is that you collaborate and come up with a consensus statement that can go in the body of the article that explains why the dispute exists. By reference to reliable, independent sources. And do be very careful not to misrepresent them - Britannica calls the place a "colony" according to the version I just checked. I checked the lede, which is indeed cited to Britannica ([34]), but - amazingly - it did not say self-governing. I'm sure that's just part of the conspiracy. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't make perfect sense. Its caving in to a POV push and it will only encourage further pushes. Gibraltar is self-governing, it was sourced, not sure whats happened to it but no worries, there are plenty of others. We've tried many times to find a compromise but it was never on the cards, because the people pushing the other line would only ever accept it when the article followed the line they wanted. Thats why I said the above, sheer frustration because this is dismissed as a simple content dispute when it isn't.

Did you actually read what the definition of a non self-governing territory is? The UN uses an arcane definition that bears no relation to the amount of self-government a territory has.

Its not contentious, unless you happen to be pushing a certain line, you talk of WP:NPOV as a bed rock policy. Well you just pulled the rug on that one. The article is less neutral now, by suppressing facts it favours a POV. Justin talk 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. To include one POV would be caving in to a POV-push. To include the other POV is also caving in to a POV-push (you have a POV as well, you know). The issue of self-government is clearly contentious - one of the sources you cites was the chief minister going to the UN precisely because it's contentious. The BBC News site says self-governing except, and the third source talks about almost complete self-government. This is not the kind of thing that is binary, where you can say some sources say self-governing, therefore we ignore all the caveats in those sources, ignore all contrary sources and state as fact that it is self-governing even thought he sources themselves are equivocal. Standing against BBC News and a politician, we have Britannica (which explicitly describes it as a colony) and the UN. It really is not on to state as fact the British POV sourced form British sources when two highly respected independent sources dispute the matter.

The default with disputed and contentious material is to exclude it until a resolution can be reached. Please stop reinserting disputed and contentious text supporting only one of two well-referenced views on the subject. My personal view is that a statement should be included in the ody which discusses the self-government issue and gives both views, I do not think this should be in the lede as "British overseas territory" is sufficiently descriptive and, unlike reflecting one or other POV on self-government, is uncontentious as a statement even if the staus itself is a source of acrimony. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Government consists of ten elected members

Is this true? In most democracies members of the government are appointed by the head of government, even if they are drawn entirely from an elected legislature. Do Gibraltarians get to vote on which member of parliament fills which ministerial portfolio? Dab14763 (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If it says it on Wikipedia, it must be true :) Unlike the UK where there are a large pool of elected members from which to appoint a Government, with only ten party members, they all serve in Government, with the offices allocated by the Chief Minister. The CM is normally the person who receives the highest number of votes. --Gibnews (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Are the members of the ruling party always members of the government? eg If they won 15 seats rather than 10 would all 15 be given ministerial posts? Dab14763 (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as the system gives everyone 10 votes, in practice no party would field a larger candidature as it would split its support. So the above situation would not arise. Its a peculiarity of a small territory. --Gibnews (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

San Roque, the arguments reprised

The Rfc by Atama was: :Should the main Gibraltar article include information about the town's population founding San Roque following a mass departure after the town was surrendered to British forces? One suggestion is to include that detail of the exodus, and other details, in the History of Gibraltar article and leave it out of the main article. But others feel that the information is too important to leave out of the summary in the main article.

We have, I hope, a fair summary of the arguments for and against inclusion, copied from above. In italic, after each one, I have put my opinion on whether the argument is one that helps us to write a good encyclopedia article. As with the procedure suggested above, please feel free to add, after the italicized sections, your ideas on whether the argument concerned is helpful. I will rewrite my own italicized comments below in an attempt to reflect any developing consensus.Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for inclusion

1. The facts (as drafted above, hereinafter just "the facts") are verifiably included in several reputable English-language histories of Gibraltar. No such history has been produced which omits the facts. They are found to be more notable to reputable historians than several points which have been included without controversy.

This seems unequivocally relevant and important.

Given that the in the content below, it is pointed out that most encyclopedias don't tend to mention it, I'd dispute that point. Justin talk 22:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the argument. IMO, given that this is the History section of an article about Gibraltar, this is the key point. It should be enough to include the San Roque episode. In any case, if some editor argued that this episode is not relevant enough for the Gibraltar general article, it would seem extremely inconsistent if they insisted in keeping many other events that are clearly not as notable to reputed secondary sources. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out that impugning the motives of other editors is unhelpful, it certainly does not win people round to your argument. Second the premise of the comment is incorrect, no one has ever said that San Roque is irrelevant but this is an overview and it isn't necessary to include every single fact. The position has consistently been it merits mention in the history article but is one of the minor facts that can be trimmed in an overview. The position in advancing the coverage of the events of 1704, was always "just a few more words" and then another "just a few more words" and another "just a few more words". Some things just aren't necessary for an overview and the constant push, push, push and utter lack of compromise in the agenda has lead to an impasse. There has been a great deal of compromise from one side in the content dispute, none from the other. Justin talk 12:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I just don't see this point is unequivocal, its relevance has never been disputed. What is disputed is whether giving it coverage in an overview is giving it undue coverage. As regards its importance to the territory of Gibraltar, well simply it isn't. The two have developed separately. If we were talking about the History article, I'd still say it was minor but relevant enough. How what is essentially a footnote becomes unequivocal and important, well no it isn't, way too strong. Justin talk 22:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

2. The town of San Roque has, because of the facts, some legal and demographic continuity with Gibraltar. It is within the former territory of the Campos de Gibraltar. Many of the previous inhabitants of Gibraltar settled in San Roque, which kept Gibraltar's historical standard, granted by the Catholic Monarchs, its establishment privilege, its coat of arms, its records, its city council. Thus it has some legal and demographic continuity with Gibraltar. This is notable to both Spanish nationalists and Gibraltarians.

This is at least mildly interesting and does tend to establish notability, not only to Spanish nationalists and Gibraltarians, but also to anyone with an interest in Gibraltar.

I agree that it establishes notability

(on the other hand, I wouldn't only take into account Spanish nationalists and Gibraltarians: it is notable to many Spanish non-nationalists as well -among them, yours truly-, to quite a few UN officials and international law specialists, to quite a few historians -as seen above- ...; I would suggest that the above argument is changed in order to include all of these people, otherwise it suggests that any Spaniard who defends that the "continuity" issue is notable is a "nationalist", and this is not a very comfortable position from which to discuss -I, for one, feel uncomfortable, given that I am not of the nationalist type) --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made a small addition to incorporate this point. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out that mildly interesting tends to add weight to the suggestion that it is of minor importance and is perhaps better suited to History article. Also to point out establishing notability has never been disputed, what is the crux of the matter is the due prominence and whether it merits inclusion in an overview. Justin talk 12:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Gibraltar can claim the unusual distinction of having founded San Roque.

Strikes me as an argument barely worth mentioning.

I agree that this is a very secondary pro-inclusion argument. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against inclusion

1. The town of San Roque is no more than a fairly close neighbour of the modern British territory of Gibraltar, the actual subject of the article.

This article is not limited to the present territory of Gibraltar. If it was, this would be relevant. OK, some good points below, let's have another try: On the basis of past practice, this article is indeed about the area of the present British-occupied territory. However, it also makes reference to matters which affected or were affected by that area. The destination of many of its inhabitants and of its council is indeed peripheral, but may reasonably seem just relevant enough to justify brief comment in this article. This argument alone is not decisive either way. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that the actual subject of the History section of this article is clearly not limited to the modern British territory of Gibraltar.

In fact, the History section talks about Gibraltar in general, not only about the BOT: it talks about Neolithic Neanderthals in 128,000 BC and Cromagnon in 24,000 BC, then about Phoenicians, Carthaginians and Romans; then about the Vandals and Visigoths; then about the Muslim period and the Spanish period (it even mentions that Cordoba was the final destination for some Sephardim who only stayed in Gibraltar for 3 years); then about the period when its official status was "The town and garrison of Gibraltar in the Kingdom of Spain" (until 1830); then about the period when it was "The Crown Colony of Gibraltar" (until 2002); finally, some detail (very few words, actually) about the period since 2002. In fact, the History section does not even mention the change of Gibraltar's status to the present "British Overseas Territory".

You can also see that this section wikilinks to the article History of Gibraltar. It is generally accepted that this means that this section should be a summary of the detailed article. This detailed article clearly explains the History of Gibraltar in general and the San Roque episode in particular.

Therefore, the subject of the History section being -as we have seen- the History of Gibraltar (in general), the only criteria we should use to decide whether to include -or not- the fact that almost all Gibraltar's inhabitants left in exile and the greatest part of them settled nearby Gibraltar in what would shortly after become the town of San Roque should be "Is it verifiable and notable among reputed secondary sources dealing with the History of Gibraltar?" As we have seen in point 1 of the pro-inclusion arguments, the answer to this question would be: yes. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

But the article is about Gibraltar and not domestic events in Spain. When Franco closed the frontier, large numbers of Spanish workers from La Linea went to live in the UK, indeed more than the San Roque crowd. But the place to mention that is on the La Linea page, or one about Fulham, and not the Gibraltar one. --Gibnews (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gibnews in the article being about Gibraltar. That is why I say that, if we want to see what is relevant and notable for the History of Gibraltar, we should look at books about the History of Gibraltar (not books about the History of Spain or La Linea or Fulham). That takes us to point 1 of the pro-inclusion arguments (which deals with sources whose subject is exactly within those limits). --Imalbornoz (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Imalbornoz. I have rewritten my point above to reflect your argument. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, this article is about the present day territory of Gibraltar, it is not about the Campo de Gibraltar. Justin talk 21:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have struck through the comment, the article is an overview on the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar, the comment bore no relation to the subject of this article and to attempt to move the goal posts to discredit an argument I find simply unacceptable. Justin talk 12:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we ask Richard Keatinge first, before striking through his comments? --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

He is perfectly capable of doing that himself if he objects but given this is supposedly trying to work to a consensus I don't see how anyone would find it acceptable to rubbish an argument by shifting the goal posts. Justin talk 13:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If most editors are of that opinion, maybe they should propose to change the approach and remove all of the events in the History section previous to 2002 (when Gibraltar actually became a British Overseas Territory). So far, it is obvious that the current consensus approach for the History section deals with the History of Gibraltar in general (including the Neanderthal, Phoenicians, Romans, Muslims, Cordoban Sephardim, Spaniards...-; for more detail, you can see my comment above, read the content of the section and/or notice the wikilink to History of Gibraltar). --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

So now you wish to expunge the fact that Gibraltar was ever Spanish? Strange volte face, not sure I would support such a comment. The fact remains the article is limited to the present territory of Gibraltar. Justin talk 13:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to expunge any relevant period from the history section (God forbid!) I only said that the article is not limited chronologically to the present (British Overseas) Territory of Gibraltar (which only exists since 2002), but if some editors want to change that, they would have to make a proposal.

I should add that the article is not limited geographically to the territory of Gib either: it also makes a reference to events that originated ouside of Gibraltar but affected the Rock (for example, Operation Felix in WWII, or the bombing of Guernica in the Spanish Civil War), and events that originated inside of Gibraltar but affected the outside world (the San Roque episode would be one of these, as well as most people from the "notable people from Gibraltar" list).

Where is the limit, then? I would say that the right answer lies in the notability of issues in secondary sources dealing with Gibraltar. In the case of the History section, it would be History of Gibraltar books by reputed historians (that's why I said this takes us back to point 1 of the "for inclusion" arguments). --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the limit? Things that happened in Gibraltar or affected Gibraltar in some way seems a sensible limit for an overview. The founding of San Roque did neither. You're seeking to extend that to an unrelated settlement, it is referenced in History books yes but not in overviews of Gibraltar itself. Your own argument doesn't hold water, the event that conferred significance upon San Roque happened in Spain, namely the decision of the Spanish king to confer the Government of the Campo de Gibraltar upon San Roque. It had no relation to events in Gibraltar, other than several years earlier some of the people living in Gibraltar chose to relocate to San Roque because they felt it would be safer. Justin talk 16:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a very respectable opinion.

As a matter of fact, I see that the article talks about many things happening outside of Gibraltar, as long as they are (inbound or outbound) related.

I have my own opinion: I hope you'll agree that the most important subject of the town of Gibraltar is its human population (in most histories, that's usually the case); in 1704 those were the 4.000 inhabitants inside the town of Gibraltar; therefore, it sounds reasonable to me that the fact that almost all of them left in exile and settled down nearby, the largest part around the chapel of San Roque -6 km away from the Rock- keeping Gibraltar's public records and some legal and demographic continuity is very relevant to the History of Gibraltar. It sounds very unreasonable to me that the Gibraltar article should forget its subjects as soon as they crossed the border, no matter how notable what they did or what happened to them afterwards (see many notable people for an example). Also, not surprisingly, San Roque has had enough impact on Gibraltar (as a base for sieges, as a source for cross-border workers or for wives, as an argument used inside a "Spanish nationalist agenda"...) But that's only my opinion.

What I say is: Let's not look at your opinion or my opinion: let's see what reputed authors say (in this case authors of books about the History of Gibraltar). --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

History books being the operative word, ie works focusing on the history of Gibraltar and not intended to provide a simple overview. Justin talk 20:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

2. San Roque is described as the most important settlement to result only because the administrative functions were transferred there, but many of the residents dispersed elsewhere into the Campo de Gibraltar, founding Algeciras and San Roque, some going even farther afield.

True, but does not detract from the value of the arguments for inclusion.

Disagree, seeing as the argument is most went there. Justin talk 22:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the argument is that a significant number went there, rather than a majority.Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It does detract from the argument for inclusion though, its only one of many places, why single this one out. Justin talk 21:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

3. The people who left Gibraltar played no further part in the history of Gibraltar, nor were there any significant repercussions from their departure.

Again true, but not really an argument against inclusion of the facts.

Disagree, they played no further part in Gibraltar history, so how can the mention be relevant? Justin talk 22:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's no further part.Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, a typo. Justin talk 21:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes a typo and given that San Roque has no impact on the history of Gibraltar, the subject of this section, implies that San Roque is not relevant to Gibraltar. It is a) true as acknowledged and b) indicative of it being a fact not necessary for an overview article to give a reader background information on the subject of Gibraltar. Justin talk 12:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

4. The article is too long already and the facts surrounding the founding of San Roque could be trimmed for brevity in what is an overview article. Other encyclopedias do not mention the facts.

True and relevant. However, argument 1 for inclusion seems to address the same issue but with somewhat more weight.

There is the schism in your comments, you say on the one hand that because most histories include it it merits inclusion but that most encyclopedias don't..... Justin talk 22:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Most histories treat this as more significant than other points which are now uncontroversially in the article. I haven't seen an analogous point made for encyclopedias, but then traditional encyclopedias are more limited for space than we are.Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Histories being the operative word, as opposed to articles intended to merely give an overview. No one has objected to it being mentioned in the history article. Justin talk 21:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

5. The facts belong in the History of Gibraltar article not necessarily an overview article.

An arguable position rather than an argument in itself, but based on a sound understanding of the role of overview and detail articles.

Not really, a history text is analogous to the history article, an encyclopedic article to this article. Justin talk 22:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

...OK, it's a better point than I gave credit for. I've rewritten my comment above in a less grudging way. :-) Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

6. The facts are only notable to people who want Spain to have sovereignty over Gibraltar.

Not actually quite correct. They're mildly notable to me, anyway.

The point is actually written incorrectly, the Spanish under Franco advanced San Roque as the real Gibraltar. Spanish nationalists continue to push the same line. Justin talk 21:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

7. San Roque's claim to be the real Gibraltar is irrelevant to Gibraltarian, UK, or international law. Such claims can be offensive to Gibraltarians.

Here we come to the nub of the matter. I suggest that this argument is not relevant to our task of building a good encyclopedia article. Many very offensive facts are highly notable. Indeed, it could be argued that their very offensiveness makes them notable and worth inclusion here. We are not here to settle the world's problems or even take a view on them. We are here to write really good encyclopedia articles about them.

True, neither are we a soap box for people to use to advance a POV agenda. Justin talk 22:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If the facts about San Roque were being used here to advance a POV agenda this would be a good reason to remove the POV agenda, though not the facts. As far as I can see they haven't been used here for that purpose, though the mention of the facts has been taken to be such a use. It isn't. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

They are actually, now the agenda is back to removing any mention of the fact that Gibraltar is self-governing. Its a case of trying to wear down opposition with tendentious argument. Justin talk 21:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue of San Roque is just one of the tactics used by the Government of Spain to try and imply that the Gibraltarians are not a people and are transients with no right to the territory. In practice anyone on San Roque who wanted to 'return' to Gibraltar can do so tomorrow, although they don't and there are plenty of Gibraltarians buying property there for second homes and living in peace and harmony. However none of this belongs on the page about Gibraltar. Again given that we have the 'we was robbed' story on the history of Gibraltar, the dispute, San Roque, La Linea pages and heaven knows where else in Wikipedia its pretty well described. The focus of the Gibraltar page is modern Gibraltar, which means 1704+ and which has nothing to do with San Roque. --Gibnews (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comment. In fact, I think we all agree that this issue is something that should only worry public officials (and maybe some Spanish or Gibraltarian or British nationalists). As wikipedians, it should be irrelevant to the current discussion about whether to include or not the San Roque episode in the History section. The "nationalist agenda" based on modern claims might only be relevant for the "Recent years" subsection or the "Politics" section or some hypothetical "Disputes about Gibraltar" section, but surely not the events being represented around the XVIII century in the History section. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I agree with Imalbornoz that the San Roque episode needs mentioning. It is a historical fact that the residents of Gibraltar fled the rock during the invasion by the Dutch and British forces in 1704, and settled near the Ermita de San Roque. The settlment later became the town of San Roque, and was referred to as the "Very Noble and Loyal town of San Roque, where the Gibraltar town resides". In Spanish: Muy Noble y Más Leal ciudad de San Roque, donde reside la de Gibraltar. This definitely deserves mentioning. JCRB (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Due to the persist disruption of the article by JCRB for over 2 years now, I have opened a thread on AN/I. I've also reverted the article to the current consensus. Thats it for me, I've had enough for now. Justin talk 00:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you should report anybody when you and User:Gibnews have permanently blocked any information that does not suit your British POV. Indeed, for over 2 years some good editors have tried to include relevant pieces of information to improve the article and reduce its huge bias. This you call "disruption". We have seen the result of this effort. By the way, you have also been reported on AN/I. JCRB (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read wp:npa. --Gibnews (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should read WP:CIV, WP:EQ and WP:OWN JCRB (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

JCRB, that's factually incorrect. Both Gib and Justin have made efforts to get along with people at this article who have a different POV, I participated in a sometimes difficult but ultimately productive mediation which would have been impossible if your allegations had even the shred of truth. Your attacks are unnecessary, and perhaps you should take a look at your own attempts to push your own POV onto this article before throwing stones at other editors. This is a heated topic and going on full offense is a very bad idea. -- Atama頭 17:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Atama, what's factually incorrect? I don't quite follow. Allegations such as these are hard to prove, I admit it. You cannot exactly quantify the extent to which these editors have rejected sourced information over a long period of time. Perhaps you can count how many times they have blocked legitimate contributions, but we do not have the time to do this. In any case these are not attacks. They are pretty reasonable accusations based on long, mostly fruitless discussions with these gentlemen. If you have the patience, please have a look at the many points made by User:Ecemaml, User:Imalbornoz, other editors and myself in the last two years. Every single time, no matter how constructive and well-supported the fact was, these editors rejected it, either by downplaying the sources ("UN resolutions are not worth the paper they're printed on" - Gibnews) or countering them with arguments like "the article is too long already", or calling it a "minor detail" or "irrelevant", or simply denying the information out of personal skepticism. Curiously, the article is not "too long" when it's time to include the pro-British elements such as the Jane's Country Risk analysis, or mention the wish of the "overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians" or Britain's "commitment" to respecting their "wishes", when in fact according to the Treaty that binds Spain and Britain, the sovereignty of Gibraltar is not with the people who inhabit it, but with the "Mother Country" which colonizes, rules or administers the territory, meaning Britain. Thus, the wish of Gibraltarians to remain under British rule is quite irrelevant from a legal point of view. Again, this is ignored in the text. Let us remember that this is an article on a disputed territory, meaning 2 countries disputing sovereignty (therefore 2 points of view). However, it dedicates long sentences to explain the "positive" side of British rule, thereby subtly justifying it, but ignores the claims made by the other country (Spain) not only regarding sovereignty (explained above: territorial integrity and UN Resolutions on decolonization) but more serious matters such as: illegal trafficking, trespassing Spanish territorial waters, illegal building of the airport, shifting of the Gibraltar-Spain border over time, and others. This is a tricky and sensitive issue so I will not expand on it. The point is that the Spanish or Andalusian POV is completely avoided in this article. It needs to be more balanced and unbiased. I will make the following point again: I am not pushing for a Spanish POV, but for a more neutral and objective wording of the article. JCRB (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish

“ We conclude that the series of allegations which Spain makes against Gibraltar appear almost wholly to be without substance. In many cases, it is not just the Government of Gibraltar but the British Government as well which is traduced. It is deeply regrettable that allegations are made that cannot be sustained by a basis in fact. If concrete evidence of wrong-doing were produced, the British Government should act promptly to deal with the problem. But so long as allegations are unsubstantiated, the British Government should continue to rebut them promptly and decisively. ... 'UK Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee Report.' ”

“ "Money laundering on an all-crimes basis was criminalized in 1995, All financial institutions, insurance companies, bureaux de change, accountants, company formation agents, casinos, attorneys and others are obliged to report suspicious transactions. Gibraltar is within the EU as part of the UK Member State. It implemented the EU Money Laundering Directive in 1995, and its anti-money laundering legislation is fully in line with EU requirements. ... 'US State department.' ”

“ The Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over Gibraltar, including its territorial waters. ... HMG. ”

Yes the Andalusian opinion is ignored, because it is irrelevant, Gibraltar is not part of Andalusia, Gibraltar laws apply, and there is nothing illegal going on - Should know of anything, call the Gibraltar Police. BUT if all you can come up with is a list of lies, those are things which do not merit inclusion in wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from using expressions such as "rubbish", they are disrespectful and impolite. The Spanish or Andalusion POV's are very relevant to the article as Spain happens to be the other party in the Territorial dispute over Gibraltar, which happens to share a border with Andalusia, Spain. Also, the inhabitants of San Roque, Cadiz are the descendants of the Gibraltar residents which fled the territory following the British occupation in the 18th century, and therefore consider themselves "Gibraltarians" as well. San Roque is in Andalusia, therefore the Andalusian POV is also relevant to the article. By the way, thanks for reproducing the opinion of one of the sides in the dispute, the UK government. However, this is already sufficiently clear in the article. What we need is more neutral sources, and a less biased article. JCRB (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltarians vs Llanitos

Under "Language" we read Gibraltarians also call themselves Llanitos. Should the latter term be added in the Infobox as an additional demonym? Irv (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a colloquial demonym and, unlike say 'Aussie', not used outside Gibraltar (with the exception of the Campo de Gibraltar), so I would advise against it. RedCoat10 (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Redcoat, Gibraltarian is the global official term that describes the people which belongs in the infobox. --Gibnews (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that the only official demonym should be included in the infobox. However, the use of the term Llanito as a colloguial demonym is notable enough to remain elsewhere in the artice. --Gibmetal 77^talk 19:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A Proposal

Whether its PC or not to say it, most of the disputes on this page boil down to the difference in the view of Gibraltar between Spanish POV and Gibraltarian POV editors, and the dispute spills over onto a number of other pages. At present we have two major disagreements;

• How much we mention San Roque
• Government in Gibraltar

Both of these directly impact the validity Spanish sovereignty claim.

I propose that we limit the discussion of disputes to the article disputed status of Gibraltar and that the entire description of the capture of Gibraltar is farmed out to an article of that title, which is referenced from all the other pages that contain the various POV ridden descriptions of the events of 1704.

AND it can include detail of San Roque, how noble it is, and how the natives link hands and dance around the refinery stack every year calling for the return of the rock, should that happen - although I suspect like the Gibraltarians they have other more pressing concerns and golf courses.

OR we can just go on and on for the foreseeable future, until everyone gets banned from editing, or drops out. However, for as long as the propaganda and dispute rages undoubtedly others will pick up when the existing editors get bored or die of old age. --Gibnews (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Self-government

The status of Gibraltar as self-governing is disputed, this is separate for the long-standing territorial dispute between UK and Spain. This has been the subject of a see-saw revert war in the lead sentence.

In favour of the view that Gib is self-governing are these sources (though some appear to be equivocal):

• http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/topical-speeches/162-chief-ministers-un-speech] Chief Minister's UN Speech "Mr Chairman, nobody who visits Gibraltar and observes its society and self government can objectively think that Gibraltar, in reality, remains a colony." Speech to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation 8 October 2009

* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/1386334/Gibraltar-makes-plans-for-self-government.html] David Blair, Gibraltar makes plans for self-government, Daily Telegraph, 28 February 2002 "GIBRALTAR'S parliament approved an ambitious package of constitutional reform yesterday designed to give the colony almost complete self-government.

Note from Imalbornoz This last source belongs in the "not complete self-government" category

Against the view are these sources:

• http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gaspd422.doc.htm, Remaining 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories on United Nations List Are ‘16 Too Many’,

* https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gi.html Government type: N/A I struck through this source as if you look at the link for Government type on the CIA website there is no category for governments like GoG. Justin talk 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Supporting the view that Gibraltar is either "self-governing except for" or has "almost complete self-government" (not simply "self-governing"):

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/1386334/Gibraltar-makes-plans-for-self-government.html] David Blair, Gibraltar makes plans for self-government, Daily Telegraph, 28 February 2002 "GIBRALTAR'S parliament approved an ambitious package of constitutional reform yesterday designed to give the colony almost complete self-government.
• http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/press_releases/2007/133-2007.pdf The Chief Minister of Gibraltar says that it has "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers."
• http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/147/147i.pdf The UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 2007-2008 Report says that Gibraltar has “almost complete internal self-government”. Also that the responsibilities of the Governor are in the areas of "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service”
• https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gi.html "the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability"
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/3851047.stm The country profiles in BBC say that Gibraltar is “self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy”
• http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1018317.html Haretz (Israel's newspaper): "The territory has a large degree of autonomy with respect to government and law; only foreign affairs, and defense and security matters are in Britain's hands" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imalbornoz (talk • contribs) 07:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note from Imalbornoz I have added this new category of sources supporting a third POV (self-governing with notable exceptions) Note from Justin There isn't a 3rd POV category as Self-government of itself is a qualification in that it does not indicate a sovereign state, only sovereign states control all aspects of Government.

Supporting neither view but indicating that the question is not as simple as is/is not self-governing:

• http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/233245/Gibraltar

Note from Justin This sources actually states Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense.

Unfortunately someone forgot to include this cite as to why Gibraltar remains on the UN list:

Special Committee on Decolonization hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from list of Non-Self-Governing Territories

Note from Imalbornoz This cite only proves that Spain is against delisting Gibraltar, not that this is the only reason (or even the main reason) "why" Gibraltar is on that list of 16 territories. In fact there are 9 BOTs on that list besides Gibraltar: it sounds very reasonable that they share some common "why" with Gibraltar (besides the very specific position of Spain in the case of Gibraltar). Striking through comments as misleading and only Gibraltar asked to be delisted. This is WP:OR and is not permitted on wikipedia. Justin talk 18:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Again forced to strike through comments, Gibraltar is the only BOT to ask to be delisted. The comments were designed to give a misleading impression. Justin talk 19:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Struck through comments again, irrelevant info and editor opinion presented as fact. Justin talk 16:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Struck through comments by editor who has modified the RFC after filing, for his personal opinion and not to correct an error by the person filing. --I've deleted my warning, can you just leave one explanation of the strike thrus so the intro is not packed by our comments? (I'll delete this comment myself) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Question 1

Should self-government remain in the lead sentence, supporting only one of the two POVs (whichever it might be) during discussion.

Question 2

Should self-government remain in the lede long-term

Question 3

What form of words will correctly and neutrally cover the disputed status

Discussion

Statement above is, I think, an accurate description of the dispute. For the avoidance of doubt I am English, this may be considered significant by those Spanish editors involved but I hope I have acted as an honest broker in stating the dispute above. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No its not, the issue of self Government is Only being disputed because it detracts the Spanish claim that Gibraltar remains 'a colony' and its Spanish government policy that 'decolonisation' can only take place by imposing Spanish sovereignty which is not acceptable to the Gibraltarians. --Gibnews (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Again Gibnews, your words reveal your complete lack of neutrality on this issue. Your personal interpretations about "Spanish government policy" are quite irrelevant. What counts is what can be sourced, not speculation. Guy has made a good effort in finding a solution to this endless dispute, and we should support his initiative. Probably the best solution is to take the self-governing issue off from the lead sentence. JCRB (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

JzG

My view is that:

• It should not be in the lead sentence until the dispute is resolved
• It should not be in the lede at all, as inclusion there seems to be part of an off-wiki WP:BATTLE and does not appear to me to add anything over and above what is understood form British overseas territory
• Any statement will need to reflect the rather obvious fact that the sources supporting self-governed as a status are all British, whereas those opposing it are not; more and better sources on both sides are required, and actually these are largely primary sources not secondary in that they are stating a claim, not analysing it. Secondary and review sources discussing the issue of self-government, from publications with no history of supporting either of the competing external factions, must be strongly preferred when developing any statement.

I also think that any editor associated with either POV - and the majority here appear to favour the British side - should be topic banned or blocked if they edit the contentious text during the period of the RfC, it should be left to a neutral third party to make any final summary and change to the article. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are fanning the flames of an otherwise fairly civilised dispute. Let me make one point. Gibraltar IS BRITISH its people are BRITISH and Britain does not have colonies. Its very insulting to use that word.

In 2002, we held a referendum where 99% of the population rejected a UK Government proposal for shared sovereignty with Spain. In 2006 we approve, by referendum a new constitution which makes Gibraltar self-governing removing the residual powers of HMG and their representatives in the elected parliament. The Wikipedia article represents the current status of Gibraltar. Discussions in the UN C24 represent the status of Gibraltar in the sixties and are going nowhere and have no 'real world' implications.

Despite being told to 'go away' the claim persists, but to give it equal merit in relation to the main Gibraltar page is ludicrous. It should, however be described on the page on the territorial dispute and nowhere else.3

A long hard battle has been fought for self determination in the real world the gains are real and the sentiment of Matthew 5:15 applies.--Gibnews (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a valid argument that they are not self-governing. If you mention in the lead section that they are self-governing, you are going to have to also mention that this is disputed. No, you don't have to give it unnecessary article space if it's not a significant dispute (though this seems unlikely), but you do need to be neutral, and that means presenting all sides of the disagreement. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The point you're missing is that one "side" is denying something for their POV reasons, then suppressing those facts are handing them exactly what they want. The neutral facts are that Gibraltar is self-governing but that Spain in pursuit of its territorial claim opposes removing Gibraltar from the UN list. What is wrong with saying that?

There seem to be plenty of references to Gibraltar being self-governing, although that is only true since the 2006 constitution was implemented and therefore there may be out of date references to the situation prior to that, plus in support of its disputed territorial claim, Spain blocks removal of Gibraltar from the UN list of non-self governing territories. Sometimes it even denies that the Gibraltar Government exists. But despite that it most certainly does. --Gibnews (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Those who state that it's self-governing are also doing so for POV reasons. It's a political debate, everybody will have a POV. Our job is to distill the neutral point of view, and this is best done by references to review sources which directly discuss the dispute over just how self-governing the place is or is not. You don't get to state, as is done below, that being "self-governing except for matters of foreign and defence policy" means that being self-governing is a fact, because by the same token the island is not self-governing, and that's a fact directly stated as such by the United Nations. There is no obvious single value of truth here, that's the problem. If the source for non self-governing was El Blogo Gibraltario Es Espanol then we would not even be having this discussion, but it is the United Nations. They are probably more neutral on the matter than the BBC, and even the BBC is equivocal at best. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To portray the UN as "neutral" whilst maybe attractive is naive at best, its one of the most political organisations that exist. I suggest for one you look at how the UN defines "non-self-governing" and two the UN documents that refer to the fact that Gibraltar remains on the list due to Spanish objections.

To state both is a neutral view, to deny the self-governing nature of Gibraltar to pander to disruptive editors skewing the article to a particular POV. I note that even Ecemaml, who I have violently disagreed with on many occasions, supports the thrust of this argument. I don't think you could ever accuse Ecemaml of being a British stooge. Justin talk 17:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I fear that you are entirely missing the point. I don't believe that JzG was taking a side here, what he's basically saying is that though it may well be that Gibraltar is self-governing, the simple fact is that not everyone agrees with this position. Should we state that Gibraltar is self-governing, then Wikipedia would be taking a stance on this matter. This conflicts with our policy of neutrality. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To be utterly blunt no it does not. Gibraltar is self-governing its a simple fact. Let us compare apples with apples and not with oranges. It isn't taking a stance, its reporting facts, the Flat Earth Society says the Earth is flat, we don't edit that article to state that the Earth may be round or flat according to your POV. I just checked to make sure. "Self-governing" describes a territory that administers its own affairs but is not completely sovereign or independent.. What the UN classes as self-government is :

“

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

”

IE it bears no relationship as to what reasonable people would classify as self-government or not. The neutral facts are that Gibraltar is self-governing but Spain objects to its removal from the UN C24 list because of its sovereignty claim. Justin talk 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

While some editors are making a genuine effort to find a neutral wording, Justin and Gibnews keep pushing their POV based on their personal opinions and what "reasonable people" would say. Then they accuse those who favour neutrality of "disrupting" the article. Judge for yourselves. Gibraltar is two things: a disputed territory and a colony of Great Britain. It is not a state in free association with another state, it is not an integral part of a sovereign state (it has a Governor, like Brunei or Saint Kitts, or Grenada, or Mauritius or Fiji or Hong Kong had Governors), and it is definitely not a sovereign state. Even the sources presented by these editors say that Gibraltar does not have self-government in defense and foreign affairs. Plus, the United Nations has issued several mandates requesting its decolonization since the 1960's, and has since listed the territory as Non-Self-Governing. Not much more need be said. JCRB (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy

My view is that if there is a disputed viewpoint on whether Gibraltar is self-governed or not, and it's important to note in the lead section then it would be best to say explicitly that whether Gibraltar is self-governed is disputed. But is it important to have in the lead section? Probably not. Best to explain the situation in the main article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin

The British Government has maintained a policy since the '60s of either granting independence or devolving self-government onto the former colonies of the British Empire. This is easily cited.

Since 1969, Gibraltar has increasingly become self-governing. Again this is easily cited.

The most recent constitution (2006) has devolved almost total self-government upon Gibraltar. Again this is easily cited. The limits are defence and foreign relations; although Gibraltar has represented itself at the UN. Easily cited.

The original purpose of the UN C24 was to assist colonial peoples toward independence. Like many UN organisations that original purpose has now been subverted, it now represents a forum for nation states to advance their sovereignty claims; though as a body it has no powers to rule on sovereignty. Again this is easily cited.

In pursuit of its territorial claim, Spain opposes Gibraltar being removed from the list. Hence, Gibraltar remains on the list. Easily cited, it was in the article.

The article as I changed it last night reads that it is self-governing but remains on the UN list due to Spanish pressure, that is a neutral summary of the facts.

In pursuit of its sovereignty claim, Spain denies Gibraltar is self-governing, this is to portray it as a colony that needs decolonisation by transfer, funnily enough, to Spain. However, the population of Gibraltar do not wish to be transferred to Spain and have made that overwhelmingly plain in two referenda (that independent observers have held up as a model of democratic practise). Both facts easily cited.

To remove the fact that Gibraltar is self-governing thus favours one particular POV and is not a neutral summary of the facts.

A neutral summary is that Gibraltar as a BOT, has received increasing self-government. It remains on the UN list due to Spanish opposition to removing it. That is what the article said until it was changed. That is what it should say. This is not a British view, it is a neutral summary of the facts.

I have had enough of the tendentious editing by a few editors who are abusing UN resolutions, to claim that Gibraltar is not self-governing. The intervention to remove verifiable information and threatening topic bans and blocks on editors who restore it is unhelpful and is only going to encourage the disruptive editors who've tied this page up for months; they've got what they wanted. Justin talk 12:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Question 1

Should self-government remain in the lead sentence, supporting only one of the two POVs (whichever it might be) during discussion.

Most definitely, it is not supporting one of two POV, it is presenting a NPOV of the facts.

I disagree. There is definitely conflicting viewpoints around this topic, it seems to me that this "fact" is not a fact at all but a viewpoint taken by many Gibraltans. And it may well be that it is the case. However, from another point of view, the Spanish government and the U.N. do not accept that Gibraltar is self-governed, and that is another viewpoint. Therefore it would not be NPOV to say that Gibraltar is definitely self-governing in the lead section. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The UN position bears no relationship to the degree of self-government, the Spanish denial is one of dogma, unrelated to whether Gibraltar is self-governing. To remove self-government is to pander to a POV not to support NPOV. Justin talk 00:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Question 2

Should self-government remain in the lede long-term

Most definitely, it is presenting a NPOV of the facts. To suppress it, is favouring a POV that seeks to deny self-government as part of a nationalist agenda. Question 3

What form of words will correctly and neutrally cover the disputed status

Gibraltar (Template:Pron-en) is a self-governing British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. It nonetheless remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories as Spain (in pursuit of its territorial claim) opposes any attempt to remove it from the list.

Gibnews

Despite being someone who does not live in Gibraltar and who is not Gibraltarian, Justin expresses the wikipedia arguments better than me.

Having personally struggled to achieve self-government, I'm very proud of the way Gibraltar has achieved it. For most nations the process involves a dark period of guns, bombs and killing. Gibraltar has managed to do so peacefully and suppressing the result to pander to the sensibilities of a foreign state, which is not involved in the affairs of Gibraltar, is not what a reliable international online reference work should consider. --Gibnews (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with being proud of the achievements of a nation or state, but this is not really relevant to the problem we are discussing here. There are a few viewpoints on the whole self-governing issue, so to categorically say that Gibraltar is self-governing is to cause Wikipedia to support one viewpoint over another. We cannot do this, because this is against our policy of neutrality. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What matters is whether Gibraltar is self-governing (as supported by references), not that some wish to deny it to advance a political position. That is why the dispute exists, covering up facts in the name of appeasement is bad practice. The POV of the Spanish Government over Gibraltar is rather perverse, for instance they insist that the frontier is not a frontier but is in fact a fence. Their POV does not mean you don't need a passport to cross, as you do at any frontier, but not most fences. --Gibnews (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You constantly deny the sources that don't support your POV, ie. those that classify Gibraltar as Non-Self-Governing. This attitude won't give you much credibility. I strongly suggest you take a more academic approach to this question, specially by following Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV. JCRB (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's perverse of the Spanish government, but as it's a significant viewpoint it should be presented here. Please read WP:NPOV. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ecemaml

According to the sources provided, it's fairly simple (I think) to comply to WP:NPOV. Which are the facts that can be asserted for sure?

• Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory.
• The 2006 Constitution Order granted it full self-government except in the areas of defence and foreign affairs (that is, it's partially self-governing).
• It remains in the UN list of non-self-governing territories, as the UN involved Spain (which has a territorial claim on Gibraltar) in its decolonization process.
• UK and Gibraltar has asked to be delisted, unsuccessfully.
• UK has explicitly denied the possibility of independence to Gibraltar.

Therefore, redaction should be like this:

Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. Since the granting of its last constitution, in 2006, it enjoys full self-government except in the areas of defence and foreign policy. In spite of the requirements from both the Governments of United Kingdom and Gibraltar, it nonetheless remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories, as Spain maintains a territorial claim on Gibraltar.

A shorter version could be:

Gibraltar is an almost fully self-governing British Overseas Territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. It nonetheless remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories, as Spain maintains a territorial claim on Gibraltar.

Fairy simple, isn't it? Especially considering this: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"

As an aside, the fact of Spain opposing the delisting of Gibraltar is simply a half-truth. Spain opposes, but it would be irrelevant if its position weren't shared by a not insignificant number of countries. --Ecemaml (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Aside from an error in the English grammar, the text you propose it isn't a million miles away. Your final point is a little disingenuous, since without Spanish opposition it would have been delisted long ago. Justin talk 13:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And I think you'll find those many countries of which you speak so highly are either a) you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours type friends of Spain, like Argentina or b) disgruntled ex-colonies or anti-colonial countries with an axe to grind. RedCoat10 (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem Ecemaml with the shorter version is that the language you choose is ever so slightly misleading. The term self-government excludes foreign relations and defence, so even the phrase almost fully self-governing is misleading. I almost find myself in violent agreement with your first version, there is a first. Justin talk 14:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A note on the definition of "self-government"

An interesting point in this discussion is the assertion made by some participants (Justin and RedCoat the most notable) related to the actual meaning of self-government.

Justin has referred many times to "Self-governing" describing "a territory that administers its own affairs but is not completely sovereign or independent". However, the source he provides is quite weak (in fact there's no source, as the wikipedia article he takes as source lacks reliable sources in itself). The most obvious solution would be asking for reliable sources about such a concept, in order to determine whether, as it is claimed, "self-government" equals to "internal self-government". Unfortunately the sources provided above (of course that they not reliable in the sense that wikipedia defines them, but can give some clues) are far from supporting it. Let's see:

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/3851047.stm: Regions and territories: Gibraltar "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy.
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/1386334/Gibraltar-makes-plans-for-self-government.html] David Blair, Gibraltar makes plans for self-government, Daily Telegraph, 28 February 2002 "GIBRALTAR'S parliament approved an ambitious package of constitutional reform yesterday designed to give the colony almost complete self-government.

Although it's not valid to extract a conclusion from only two media sources (in fact it would be WP:OR), both of them consider a definition of self-government that equals a self-governing territory to one controlling defence and foreign affairs (BBC does not say simply "Gibraltar is self-governing"; The Telegraph does not talk about "complete self-government")

On the other hand, if you consider the source from the Government of Gibraltar:

• http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/topical-speeches/162-chief-ministers-un-speech] Chief Minister's UN Speech "Mr Chairman, nobody who visits Gibraltar and observes its society and self government can objectively think that Gibraltar, in reality, remains a colony." Speech to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation 8 October 2009

It can be noticed that it supports clearly the definition supported by Justin and RedCoat ("Gibraltar is a democratically advanced, modern, economically independent and prosperous, and politically, administratively and legislatively self governing country"). Thus, it may lead to think that the statement "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory" is a POV in itself and therefore cannot be endorsed by our article.

Therefore, and regardless of the prominence of the self-governing issue, I support the option of qualifying the mention to "self-government" ("Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign affairs"; there are other not so significant) in order to meet both the policy on reliable sources and on NPOV. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RedCoat10

Gibraltar is described as "self-governing in all matters except defence and foreign policy". This is not my opinion but a fact that can be cited. To assert otherwise would be an error of fact.

The term "self-governing" cannot in common usage extend to defence and foreign policy as these responsibilities are, by definition, not internal matters. Were we to treat "self-governing" as an umbrella term that includes defence and foreign policy, it would follow that Andorra too is not "self-governing". This lands us in an absurd situation.

The Falkland Islands article on Wikipedia has used "self-governing" for a number of years and no one has thus far raised an eyebrow. Similarly, when the United Kingdom imposed direct rule in the Turks and Caicos Islands, it is interesting to note that WP:ITN run the headline as follows:

The British government suspends the self-governance of the Turks and Caicos Islands for up to two years. [35]

Unsurprisingly, no one raised an eyebrow. This, if anything, reflects the degree to which the word "self-governing" is used to refer to roughly analogous territories without let or hindrance. Quite why Gibraltar should be any different is beyond me.

I would also like to point out that Gibraltar's presence on a list does not make it non-self-governing. The list has been challenged and is, in the minds of many people, wholly unreliable. Those who are unfamiliar with the Committee of 24 can be forgiven for thinking "if the UN says Gibraltar is non-self-governing, then Gibraltar must indeed be non-self-governing". I would urge such readers to familiarise themselves with some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the list. This makes for a good overview (courtesy of User: Pfainuk)

For these reasons I believe Gibraltar should still be described as "self-governing", in much the same way as the Falklands are. However, I also believe that we should not omit a reference to the UN list, albeit in the politics section, along with its criticisms. -- RedCoat10 (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk

For benefit of those who have not been here for long, I should note that I was, for a few years, a long-standing editor of this article, but have not actually edited it since late July - largely because I got bored of the constant disputes over the same things in which nothing is actually achieved.

Let me start with the three questions:

Should self-government remain in the lead sentence, supporting only one of the two POVs (whichever it might be) during discussion.

• I reject the premise of the question, that mentioning self-government in the lead sentence inherently favours one POV or the other. It is not appropriate to include a loaded question in what is supposed to be a neutral introduction to an RFC.

Should self-government remain in the lede long-term

• Yes, as it is pretty fundamental to understanding of the topic at hand.

What form of words will correctly and neutrally cover the disputed status

• I will discuss this below.

Redcoat10 references my points on the UN from August in his comment. I would still cite the same issues with that list. When it comes down to it, "Non-Self-Governing" in a UN context is jargon: the fact that a territory is a "Non-Self-Governing Territory" does not imply that it is a territory that does not govern itself (equally, the converse - the fact that a territory is not on the list does not imply that it does govern itself).

"Self-governing" is not implicit in "British Overseas Territory". There are several BOTs that are not self-governing. Mostly they are uninhabited or under military rule, but the Turks and Caicos Islands in particular are an example of a non-self-governing BOT.

But while there is no reason why we shouldn't say that Gibraltar is self-governing - and good reason to mention self-government - I equally don't see that it has to be mentioned right there in the very first sentence.

Ecemaml makes a couple of suggestions for wordings. I would argue that both give too much emphasis to this in the lede - as indeed does the current version. The first sentence and paragraph should be giving a very basic overview of the article. What it is, why it's important. Detail of the C24 is unnecessary, too much at this stage in the article. If there was a compromise version that we could put into a couple of words, then great. If not, then we can and should move it elsewhere in the lede.

Restricting my changes to this dispute in particular, I would suggest:

Gibraltar (Template:Pron-en) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. The territory covers 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) and shares a land border with Spain to the north. Gibraltar has historically been an important base for the British Armed Forces and is the site of a Royal Navy base.

According to the Jane's Country Risk Ratings 2008, which measures the stability of 235 countries, territories and political entities in the world, Gibraltar is the 5th most stable territory worldwide, and the highest ranked British territory. The ratings are based on five fundamental categories: political, social, economic, external and military and security.

The sovereignty of Gibraltar has been a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations. Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to the Crown of Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty. The British government has stated that it is committed to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes.

Though Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except foreign affairs and defence, it remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories due to the Spanish claim.

Thoughts? Pfainuk talk 14:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I for one support your proposal (providing that it is a last resort after all other reasonable avenues have been pursued). Sounds sensible to me. RedCoat10 (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

disagree, largely based on the initial arguments of RedCoat10 that foreign affairs and defence do not impact government. --Gibnews (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. Very sensible. I think we should open this up to a straw poll. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In general I agree with the approach. For the sake of accuracy, I am not very sure about:

1) are defense and foreign relations the only exceptions to self-government? What is the source provided in your proposal?

• The Chief Minister of Gibraltar says that it has "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers." [36] (page 4).
• The UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 2007-2008 Report says that Gibraltar has “almost complete internal self-government”. Also that the responsibilities of the Governor are in the areas of "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [37] (pg. 16) (i.e. they are not the Government of Gibraltar's responsibilities).
• The country profiles of the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office say that the Governor is responsible in: "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [38].
• A UN report says that “The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar.” [39] (pg. 3)

2) I don't know whether Gibraltar remains in the UN list only "due to the Spanish claim" or due to other reasons (maybe these other reasons could include the opinion of several other countries in the United Nations... it sounds kind of strange to me that Spain alone can define the position of the UN in such a controversial matter if no other countries or international law theories supported that position...) What is the source you propose to cite?

Myself, I think I would not have any doubt about the text if it said that Gibraltar has "almost complete internal self-government" (like the UK House of Commons summarised) because it mentions self-government and its limits, although vaguely enough to include the position of all of the other sources.

Also, I think that saying that Gibraltar is kept in the UN list is enough for the lead (then we don't have to look for sources of "who" caused that Gibraltar remains in that list, and name the different POVs about it, which I am sure can be a very long text for the lead and a very long discussion in order to reach consensus).

The lead could be more concise if it just said that Gibraltar is a BOT (which implies a certain level of internal self-government as the one that Gibraltar actually has) and leave any reference to the UN list and about self-government to the Politics section. This would be my preferred option, but I think that mentioning the level of self-government and the UN list proposal could be useful if gets more support than my preferred option (and I would support it as a second option). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imalbornoz (talk • contribs) 14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyhow, I insist that I agree with general approach of the proposal. Thank you, Pfainuk. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imalbornoz (talk • contribs) 13:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-governing as a statement in its right implies internal administration, it describes a territory that administers its own affairs but is not completely sovereign or independent. To attempt to remove self-governing because it doesn't manage external relations or defence is thus a semantic argument devoid of merit. This point has been raised with you repeatedly, please stop raising the same red herrings time and time again.

The UN source quoted above states that Spain opposes Gibraltar's removal from the UN C24 list because of reasons related to its sovereignty claim.

Finally as has been repeatedly explained to you ad nauseum the Governor may theoretically be responsible for the police, in reality he defers to the Gibraltar Government. Appointments are made by the Gibraltar Government and rubber stamped by the Governement. Just as in the UK in theory the Queen appoints the Prime Minister and invites the Prime Minister to appoint a Government, in practise they're elected. This is yet another example of the same red herring raised time and time again, let us have no more of this sort of tendentious, repeating argument. Justin talk 14:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. In spite of my initial proposal (which is rather similar but with a different approach on the "importance" of the statements), this one seems extremely simple and a good compromise agreement. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I see that you say that "without any doubt" Gibraltar is self-governing for everything except only for external affairs and defense, if not from a "legal", then from a "practical" POV. But:

• From a "legal" point of view, as I said before, the Constitution says that the Governor is responsible for "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service".
• From a "practical" point of view, I have seen some instances (even in the very short period since 2006!) when the Governor did not consult the GoG or just "rubber stamp" the GoG decistion. In fact, for example, in 2007 it was the Governor who suspended the Chief of Justice –after complaints from law firms-, while the Chief Minister of the GoG emphasised “the GoG’s complete distance from the process”[40] pg. 80; or some controversy about the Governor appointing the new Chairman of the Police Authority shortly before the Commission that should have advised this appointment was constituted [41][42][43]). Who was responsible there, the people of Gibraltar or the Governor? Remember that the Governor reports to the Secretary of State (of Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs).
• Even the Chief Minister (half way between the legal and the practical POV) summarises the situation saying that Gibraltar has "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers." [44] (page 4).

How do you explain that? I ask again because I don't see the parallelism between the Queen and the Governor in some specific areas: I don't see the Queen suspending Chiefs of Justice without any consultation with the Government of the UK or the Parliament. And I can't see why the Chief Minister of Gib could say "self-governing except internal security" if that were not indeed an exception to self-government.

Regarding the Spanish claim, I am sure that Spain has exerted all its influence in order to keep Gibraltar in the UN list (and that reference correctly supports this view). But, I have not seen a verifiable cite saying that "it remains there because of (and only because of) the Spanish claim". In fact, there are more than 10 BOTs in that list. I find it difficult to believe that Spain's influence can go as far as keeping a dozen or so totally unrelated territories from being recognised self-governance by the UN... To say that Spain has been "the" responsible for Gibraltar being in the UN list is original research unless we have a source that says so.

Therefore, I propose a slight adaptation of Pfainuk's proposal trying to avoid the points which may generate some doubt. If you look at it without prejudice, I think you will see that it complies with everyone's aspirations:

“ Gibraltar (Template:Pron-en) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking (...)

Though Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government[45], it remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories.

”

Would anybody have a problem with that? --Imalbornoz (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Guess I win £5. I saw in my crystal ball that the phrase "I propose a slight adaptation".

Yeah I would, you're removing facts that everyone else has already agreed to include. You're the only one to object. All are sourced and rejecting sources by speculation fails wiki policy of WP:V. Thats your original research or WP:OR. We do have a source that states directly that Spain opposes the delisting of Gibraltar; a UN source.

And its a new constitution, it only dates from 2006, 2007 it was still finding its way. Funnily enough responsibility for the police rests with the sovereign, thats why bobbies have a cap badge with a crown, they swear allegiance with the crown. You're also talking about what happened in the past, the police authority is now in place. Again this is criticism by speculation, misrepresenting a transitional period.

I have no objections to Pfainuk's proposal, so unless you're withdrawing your support for it, the only person derailing progress is you. Justin talk 20:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Narson

OK. I'll toss in my two cents rather than screaming 'Pox on all your houses for the extra drama'. I believe that Gibraltar is effectivly self governing, lets get that straight from the start. That is reality. Now. This is wikipedia, so lets ignore reality. We care about verification rather than reality. It is certainly a British Overseas Territory and that is cieable. I believe one could make a good argument for the neutral (and I do believe citable) explanation being that it is a 'British Overseas Territory with limited self-governance'. Plenty of alternatives out there.

While we are here, can we please stake through the heart that the UN view is automatically neutral or never the view of one memberstate repeated through an organ, and also stop saying 'UN view' unless it comes from the General Assembly, Security Council or UNSG (even the last I'm dubious on). The UN has clear objectives and stated beliefs and ideologies. This makes it as biased as any other organisation. I say this not to attack the UN (I am a rather large fan) but because the assumption is false and is unacademic.

So, what is my view? We should certainly cover the controversy. We also need to establish compromise wording for the start. The current wording could be far too resolute and thus glossing over the problem. 'Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territoy that is classified as 'Self Governing' by the British, though this is disputed' or somesuch, assuming we can cite. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC) (PfainUK edit conflicted me. I need an adult)

I've seen the argument that the UN (or sometimes - even more surprisingly - the CIA) is necessarily neutral so often I've considered writing up a standard answer in my user space and just pointing to it whenever it comes up. Pfainuk talk 14:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the UN or the BBC or the Telegraph or Gibraltarian politicians are neutral here. The problem is that we have sources with equivocal statements of fact to support the view that it's partially self-governing being used to make the unequivocal assertion that it is self-governing; we also have one source which for whatever reasons states unequivocally that it's not, and not enough sources that discuss the dispute, the degree of self-government, and why the UN is or is not right. And let's not forget that when a newspaper says "According to source, assertion", it verifies that source makes assertion but does not, in itself, confer any validity on the assertion itself. Newspapers can and do report people saying things that are complete nonsense. The newspapers are just reporting the POV, not endorsing it. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Partially self-governing is an oxymoron. Self-governing as a statement in its right implies internal self-government, it describes a territory that administers its own affairs but is not completely sovereign or independent. The BBC, the Telegraph and the Gibraltar sources describe the naked facts of the political decision in the 2006 Gibraltar constitution. The UN applies an arcane definition, so we are not comparing like with like. The position of the Spanish Government is a posture. The neutral way to report it is to state that Gibraltar is self-governing, disputed by Spain because of its territorial claim. Otherwise to expunge terms because of a Spanish POV is to censor the article and favour the Spanish posture, as opposed to the actual facts. Justin talk 12:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces

There is a recent book about Gibraltar called Sovereignty and the Stateless Nation Gibraltar in the Modern Legal Context (2009).[46] It might be helpful if someone could refer to this book to get a clear neutral description of the Gibraltan state. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Is a book by a local politician (Keith Azopardi) a reliable source? --Ecemaml (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

He is a lawyer, so the book will be legal. --Gibnews (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. An author's nationality does not affect the 'reliabilty' of a source, not least if the source in question is an academic work that has not only been "vetted by the scholarly community" but is also a "Ph.D. dissertation" per Wikipedia:Rs#Scholarship. It can, however, be argued that the work is non-neutral but as a user below has pointed out, academic literature is never neutral, which is why we always "represent all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" per WP:NPOV. --RedCoat10 (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It maybe helpful in finding an acceptable, neutral description for use in the article. Note the book examines recent studies for similar cases. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fut.Perf.

1. I don't see this matter as central enough to be necessarily included in the lead sentence. Typical case of Wikipedia:lead fixation.
2. I see a lack of high-class reliable sources on both sides of the issue. Newspaper reports are not the optimal type of source for this; governmental opinions are primary but not secondary sources; documents by governmental or intergovernmental bodies such as the CIA factbook or the UN list are always driven by political agendas. You guys need academic works discussing this. In this sense, I applaud The Four Deuces above finding that study - which quite likely isn't the only one that would be relevant. People here should stop arguing and stop edit-warring until everybody interested has done their homework and read that book. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be cynical, but I fear it won't be long before the book is dismissed as non-neutral - it's authored by a Gibraltarian. It's also quite expensive I might add! RedCoat10 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it will be non-neutral. Academic literature is never neutral. Academic authors are under no obligation to stick to our "NPOV"; it's their job to express their own opinions. For that very reason, reading and reporting on an academic source should never lead to blindly parroting that author's positions. And if it's worth anything, it will have pointers to other academic literature proposing other viewpoints. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My point is that it is likely to be dismissed simply because its author is a Gibraltarian. Just for the record, I fully support its use a reliable, authoritative source. RedCoat10 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it could be dismissed because its author is a Gibraltarian politician. Reliability has specific rules. Can you elaborate a little bit more on why it's "a reliable, authoritative source"? --Ecemaml (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC) PS: I thought of purchasing it, but I've wasted too much money in Gibraltar-related books, I must say.

It was his doctoral thesis.[47] If it's not 'reliable' then I don't know what is! RedCoat10 (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliability is this: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This one (which I would have purchased if not so expensive) is simply not from a third but from an involved party. --Ecemaml (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

On cost, most academic books are pricey due to limited readership. It is the pop-X books (like, say Niall Fergson's various pop history works) that are 7 quid down your local waterstones that you have to watch out for s they are often not as good as the niche academic works. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't think I would agree with you on whether the matter is central enough to be included in the lead sentence, I'd say it is, though I'm willing to agree it is to some extent a case of Wikipedia:lead fixation. There is actually a wealth of sources to support the view and the reasons behind it remaining on the UN C24 list. The thing is people have done their homework. The matter is of great interest to the people of Gibraltar, who are central to this, but strangely seem to be left out of much of the discussions on their future. As to stopping the arguing. The argument has become circular, you explain things again and again, and think you've made the impression on the person, then they'll simply turn around and parrot what they've said at the start. Its the devil's job to get someone outside interested enough to go through the arguments enough to realise that its a case of gaming the system to skew the article to favour a particular POV. The intention then becomes clear, to block the page with tendentious arguments, drive away the moderate editors, and skew the article in a particular direction. Justin talk 18:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a "wealth of sources" on, for instance, why it's on that UN list only because of the opposition of Spain, then I suggest you bring them forward, because I'm not seeing them in the article (sorry, I'm new to this, so I'm of course not aware of what may have gone on in the talk archives). The current ref (fn.8) isn't in fact enough: it's a primary source originating in that dispute, not a reliable secondary source describing the dispute, and it doesn't even support the claim: from "Spain opposes X" and "X hasn't been done" it is a non sequitur to conclude that "X hasn't been done because Spain opposes it". Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The claim to be fully self-governing arises from the 2006 constitution which took effect Tuesday 2nd January 2007 press release so its unlikely to have analysed and found its way into academic publications, yet. However its effects have been noted, including complaints from Spain, which indicate its good for Gibraltar's political development. --Gibnews (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

For a feel for what happens in the UN read This Spain takes a strong interest and effectively blocks any progress on the basis that it expects bilateral talks between the UK and itself about the decolonisation of Gibraltar, which it interprets to mean integration with Spain. Since the 2001 proposed 'joint sovereignty deal' debacle HMG say they will not discuss sovereignty with Spain unless the Gibraltarians want to. We don't as evidenced by the Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_2002 and so the cycle repeats, to the extent that the Gibraltar Government announced it would not waste the air fares in attending future meetings of the C24. They have been invited to come and 'see for themselves' but have declined.

Meantime the Spanish PP opposition wants to play the 'Gibraltar card' to embarrass the incumbent Government for having made no 'progress' on the issue. They claim to want even more strange harassment of Gibraltar. As a result of the political hot air and media hype, its open season on Gibraltar and asserting we are a mere colony rather than a self-governing territory is part of that. Some believe their Government's propaganda, and maybe others work for it. Whatever, as Spain has no success in the real world, there seems to be a concerted attempt to attack Gibraltar here. It is reported that secret funds had been used to pay Spanish journalistic circles to create a favourable awareness to Madrid's claim to the Rock. So its a regarded as serious issue. --Gibnews (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations of corrupt journalism are out of line Gibnews. This is not a political forum where you can throw around ideological statements, speculations, or personal interpretations of events in the UN or Spain. This is a serious discussion over verifiable information, not your own opinions. The fact remains that the rock is a disputed territory, with Britain effectively ruling it, and Spain claiming it back. There are sources that say it has some degree of self-government, and others that it does not. Gibraltar happens to be on the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories, not on some Self-Governing List. Like Hong Kong, Brunei, Saint Kitts and Nevis or the Seychelles, the UN has requested that Gibraltar is decolonized on various occasions since the 1960's. Those other territories were eventually returned or gained independence. Gibraltar has not. This makes it hardly a "self-governing" territory. JCRB (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick

If you can't choose whether to have your own army, whether to declare war, or whether to establish any treaty that you wish with other states, then clearly you are not self-governing in all respects, and it would be misleading to imply that you are by using "self-governing" with no disclaimer. On the other hand, if you manage domestic matters such as education, transport, justice and housing then you are self-governing in those respects. That is why sources use the statement "self-governing except in matters relating to defence and foreign affairs". My vote is to simply state in the first sentence that "Gibraltar is a BOT". (No BOT is self-governing in relation to defence and foreign affairs). And then, in the politics section, discuss where it is self-governing, and alongside that, mention the UN list. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

USA and Gibraltar sign tax agreement. I see the UK want to limit the power of the Government to declare war, after the Iraq fiasco. --Gibnews (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(a) that's an agreement, not a treaty

(b) if we look at who has signed such agreements [48] we see the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey (not to mention the other BOTs, Greenland and the Faroes (both Danish), the Netherlands Antilles (Dutch).

(c) you don't need to take my word for it. From the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Overseas Territories, Seventh Report of Session 2007–08 Report "Overseas Territories do not have the authority to become parties to treaties in their own right, so the UK must extend treaties to them. This is usually done either when the UK ratifies a treaty or at some later date." [49]

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

So you say. But nevertheless the agreement was made between Gibraltar and the USA, and unlike the ToU and other agreements made by Spain its likely to be kept. --Gibnews (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cremallera

A few days ago I explained my opinion on this very issue in the Administrator's noticeboard.

The degree of self-governance exerted by Gibraltar's institutions is, at least, disputed amongst distinct sources. So far, I've seen some of them explicitly stating that Gibraltar isn't self-governing (UN), and some qualifying the BOT as self-governing with the exception of a few matters -such as defence- or, more often, those currently attributed to HM Governor by the Constitution Order (Britannica, for instance).

In short, I agree with The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's comment above: from my perspective, the lede isn't the best place to portray such details; the Politics section being more apropriate. Speaking of which, I've noticed this latter addition to it. As it stands now, it's both unreferenced (althought part of it is a direct transcript of the -equally disputed- Olivenza article) and original research, and shouldn't be in the article in my opinion.

Finally, and along the same lines, the Jane's Country Risk Ratings 2008 displayed in the lead section should be placed in the economy section, if considered relevant enough to even appear in the article (which I don't, by the way). --Cremallera (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Constitution says the Governor does what the Queen tells him to do, in practice that is handing out medals and organising the garden party. The ONLY reason you dislike Gibraltar being self-governing mentioned is it totally destroys the basis of the Spanish territorial claim. --Gibnews (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How about letting everyone post their comment without you replying with your politicised jibes? We all know what you think on the matter. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the paragraph about the Governor in the constitution and you will my point. You could also read wp:npa. --Gibnews (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a bit more than a paragraph about the Governor in the Constitution Order. In fact, the green strip you see within my comment is a collapsible box. If you click on "show" (on the right), you'll be able to read some textual quotes regarding the powers granted to him by the aforesaid legal act. After factoring in all this with the fact that indeed the Governor is appointed by the Queen, and not by the will of the people of Gibraltar, my understanding of the issue can't be as resolute as yours.

And last, but not least, I am mostly indifferent to Gibraltar being self-governing or not. Believe it or not, I do not dislike it by any means. What I do dislike is your constant misbehaviour. Stop putting words in my mouth and mentioning the 'Spanish claims' or whatever 'suitable' accusation after every comment of mine.

Provided that you are aware of the existence of WP:NPA, as shown by your caveat above, I'd wholeheartedly appreciate you taking your own advice. Cremallera (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

unindent

A couple of comments

The section about Ceuta and Melila is referenced, Olivenza could be removed.

Secondly regarding NPA, Gibnews you were out of order with the comment, Cremallera's argument isn't sustainable, since the Spanish Head of State is also unelected for one, lets comment on the argument not the person. RHoPF, please, you know you're not the person to speak to Gibnews on this, lets not add petrol to the fire please. For once the discussion has been reasonably well-tempered.

Cremallera, if Gibnews upsets you let me know and I'll bang heads. Justin talk 21:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Should I understand, from your latter editions that you no longer oppose to the mention of San Roque in the article? Because the addition of a single phrase supported by every reputed secondary source on the history of Gibraltar (including either Spanish, Gibraltarian and English scholars) is quite hard to compare to the addition of several paragraphs, most of them unreferenced, except for the first one, which is based on a pdf published by the Durham University, and authored by Gerry O’Reilly who isn't precisely a well known authority on the subject. By looking at the bibliography he used, I can't see neither Spanish nor Moroccan primary/secondary sources to fundament his statements concerning all those territories under Spanish sovereignty but claimed by Morocco, nor their analogy with Gibraltar's situation (which is, somewhat, as controverted as the self-government issue; neither Ceuta nor Melilla being cited at the UN's Special Committee on Decolonization, for a start). On the other hand, he makes wide use instead of the "British Government White Paper on British Overseas Territories" and of the words by the hon. Chief Minister of Gibraltar as quoted in the Panorama Newsweekly.

Concerning my unsustainable arguments, don't get me started on the Head of State of Spain, being as unelected as the Head of State of the UK, in comparison to a Governor appointed by the latter which is legally endorsed to "conduct, in his discretion, matters such as external affairs; defence; internal security, including the police; such functions in relation to appointments to public offices and related matters as are conferred on him by this Constitution", irrespective of the representatives elected by the inhabitants of the British Overseas Territory.

And finally, Gibnews has been a major annoyance for quite some months. You already knew it, which makes your words very extemporaneous. But thanks anyway. Cremallera (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I observe, that whenever a source contradicts your point of view, you find reasons to "justify" dismissing it. Equally when they support it, you're surprisingly uncritical. The comment about Head of States is perfectly valid, the Governor is the representative of the Queen. And has been explained many times before there is a world of difference between the theoretical powers of the Governor and the way it works in practise. Now, if you wish to promote a POV you can ignore that and I will treat your comments accordingly.

Secondly, Ceuta and Melila are not listed at the UN C24 purely because Spain chose not to list them. The parallels with the situatio in Gibraltar are too striking to simply ignore. Feel free to add the Spanish justification for why they're "different". Justin talk 11:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. As you might have noticed, I've not reverted your last, although not less blatant edition. As I said a few days ago in the AN/I thread, I'm not editing around here anymore, yet if I have written my opinion in this talk page has been due to a request on my talk page.

I wasn't expecting you to actually try to understand what I am saying. In fact, I was expecting you to do exactly what you've done: several ad hominem arguments concerning my desire to "promote a POV" or my alleged "reasons to justify dismissing" whichever "source contradicting my point of view", while dismissing UN sources yourself, or stating your opinion on the "practical powers" of the Governor as a fact, as opposed to his "theoretical powers" as fixed in the enabling legal act. Thus, I'm not wasting more of my time discussing with you.

PS: Its Melilla, not Melila. Even the PDF you delighted us with states it correctly. Have a nice day. Cremallera (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling correction. It wasn't intended as an ad hominem attack, it happens to be a common trap a lot of people fall into. I have also pointed out several times the difference between what is written and what actually happens (as did others such as Pfainuk). So I can perhaps be forgiven for a touch of cynicism. As to my final comment, which you probably took differently to what I intended and I worded badly, not so long ago I had one of your countrymen insist that the article on Ceuta needed to have the Spanish explanation as to why it was different; it actually made Spain look worse than the original text. Justin talk 11:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you, after a thousand requests already, stop describing me as a Spaniard? I've never said so. And I've told you repeatedly that I don't enjoy being constantly labeled as such. Neither I am really interested in your opinion on what makes Spain look good or bad. Spare me, please. Cremallera (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine. Just to point out that I don't dismiss UN sources, full stop. Never have. I just point out what they represent, not what they're misrepresented as saying. What I said about the Governor happens to be true, it isn't my opinion. While we're on the subject, would you, after a 1000 requests already, stop misrepresenting my comments. I've told you repeatedly, its irritating and has unnecessarily created friction. But, whatever, you continue in the same vein while pretending that everyone elses conduct is the issue. Farewell. Justin talk 12:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-Government

The thrust of the arguments against including it are

a) The UN C24 List b) Spain disputes that Gibraltar is self-governing c) Gibraltar has a Governor or does not have full control of its defence or foreign relations

Taking each one in turn. A) The UN C24 List

The UN defines self-government according to:

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

What the UN classifies as self-government actually bears no relation to what responsibility a territory has for governing itself. Secondly the fact that Gibraltar remains on the list is solely due to Spanish lobbying, nothing whatsoever to do with the level or otherwise of self-government. No one objects to mentioning this I note. It does not of itself invalidate the statement that Gibraltar is self-governing.

Next B) Spain disputes that Gibraltar is self-governing.

Let us turn to the Flat Earth Society for a parallel. Do we edit Earth to state that it is round or maybe flat according to some POV. No, we give due prominence to such views and Spain is disputing it for dogmatic reasons, unrelated to whether Gibraltar is self-governing. Stating Gibraltar is self-governing and mentioning the fact it remains on the UN C24 list covers this point.

C) Gibraltar is not responsible for its defence or foreign relations. So what. "Self-governing" describes a territory that administers its own affairs but is not completely sovereign or independent. The very use of the phrase self-government means that Gibraltar is not responsible for external affairs.

The fact that Gibraltar retains a Governor is neither here nor there in regards to self-government, right now Gibraltar governs itself through the GoG. If the Governor dissolves the GoG and imposes direct rule, then it changes but we don't change that now. If the unelected Head of State argument is brought to bear, Spain has an unelected Head of State in Juan Carlos I. SO is Spain self-governing or not?

The other argument is that NPOV requires us to be neutral and if Spain disputes this, then mentioning it is not neutral. This is the most fatuous argument of them all. IF we don't mention that Gibraltar is self-governing, we are not being neutral. We are in fact favouring the POV that seeks to diminish that GoG in order to advance a territorial claim.

Thus far a sustainable argument to excise self-government has not been put forward. A neutral summary is that Gibraltar is self-governing but remains on the UN C24 list for reasons related to the Spanish territorial claim. Lets leave it at that. Justin talk 21:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And if I may borrow someone else words, "The British sources questioned as 'partisan' are quite reliable as they only describe the naked fact of a political decision, not a posture.". Thanks, Justin talk 22:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge

I was attracted here by an RfC on a different point, but comment on Guy's questions anyway:

Question 1 Should self-government remain in the lead sentence, supporting only one of the two POVs (whichever it might be) during discussion?

No, it should not.

WHY? For starters the question was completely inappropriate for an RFC, it implied it was a choice between two competing POV. It isn't, its a choice between verifiable facts, and verifiable facts being denied for dogmatic reasons, and people with an agenda abusing UN resolutions.

It is a simple statement about a reality that is contested and is also subject to varying definitions. By some definitions it's true to say that Gibraltar is not self-governing. The legitimacy and usefulness of those definitions is not sufficiently low that they can simply be ignored, which is what a simple statement in the lead does.Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, Self-governing as a statement in its right implies internal self-government, it describes a territory that administers its own affairs but is not completely sovereign or independent. The BBC, the Telegraph and the Gibraltar sources describe the naked facts of the political decision in the 2006 Gibraltar constitution. The UN applies an arcane definition, so we are not comparing like with like. The position of the Spanish Government is a posture. The neutral way to report it is to state that Gibraltar is self-governing, disputed by Spain because of its territorial claim. Otherwise to expunge terms because of a Spanish POV is to censor the article and favour the Spanish posture, as opposed to the actual facts. It becomes quintissentially partisan. Justin talk 14:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Question 2 Should self-government remain in the lede long-term?

No, the statement that Gibraltar is a BOT is sufficient.

WHY? All populated BOT are self-governing to some degree, the BOT with transient scientific or military populations are not. There is a difference.

See above, and I suggest that a suitably-nuanced description in the body is what's required.Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Question 3 What form of words will correctly and neutrally cover the disputed status?

It should start with the constitutional position with the extent to which Gibraltar is self-governing, mention any limits, and then mention the "UN" and any other rhetorical positions in reference to available respectable definitions of self-government. Given the recency of the relevant constitutional changes this may be difficult to do from conventional academic sources, but I note that ignorance is not the problem in editing this article; there are editors who I'm sure can provide reputable secondary sources for all of this.Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The very term self-governance implies limitations to internal affairs only, the article does deal with the constitutional position and the limits on self-government. Has anyone actually read it? Justin talk 09:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a matter of definition, and another relevant article is possibly Sovereignty. The issue of self-government is not necessarily limited to internal affairs only. That is one of the issues which needs to be clear in whatever stable version we manage to produce. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Self-governing" describes a territory that administers its own affairs but is not completely sovereign or independent. QED Justin talk 14:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

JCRB

Gibraltar is a disputed territory administered by Great Britain and claimed by Spain. As several editors have pointed out, there are several sources that say Gibralar has some self-government (in matters except defense and foreign policy) and others that it does not (for example the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories). Objectively therefore, Gibraltar is partly self-governing at best. This is the wording I suggested in the Talk Page. However some editors reject this step towards neutrality, and continue pushing their POV. As explained, this is only a small example of the general bias in the Gibraltar article. Other POV's will need to be addressed at a later date. In this case, by calling an overseas territory "self-governing" and not explaining the limitations of the term, it subtly justifies its colonial status (or foreign rule). The question is how to solve this.

Gibraltar is not 'disputed'. Spain recognises British sovereignty over Gibraltar (In point of contrast, Argentina does not recognise British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands). The Spanish Government claims Gibraltar, but does not dispute that it is de jure British. This distinction is important. So please check your facts and, needless to say, please refrain from labelling those who disagree with you 'POV warriors', it doesn't help. Thanks. RedCoat10 (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI I never used the term "POV warrior". What doesn't help is how some editors push their POV's by twisting arguments and rejecting sources. That attitude is not honest and will get them nowhere. Regarding "disputed", it's a question of semantics. If a country claims a certain territory, then isn't that territory disputed? JCRB (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Solution

First, editors should avoid editing the article while the discussion is going on. I agree with Guy that any editor associated with either POV should be topic banned or blocked if they edit the contentious text during the period of the RfC. Second, I agree with Ecemaml's first proposed text which includes both sides of the argument:

Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. Since the granting of its last constitution, in 2006, it enjoys full self-government except in the areas of defence and foreign policy. In spite of the requirements from both the Governments of United Kingdom and Gibraltar, it nonetheless remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories, as Spain maintains a territorial claim on Gibraltar.

However, in order to reach a consensus, the best option is probably to take the self-governing issue off the lead sentence, as JzG originally suggested. I believe Tbsdy, Pfainuk, Fut.Perf., The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and Cremallera have all supported this suggestion. JCRB (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. I feel it should be an honest description of things rather than pandering to the sensibilities of foreign editors with an agenda. --Gibnews (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, could it be possible a) stop assuming bad faith in other participants (may some of them have an agenda; possibly most of them haven't; in the same way you might or not have an agenda... that is, those uncivil remarks help no one); b) stop assuming that only one nationality is allowed (or better, forbidden) to write in this article. Believe or not, but Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia everybody can edit. Best regard --Ecemaml (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who starts their discussion of self government by stating that "Gibraltar is a disputed territory administered by Great Britain and claimed by Spain." is declaring an agenda; territorial claims do not affect self-government, although the reverse is another matter. I would also like to know how the UK 'administers' Gibraltar when under the 2006 constitution there are no appointed members of the parliament as it is 100% elected. --Gibnews (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The best option is not to remove self-governing, because that is taking sides in a POV dispute and favouring one of them. We then slant the POV of the article and that is not good. I don't actually disagree with Ecemaml's proposed text, though it needs grammar work. And no one is actually disagreed with mentioning it either, so there isn't a consensus to remove it and to do so violates WP:NPOV. Justin talk 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If it stays then the qualifier re foreign and defence matters needs to be added. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't but as I said previously go for it if you really feel the need to add superfluous terms. Justin talk 22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be less than desirable due to its verbosity, but you and Gibnews are not open to compromise here. Well, you might be swayed from your original viewpoint. Gibnews is, as usual, a lost cause. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well compromise doesn't require us to abandon basic principles like NPOV, and removing it plainly does. As for Gibnews, don't wind him up please. Perhaps you might like to consider it from his perspective. Justin talk 23:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with leaving the reference to self-government for the Politics section and not mentioning it in the lead, as a first option.

In case that it stays in the lead, many sources (the Chief Minister of Gibraltar among them[50], who adds to the exceptions "internal security") don't agree that the only exceptions are foreign relations and defence. I think that "almost complete internal self-government" is a less disputable sentence and agrees with all sources and POVs. --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Justin, you and Gibnews might like to consider the prospect of a clearly-restrained, carefully-NPOV, low-prominence description of the issue, as suggested by other editors. And ask yourselves if such an approach actually strengthens your underlying position on the politics and legalities. To put it another way, does the solution suggested by other editors make clear the weakness of certain claims over Gibraltar? I think it does, and that this solution may apply to other issues. I'll be back to San Roque when we've settled this one, but I suggest that in general giving a careful unbiased summary of feeble arguments is quite a good way to make their feebleness apparent. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I completely agree that "a careful unbiased summary of feeble arguments is quite a good way to make their feebleness apparent." Where I disagree fundamentally is that removing terms from the lead is acceptable, because if we remove a fundamental and important fact from the lead we're favouring one POV over the other. The fact that those who have followed this agenda are so keen to go down that path, only convinces me I'm right. Justin talk 12:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Imalbornoz

I can see that, so far, there are three options that have been proposed: 1) keep the current lead as it is; 2) keep the reference to self-government but with the detail of the exceptions to self-government and mentioning the UN list; 3) return to the version pre-April 2009 just saying that "Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory".

IMO, the best option is number 3, because: the term British Overseas Territory already implies a degree of self-government (in inhabited territories), is neutral (in that it does not give more weight to one POV or other regarding self-government) and less verbose.

As a second option, I would support number 2. The thing here is that we have to find a text that supports all POVs about the exceptions to self-government in Gibraltar. So far, I have seen different POVs on the exceptions from relevant sources, for example:

• The Chief Minister of Gibraltar says that it has "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers." [51] (page 4).
• The UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 2007-2008 Report says that Gibraltar has “almost complete internal self-government”. Also that the responsibilities of the Governor are in the areas of "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [52] (pg. 16) (i.e. they are not the Government of Gibraltar's responsibilities).
• The country profiles of the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office say that the Governor is responsible in: "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service” [53].
• A UN report says that “The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar.” [54] (pg. 3)
• The country profiles in BBC say that Gibraltar is “self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy”[55]
• The CIA – The World Factbook says that "the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability"[56]

Of all those different versions, you can see that the common denominator is that Gibraltar has a very important level of internal self-government (or, as the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee puts it "almost complete internal self-government"). I don't think that anyone or any source has said anything that may disagree with that statement.

Therefore, I propose the following text:

“ Gibraltar (Template:Pron-en) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking (...)

According to the Jane's (...)

• It seems like it would be easier to address this issue in some other place than the lead. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The sovereignty of Gibraltar has been (...)

Though Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government[57], it remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories.

”

Would anybody have a problem with that? Any suggestions? Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC) "IMO, the best option is number 3", "As a second option, I would support number 3", which I don't find surprising in any way shape or form. Justin talk 12:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well, then. Does the variety of different POVs on the exceptions to self-government in Gibraltar merit any other comment, Justin or anybody? --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, the differences on what you again assert are different POV have been explained to you on numerous occasions. What exactly is it that you don't understand? Justin talk 16:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with option 3. The following sentence is probably the most neutral you can get:

"Though Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government [58], it remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories". JCRB (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why choose?

Hi all.

I am not involved at all on this issue, and I am not Spanish nor English. I don't understand why it is important to decide whether Gibraltar is self-governing or not, since self governing seems to be more an international law concept than a descriptive concept.

Why not write the first paragraph of the introduction in a purely descriptive manner, something like this:

"Gibraltar is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. The territory benefits from a very large autonomy, except in matters of diplomacy and defense."

And then, at the paragraph about "politics", the reader has already a full legal information:

"Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories (as it was nominated by the UK in 1947) considered annually by the United Nations Committee on Decolonization, though politicians both from the British Foreign Office and Gibraltar wish to see it removed citing that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised."

Voui (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Because even the statement that territory benefits from "autonomy" wouldn't be acceptable for those objecting to the statement, they wish to portray Gibraltar as an old-fashioned colony ruled from London. They deny verifiable facts, they're not looking to improve the article they wish to use it as a platform. Justin talk 22:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin? You have drifted over the AGF line agan. The chap brings a good suggetion IMO and I would encourage its considerationrather than presuming what others might do. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Would be, were it not for the fact that it has already been rejected. Remember? I believe Pfainuk made that suggestion in around April 2008. Its so long ago I couldn't be arsed to look it up. Justin talk 23:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• (From an uninvolved Englishman) -- Surely the answer is obvious. Gibraltar is internally self-governing, but as with various other British overseas territories, the British government is responible for external affairs, including defence [not "defense" - British English is appropriate not US]. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

See Self-governance of itself it doesn't require embellishment, it is akin to saying a big big thing. Sense has nothing to do with removing it, its allowing wikipedia to be used as a platform and it really gripes me that people can't see that. Justin talk 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, Justin - Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself, as you're well aware being a longstanding editor here. That article is direly in need of sources. Indeed, if we look it up [59] we can see " (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the government of a country, nation, etc., by its own people", "Political independence; autonomy.", "Popular or representative government; democracy" As discussed many times, Gibraltar has this except in matters of defence and foreign affairs. It can't sign treaties and it can't decide to go to war. That is not "political independence" or "autonomy". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Was I using it as a source or cite? Merely to inform and it was convenient, you can of course pick me up on that if I ever do it in article space. BTW I suggest you look at that cite again. Justin talk 23:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking, but I don't see anything? Unless you are referring to "home rule", which is in the thesaurus rather than the dictionary section. (A subtle but important difference: dictionaries define words exactly, thesauri includes words that have similar meanings). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the government of a country, nation, etc., by its own people 2. the state of being self-controlled 3. an archaic term for self-control self-governed adj self-governing adj

I note that Liechtenstein by law does not have any armed forces of its own, so it fails the RH definition of 'self-government'. If there is a common European foreign policy, as mooted will France and Germany cease to be 'self-governing'?

However, its not what we think or how we interpret things, its what the references say, and a goodly number say that Gibraltar is self-governing that we should not be discussing it. The subject is only highlighted because its deeply offensive to some people to give it prominence as they want to portray Gibraltar as a 'British Colony' that is in need of decolonisation and return to Spain. Since the 2006 constitution the locally elected GoG is responsible for all domestic affairs. Its policy that HMG will not enter into any talks about sovereignty without the consent of the Government and people of Gibraltar so foreign policy is also determined domestically. At present we are not planning to any wars against small uninhabited Moroccan islands. --Gibnews (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, second take. Could it be possible a) stop assuming bad faith in other participants ("The subject is only highlighted because its deeply offensive to some people to give it prominence as they want to portray Gibraltar as a 'British Colony' that is in need of decolonisation and return to Spain"); b) stop any mention (derogatory or not) to Spain when it's not explicitly related to the topic we're considering (and that's not the case)? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not 'assuming bad faith' by the editors, but the Government of Spain is acting in bad faith when (for example) instructs the Spanish football federation to illegally block Gibraltar joining UEFA. I don't understand the validity of inserting a flawed Spanish POV about Gibraltar when Spain has absolutely no involvement in the affairs of the territory. If the editors doing that were martians I'd disagree just as much. --Gibnews (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Liechtenstein doesn't fail that definition because lacks any armed forces as a consequence of a sovereign decision. So do Andorra or Costa Rica, for instance. On the contrary, Gibraltar can't decide on its own whether to have or go without military, and that's mostly because the BOT isn't self-governing in that respect. As for what the references say, I'll point you to article 47 of the 2006 Gibraltar Constitution Order again, which excludes from the self government the following matters (attributed solely to an unelected Governor which is appointed by the Monarch, and by no one else): "conduct, in his discretion, matters such as external affairs; defence; internal security, including the police; such functions in relation to appointments to public offices and related matters as are conferred on him by this Constitution". Article 76 enables the Governor to exert executive clemency as well. Regards. Cremallera (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Police are controlled by the Gibraltar Police Authority not the Governor who has no involvement in strategic or day-to-day control of the Police, who are responsible for internal security. The Governor is responsible for appointments, rather like HM the Queen appoints a Prime Minister in the UK. --Gibnews (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Section 47.1.b of the 2006 Gibraltar Constitution Order: "The Governor, acting in his discretion, shall be responsible in Gibraltar for the conduct of (...) internal security, including (subject to section 48) the police".
• Section 48.3: "The Commissioner of Police shall be appointed by the Governor acting in accordance with the advice of the Gibraltar Police Authority, provided that the Governor may disregard the advice of the Gibraltar Police Authority in relation to any person where he judges that accepting that advice would prejudice Her Majesty’s service". Cremallera (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the very point you raise has been addressed time and time again. Is there something about the response you don't understand? If so we can try and address it, if not then please stop the tendentious argument. Justin talk 14:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, you are right when you say "its what the references say." If you look at my section above, you will see many sources that say "almost complete internal self-government" or "self-government except (...)" (Gib Chief Minister, UK House of Commons, CIA, BBC, ...) while the UN calls Gibraltar directly "non self-governing". Therefore, it is clear that (if I didn't get the words "almost" and "except" wrong) many sources say that self-governance in Gibraltar is not complete or full. There is no need to argue about the meaning of the word "self-governing" here, because these sources clearly say that Gibraltar is not completely self-governing no matter the meaning of that word, even if they were using Justin's interpretation of the word "self-governing" they would be saying so (otherwise they would not use the word "except"). --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The UN does not say anything to that effect, Gibraltar has been on the list of non-self governing territories for a long time, the UN has not updated its position on Gibraltar since the sixties. a lot has changed in the world since then, for example the emergence of democracy in Spain. TODAY Gibraltar is self-governing, it is not a sovereign state, but that is quite a different issue. AND it is only fully self-governing after the implementation of the 2006 constitution that it one can make that assertion, so there may be references around describing the situation prior to two years ago which say 'non self governing'. I suggest you read the proceedings of the UN C24 which you show why in some areas the UN is an absolute waste of space and time. --Gibnews (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

UNIDENT

I disagree, but I find your attitude totally lovable (you remind me of my discussions with my children...) ; - )

About the UN: Really, Gibnews, do you seriously mean that you have taken a look at the link to the UN website (which I've posted like 15 times) where it says "Non Self-Governing Territories listed by General Assembly 2002" AND YET you insist that the UN does not say anything? Come on, my friend, take a look at it and tell me which part of "NSGT-LISTED-BY-GENERAL-ASSEMBLY-2002" you don't understand. (you are right about one thing, though: the General Assembly has not changed its position on Gibraltar since the 60s, although it has quite accurately updated the Constitutional changes in its reports; why no changes in position? I don't know but those are the facts...)

About the UN procedures: I imagine that they are pretty Kafkian (the bigger the organisation and the more far away the "owners" or "taxpayers" the more it is so, like in the EU Commission, etc.), but it is a notable source...

About all the rest of sources: What part of the text "self-governing-EXCEPT-FOR" is difficult for you to connect with the concept that Gibraltar's self-government is not full or complete?

No bad feelings. Please read the sources and then we talk. Thanks! --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been no changes in the UN C24 position because of effective opposition by a certain foreign Government. I trust you feel that your taxes are well spent. By talking at length at the UN, Spain has prevented Gibraltar being de-listed. But although they are in a sixties time warp in the real world we have implemented a new constitution and Gibraltar has become self-governing. In that respect we have been more successful in getting rid of interference by Britain than Spain. Indeed Gibraltar has more democratic government than some of the states with members on the C24, albeit they represent theoretically sovereign states. In the case of Gibraltar, UK and Spain the EU Commission rules us equally by means of directives. --Gibnews (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that Gibraltar's government is more effective and probably more democratic than Britain's and Spain's, and surely much more than the EU and the UN (I really think so). That usually is the most difficult part: to agree on what we think. On the other hand, it's funny that we don't seem to agree on what others say (which should be much easier, as long as we look or listen at what they say or publish). Therefore, I think that it would be of great help if you could click on the link to the UN General Assembly's list of non self-governing territories and confirm that Gibraltar is there. Then I'll ask you that we make the logical (not so big) jump to say "if Gibraltar is in the General Assembly's list of non self-governing territories, then it must be that the GA's position is that Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory". Thank you very much indeed. --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC Moving on

The version most people agreed with was Pfainuk's version, the exception being Gibnews, on that basis I propose the following:

Gibraltar (Template:Pron-en) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. The territory covers 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) and shares a land border with Spain to the north. Gibraltar has historically been an important base for the British Armed Forces and is the site of a Royal Navy base. Gibraltar is self-governing with the UK retaining responsibility for foreign affairs and defence,, it nonetheless remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories due to the Spanish claim.</

According to the Jane's Country Risk Ratings 2008, which measures the stability of 235 countries, territories and political entities in the world, Gibraltar is the 5th most stable territory worldwide, and the highest ranked British territory. The ratings are based on five fundamental categories: political, social, economic, external and military and security.

The sovereignty of Gibraltar has been a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations. Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to the Crown of Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty. The British government has stated that it is committed to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes.

It contains nothing that anyone has objected to, I've subtly modified it to remove Gibnews' objection I hope. Justin talk 12:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As you know, I think that there are different POVs about the limits to self-government in Gibraltar. Some sources mention "defence and external affairs" like you said (e.g. BBC), but other sources also include "internal security" (e.g. the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, CIA, UK FCO, UK FAC, UN...), "public service/public appointments" (UK, FCO, UK FAC, UN...) and "financial stability" (CIA). It would be better if you could find a wording that included all those views and which were acceptable by you. I have proposed to use the words from the UK FAC "almost complete internal self-government", but maybe you can propose a different one if you don't find it agreeable. --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The difference has actually been explained, you have expressed agreement with Pfainuk's approach, this is no different. Now are you going to break consensus by withdrawing your agreement. Justin talk 16:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have agreed with Pfainuk's approach 1) as a second option and 2) with the caveat about the wording and the content of the exceptions to Gibraltar's self-government. Please look at my comment here. You have proposed a slight adaptation due to Gibnews' comments. All I ask is that you think about my objection (which is pretty reasonable, given that different sources indeed support different exceptions to Gib's self-government) and either say that "almost complete internal self-government" is something you can agree with (something not unthinkable, given that in fact both "except external relations and defence" and "except ext relations, defence, internal security and the public service" do not contradict "almost complete internal self-government", even the first may fit better than the second with that wording) or propose some different wording that agrees with the position of all those relevant sources. I really think we are not too far. --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually your comments are exactly the same as you have previously asked, which have had a reply. In fact, you've had extensive replies and repeated attempts at an explanation about 156 kB. You've asked to define what exactly it is you don't understand, you have that opportuity. Now I've thought about your objection, explained why you're in fact incorrect, so unless you don't understand something and can tell us what you don't understand then lets move on. Because if another near consensus falls apart under tendentious wittering I have had it with you. Justin talk 17:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Tendentious wittering"? "I have had it with you"? Calm down, man. You insist that I completely supported Pfainuk's proposal. It seems that you have not read my repeated comments, so I'll summarise them: I supported Pfainuk's approach but stated two caveats, one of which was that many sources include the exceptions of "internal security" and "the public service" (one of them even includes "financial stability") besides Pfainuk's "external affairs and defence". I also said that it was only my second option (as many other editors). Let's summarise everybody's position and then let's move on (orderly). Come on, don't take it so hard, we are not solving Gibraltar's future but (nothing less nor more than) discussing about a wikipedia article...

One more thing: you don't mean that you are only considering Gibnews' caveats but not mine, are you? --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK you've had an answer to your "two caveats" about "internal security" and "the public service". Point of fact, the difference between written and unwritten consitutional matters has been explained more times than I care to count. So what exactly is it that you don't understand?

Because I'm not going through the arse ache of explaining it at great length again only for you to raise the same point again. Its the very definition of tendentious editing.

Now you did agree to the text, so are you now backtracking? Justin talk 19:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

I think that a straw poll could be useful, like Red Hat suggested. I will post below the different options that I have seen so far, but anyone can make modifications:

1. Leave the lead as it is: "Gibraltar is a self-governing British Overseas Territory"
2. Include the exceptions to self-government and the UN list of non self-governing territories
3. Just mention the fact that Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory
4. Add that Gibraltar remains on the UN list due to Spanish Government pressure at the UN C24 list or because of the Spainish Government's sovereignty claim
5. Include the fact that the UN defines self-government according to an obscure and arcane definition so that people realise the comparison is akin to apples and oranges
6. Noting that only Gibnews objected to Pfainuk's proposal work on that to remove the objection.

From what I've seen, most editors have a best option and a second best option. Therefore, if you want you can have two votes: one for "best option" and another one for "second best option".

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple of options as it hasn't started yet, or alternatively recognise that there is an option that no one really objected to and work with that. Justin talk 16:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Noting option 6, perhaps consider that a straw poll is unhelpful. Justin talk 16:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So what would your option be? --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My comment relates to the fact that the RFC was launched because there is an assertion that certain options violate WP:NPOV. Unless all your options satisfy it, then its not effective. Omitting self-govening fails WP:NPOV, as apparently does failing to mention the UN C24 list (although the UN C24 list uses an odd definition as to what constitutes self-governing). So your poll as formulated was ineffective. I also note that you launched it after I moved to work on the only option to which there was a single objection, which could easily be modified to an acceptable standard. Now unless you're withdrawing your acceptance of Pfainuk's proposal there is a simple and clear route to a solution. Justin talk 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As a compromise solution, as I've told said, I support options 2, 3 and 4. That is, more or less, Pfainuk's proposal (although I favour the addition of "internal security" to the list of exceptions, as fairly argued by Imalbornoz). --Ecemaml (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC) strikethough and modification to correct grammar error Justin talk 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted previously, internal security is in fact devolved to Gibraltar through the Police Authority, with the Governor's sole responsibility to simply rubber stamp their recommendation, the comments on the 2007 incident reflect the transition to the new constitution. Please, lets not attempt to diminish the role of the Gibraltar Government with a semantic argument based around the unwritten elements of the 2006 constitution. Pfainuk is pretty close to a consensus and we only have to convince Gibnews and I think my wording might do it. Justin talk 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Just mention the fact that Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory - by far the best option

2. Include the exceptions to self-government and the UN list of non self-governing territories - barely acceptable, though to my mind a clear example of lead bias. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd favour not mentioning self-government in the lede, but getting into detail mentioning "the exceptions to self-government and the UN list of non self-governing territories" within the Politics section. Don't know if it's the option number 2 or 3.

As for the latter 3 options added afterwards, I reject them as valid premises:

• 4- "Add that Gibraltar remains on the UN list due to Spanish Government pressure at the UN C24 list or because of the Spainish Government's sovereignty claim". Don't know which reliable sources are used to substantiate such a claim, but I'd like to read them. Mostly to learn how has Spain managed to keep other 9 completely unrelated British Overseas Territories in that list (if possible, sources not consisting in speeches by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar).
• 5- "Include the fact that the UN defines self-government according to an obscure and arcane definition so that people realise the comparison is akin to apples and oranges". Well, that's hardly a fact, since deeming something as an "obscure and arcane definition" is essentially a subjective assert and, as such, just another Point of View.
• 6- "Noting that only Gibnews objected to Pfainuk's proposal work on that to remove the objection". WP:NOTUNANIMITY. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• From the RFC: Looking at the sources, there are two reliable secondary sources saying Gibraltar is self-governing, and one primary source saying the opposite. Now, secondary sources are preferable so I'd say this weighs toward saying that Gibraltar is self-governing. A further point in favour of this is that there appears a logical reason for the territory to feature on the UN list. A few more secondary sources saying the same would in my opinion close this deal conclusively. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough Gibraltar is about the only BOT that has been suggested to be removed from the list and thats the only one they wouldn't remove and its the only one that Spain objected to. So lets not try and remove valid sources through ridicule shall we?

So the fact that the UN definition bears absolutely no relation whatosever to whether a territory governs itself is a subjective assessment. I call bullshit on that one.

And as Gibnews is the only person to object, if he agrees then there is unanimity and the straw poll was never necessary.

The indecent haste to move away from the consensus on Pfainuk's proposal to expunge self-governing is really telling isn't it. Speaks volumes it really does. Justin talk 17:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove valid sources through ridicule? You mean the speech made by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, don't you? Can you really affirm that's a neutral source without blushing?

As for your "call to bullshit": it is indeed a subjective assessment. But, more importantly, it's an unreferenced assessment. Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming that UN documents are always neutral sources. But are verifiable, at the very least. On the other hand, you are asking us to disregard a document produced by a highly notable international organization on the grounds of its definition of self-governance being absolutely unrelated to reality... according to whose opinion?

As a final note, I feel that you could really make your points -whichever they might be- without epitheting as 'fatuous' my arguments. That's not what edit summaries are for. Cremallera (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find that the opinion of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar regarding Gibraltar is not reliable. Peter Cararua QC is also an eminent lawyer, look up Queen's_Counsel so whatever arguments he uses at the UN are factual. As regards the UN, They are hopelessly out of date now and due to Spanish pressure there has been no progress in the C24. That Gibraltar is on their list is a fact, it does not mean anything, but its a fact and deserves a mention later in the article. It is otherwise of no consequence and changes nothing about how Gibraltar operates. --Gibnews (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't said reliable. I've said neutral. The opinion of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar regarding Gibraltar is the opinion of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar regarding Gibraltar. No more and no less. Cremallera (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I was in fact referring to the UN document, where the Spanish Government official objects to its delisting. I only mention the word "Spanish", because the UN mentioned the word and the person who said it happened to be, err. "Spanish". So please don't feel the need to run off, pretend to be offended, telling tales and try and get me blocked again. As its less than 24 hrs since I asked you to stop misrepresenting my arguments all the time perhaps I should do that.

Neither did I say we should disregard the UN, again I never actually have done so, equally that doesn't stop us explaining to let the reader decide for themselves whether the UN C24 is a farce. The actual comment I made was to explain what the UN says and make it plain what you're comparing.

What can I conclude from this. Well it has only been 24 hrs since the last time I asked you to stop misrepresenting me. I generally don't react too well to this, point of fact it usually pisses me off something chronic and I do have a tendency to over react. So I pretty much guess you were being an arse to get a rise and then try to get me blocked. Am I close?

Second, there seems a rush to stop any explanation of what the UN position is to make it plain to a reader. Guess some people have realised it doesn't make such a good impression when the explanation is there and the apparent dichotomy between the two is explained. Am I close? Justin talk 18:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, you don't allow me to write on your talk-page, so I'll do it here to try to stop you striking through my comments in the classification of sources. There is a third view, from people that (literally) say "self-governing except for..." or "almost complete self-government". Any of these words ("except" and "almost") mean "to some degree but not completely." That is different both from "complete" and "none". This is not "the pursue of a nationalistic agenda" (please, WP:AGF), but trying to classify things more logically. If you don't trust my opinion, then look at all the comments from outside editors above. In fact, it supports the option that Pfainuk proposed and you support (which is different from just "Gibraltar is self-governing". Let us not get too picky, come on... --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is another WP:RS (It's from Israel, I searched for a non-UK English language source) which says The territory has a large degree of autonomy with respect to government and law; only foreign affairs, and defense and security matters are in Britain's hands. The UN document is a primary source, which is less preferable for editing than secondary sources, see WP:OR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Now "autonomous" and "self-governing" in my opinion convey that the entity they're applied to is not "independent" or "sovereign" but that the degree of independence is less than complete. This source, however, has chosen to use "large degree of autonomy" and I would be OK with that in this article as well. --Dailycare (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, thanks for your contribution. It's refreshing to hear a new opinion after such a long discussion. I am not quite sure I agree that the United Nations is a "primary source". Spanish, British or Gibraltarian sources would be primary because those countries/ territories are involved in the dispute. The United Nations is clearly secondary because it is "at least one step removed from the event", as the definition quoted by you says. It is hard to accept anything except "non-self-governing" when such a highly respected source like the UN says so about Gibraltar. Perhaps the day-to-day issues are run by local politicians, and my opponents in this discussion have put forth some sources, but neither defense, security, nor foreign policy are run locally. After all, this is a British Overseas Territory, not a sovereign state. By definition, it cannot be entirely self-governing. My position remains that both pieces of information or POV's should be included in the lead (see point 1), or none at all and simply avoid the issue of self-government (see point 2). In the first case, I am also happy with the phrase "large degree of autonomy" which you suggested. I think this is the only way to achieve neutrality.

1) "Though Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government [or "a large degree of autonomy"] [60], it remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories".

2) "Gibraltar (Template:Pron-en) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking (...)

JCRB (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin's Suggestion

[61] Works for me, but re the wording "nonetheless remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories due to the Spanish claim" needs a reference for the italicized portion (sorry if I missed that one has been provided for this above - this talk page is huge now). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a UN reference above. Plenty more where that came from. Justin talk 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting the blame on one of the parties (Spain) will not help. That's exactly the opposite of what we're trying to achive here: neutrality and objectivity. JCRB (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of verifiability, JCRB, not blame. Which reference, Justin? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

[62] and as I said there are more. In answer to JCRB, its no different to the text you in fact proposed "as Spain maintains a territorial claim on Gibraltar." Your words not mine. I said nothing about blame. You've already pretty much agreed to this. Justin talk 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That reference does not explicitly say that Gib is on the list due to the Spanish claim. It merely states that Spain opposes its removal. In terms of verifiability that is a very important difference. (Unless I've misunderstood, Spain does not have a veto over Gibraltar's removal any more than Britain has a veto over its inclusion). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with TRHPF. Spanish oposition is important since it's the party having a claim. But, as in the UEFA case, its mere oposition (and lobbying) would not be enough unless it gathered enough support. Spanish oposition is a necessary but not sufficient condition to achieve the permanence of Gibraltar in the list. --Ecemaml (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No the statment is that it remains on the list due to the Spanish claim, I at no point stated it resulted from the Spanish claim. Do I take it that now people are withdrawing their affirmation of a text that they'd accepted? Because I for one am just sick of this. Justin talk 08:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, please don't take this the wrong way. Any rewording needs to be explicitly supported by the references. The problem is not with the word remains, it is with the word due. The solution is very simple, so there's no need to get cross about it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We'd actually agreed this text already so it had support. Now it seems some want to pick holes in sources and pick the text apart and you wonder why I might be feeling a tiny bit frustrated that we going into a spiral of nit picking again. How about helping to find sources and work in co-operation for a change? Because I for one am sick of people finding reasons to reject text, or finding sources to raise nit picking queries. Its also virtually impossible to get agreement when people are changing their minds all the time. It seems that some people don't wish to share in the graft of finding sources either. I'm also fed up of people finding excuses to run to AN/I trying to get the editors they disagree with blocked, or running to admins saying that Justin is being beastly again. Justin talk 12:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't blow your top, Justin. Remember, it's only Wikipedia! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this, this text de-emphasizes the contentious aspect a bit:

1) "Gibraltar has wide-ranging internal autonomy, while its foreign relations are controlled by the United Kingdom" --Dailycare (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion, I think we've got past that bit for a new roadblock to appear. Justin talk 12:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for the suggestion as well. I would support it if it included other different POVs about the scope of matters under control of the United Kingdom: some sources say that there are more matters controlled by the UK, such as defence, internal security, the public service and -this last one only supported by the CIA yearbook- financial stability (you can review them in the introduction of the RfC, and you can bring some more as you did with the one you found from Haretz -I have put that one in the introduction as well). --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Autonomy is very much a dirty word in Gibraltar, due to its use in the sixties by a group advocating autonomy within another state. I would also dispute that foreign relations are 'controlled' by the UK, although they are 'managed' by it. Although Jack Straw pronounced on television here he was "The foreign minister for Gibraltar" he was told to F..k off, left quickly and has never returned.

I agree with Justin, we need more sources and less argument.

eg:

• Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory with full self-government

• Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory (self-governing text in this source is copied exactly from previous wikipedia article)

Note by Imalbornoz: This source seems to have got its content from wikipedia itself:

• "Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar."(this was the text of the first sentence of the Gibraltar article in WP from April thru July 2009
• "Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar."(this is the text in the article published by the Russian newspaper on 23/07/2009)

The similarity (or rather identity) is pretty clear. The reporter should have given some credit to WP as a source, or have changed the wording a little bit... --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Gibraltar, identity and empire By Edward G. Archer

Describes the process leading up to the 2006 constitution, showing the intention of it was de-listing.

A committee, composed of politicians of all parties, was set up 'to review all aspects of the Gibraltar Constitution Order of 1969 and to report back to the House of Assembly on any desirable reform thereof'. This was to be a wholly Gibraltarian exercise reflecting Gibraltarian wishes and aspirations, evidence being taken from many sources.

The Committee reported in 2002. The objective had been not to write a new Constitution but to propose amendments to the current Constitution such as would maximise the self-government of Gibraltar by the people of Gibraltar retaining British sovereignty and close links with Great Britain'. In other words, what was looked for was 'both a suitable modernisation of the relationship with the United Kingdom, with consequential and enhanced powers of self-government and de-colonization in terms acceptable to The United Nations Committee 24.'

Sadly although charged with decolonisation of Gibraltar the C24 have not achieved anything and have not shown sufficient interest to even visit the territory on a fact finding mission. --Gibnews (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, I think this approach of "more sources and less arguments" is very good. The next step, given that it seems that many sources have different positions about the degree of self-government in Gibraltar, would be to agree in some wording that summarises all of those POVs. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support more sources and less argument. How about simply "Gibraltar has wide-ranging internal self-government"? (would "self-rule" be awful?) The exceptions may be mentioned in the body of the article. Similarly, I'm not sold on the idea of having the UN list mentioned in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I could agree with that wording (it summarises most of the sources POV). --Imalbornoz (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

---

YET ANOTHER PROPOSAL

“ Gibraltar (pronounced /dʒɨˈbrɔːltər/) is an internally self-governing[4][5][6] British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar.[7] ”

a) qualifying self government with internally. I see that most references say that after the 1969 constitution. This also eliminates any issues of Defence and foreign affairs.

b) Omit the reference to Spain and the UN. These are covered later in the article, and in any event make no difference to practical government of Gibraltar as sumarised in the lead. They are appropriate to the describing political situation, but when Mr Martinez in Gibraltar wants something done he does not contact the UN or HMG he talks to the elected Government of Gibraltar.

c) short sharp and totally factual. If we really MUST dissect Government then it should not be done in the introduction.

I think this covers a number of objections. However this argument has gone on for long enough and I sense a willingness to terminate it, so can I invite your comments on this proposal, LIMITED TO agree/disagree and ONE LINE ONLY. No rants no sermons and no repetition of previous argments please. --Gibnews (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note for those recommending Pfainuk's proposal, I modified it yesterday to addres Gibnews' objections but it seems that some editors have withdrawn their support for it. Justin talk 18:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

SUPPORT FOR THE ABOVE

• Agree --Gibnews (talk)
• Agree -- Apcbg (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree. (No need to say anything more than "Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory" in the opening sentence). -- The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree -- Justin talk 23:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree. (not in the opening sentence, and almost complete (not total) internal self-government). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree - As you may have noticed I've kept a distance from these discussions recently as there are already too many stresses in life to be adding wikistress. That said, I have still been following the discussion and I seriously think this has been the best proposal. --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree - out of the lead entirely, and internal self-government is not total. As a compromise I'd accept "almost complete self-government" or some similarly accurate comment in the lead, though I still think this is lead bias.Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• AGREE - as Gibnews, not good having too much wikistress here on top of those of real-life. Plus... as an uninvolved third party, this is by far the best sounding proposal. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree. That's practically the same as "self-governing", and sources have shown this is arguable at best. Neutral alternative: either "Gibraltar is a BOT" with no mention of self-government, or "Though Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government [63], it remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories". where both points of view are included. JCRB (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree I object to the removal of the mention to UN's list (I recall that it was the origin of this RfC), although I appreciate the explicit mention to "internal self-government". I, again, support first Pfainuk proposal (something that was supported by most of the people involved) --Ecemaml (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC) PS: I'd also ask not to selectively call for participation in this RfC. It may be easily labelled as WP:CANVAS. PS2: as you seem to be interested in Gibraltar-related topics, your involvement in here would be appreciated. About one hundred articles remain unassessed
• Agree I'd be OK with this, I'd also be OK with saying "wide-ranging internal self-government" a bit further on in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree I'm fin with this. I'm glad (and surprised) to see GibNews come forward with a compromise proposal. I would urge those opposing to rethink this, it is a good compromise and a good opportunity. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree -- RedCoat10 (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree - this makes sense. Pfainuk talk 19:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

---

It is a good compromise? Just because it adds the word "internal"? What an incredible concession by Gibnews. Sorry, I won't swallow that. JCRB (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You were asked to vote once and you have already done so. --Gibnews (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar motto

As there seems to be a persistent attempt at changing it to Mons Insignia Calpe perhaps someone could comment on the providence of the existing one as the GoG website is a bit confusing. Note there are no sovereignty implication so it would be interesting to see how many editors are interested in this topic. --Gibnews (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with the dispute about the motto. What is the problem? I will help if I can. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The GoG website reads clear to me. Montis Insignia Calpe has always been the motto and is always displayed beneath the badge of Gibraltar (Castle & Key). The other motto - Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti - is the motto of the Gibraltar Regiment and WAS used in the old official seal of the Rock which actually had a picture of the Rock with this motto beneath. Thus that motto never was linked to the Castle & Key, only the 'Montis...' one ever has. Check this link and read what it says: http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/national-symbols

In particular this prargraph:

'In 1869, a Circular despatch was sent to all Colonies requesting that a sketch of the Arms or Badge to be adorned in the centre of the Union Jack used by the Governor should be supplied to the Colonial Office. The sketch which was submitted by this Government on the 1 st January 1870, depicted the triple towered castle with dependent key with the words "Montis Insignia Calpe" underneath. This design was approved by the then Secretary of State and concurred in by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.'

I think this makes it quite clear that the coat of arms of the Rock depicts the Castle and Key together with the 'Montis...' motto. They go together and any attempt to replace this motto with another goes against known practice and documented history.

This paragraph goes some way to explaining the provenance of the 'Nulli...' motto and where it was used:

'The origin of the device on the Seal of the Colony which consists of a picture of the Rock with a sailing ship in the foreground and the words "Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti" underneath cannot be traced but it has been suggested that it has been taken from a Commemorative Medal of the Siege, which is believed to have been designed under instructions from General Eliott. No record of such a model can, however, be traced.'

I think again that this paragraph makes clear thet this seal and motto is of much more recent design and not the historic motto at all.

One of the final paragraphs of the article makes a conclusion we should pay close attention to:

'The Secretary of State sought the advice of the Garter King of Arms as to whether the Arms granted by Ferdinand and Isabella could be regarded as the recognised ones without the necessity for a Royal Warrant and, if so, whether they could be placed on record officially with the addition of the motto "Montis Insignia Calpe". He was advised that this could be done without the issue of a Royal Warrant and it was suggested that a properly attested and accurate copy of the Grant of Arms in 1502 should be recorded at the College of Arms.'

I think this makes the whole discussion a lot clearer. Red dragon rock (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but would like to hear the view of the other editors who have been reverting the change. I think the motto currently shown is that of the Gibraltar Regiment rather than Gibraltar itself, albeit a good one. --Gibnews (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree on the basis that we have no sources clearly stating which one is the motto of the territory of Gibraltar rather than just its coat of arms. I say this as at the moment we cannot be sure that that of the CoA is the same as that of the territory. If we cannot find any sources that clarify this I propose adding both mottos. --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To help illustrate my point, take the United States for example, its Great seal features the motto E pluribus unum whereas the official motto of the USA is In God We Trust. --Gibmetal 77^talk 02:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this help at all? - [64] Hope it can be classed as reliable - it agrees that the "nulli..." motto is that of the Gib Reg. The Gib Reg site also shows their badge with "nulli..." underneath it.[65] _Will^dow (Talk) 09:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't. We know it's the motto of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment but why would this stop it from being the national motto also? --Gibmetal 77^talk 11:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: The US has two mottos: "Motto: In God We Trust (official); E Pluribus Unum"(traditional)"[66] Could it be that Gib has two mottos as well? --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's basically what I said a couple of posts above : ). However, I think it's too early to assume this. Some further research is required. --Gibmetal 77^talk 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry :-( (I saw it and then after some time the US popped up in my head again -probably 'cos I's already seen your comment but didn't remember it). Anyway what I wanted to stress is that not only the US has two mottos, but its WP article mentions them in a fashion that the Gib article could use as inspiration[67] (after due investigation of course). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"BOT" only Proposal

It seems we have missed a proposal which a majority of involved editors have supported, which is to mention "British Overseas Territory" only, and drop the issue of self-government. It would be useful to recap on this. I have taken the time to count those in favour. Please write your name below the appropriate heading: "In favour" or "Against". JCRB (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BOT is totally meaningless in relation to the exercise of Government as each territory is different. --Gibnews (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"... to mention "British Overseas Territory" only, and drop the issue of self-government" -- does your proposal mean removing also the second sentence which concerns self-government too? ("It nonetheless remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories as Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from the list.") Apcbg (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In favour:

• The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. Please see Wikipedia:Main_article_fixation: "Article leads get by far the most attention from editors, and especially if an editor has a political or religious agenda, he or she will insist that their point appear in the intro, where it will get more attention, sometimes without noticing that the same point is already present in the article body." - that is exactly the case here (on both sides). -- The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• JCRB -- JCRB (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Like many outside editors have said, it does not skew the lead to one side or the other: BOT status already means a great degree of internal self-government, and there's no need to include the UN list either; most "country profiles" (Britannica, UK FCO, BBC...) have exactly this description in the intro and then describe the type of government in the Politics section. This approach got undisputed consensus for 7 years until April 2009. Imalbornoz (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC) - PS: My second option would be Pfainuk's proposal but with "almost complete internal self-government" and a mention to the UN list (without entering into "whose fault it is", which I'm sure is not a simple matter)
• Richard Keatinge We don't need to comment on this in the lead, if we do we should include some rather silly caveats to be entirely accurate, and with all due respect to other editors, this suggestion has nothing to do with opposing Gibnews' political agenda or supporting any Spanish claim. As a point of fact, Gibraltar seems to governs itself rather thoroughly. This is made suitably clear in the appropriate section. I don't think that the point is made any better by including endlessly disputable oversimplifications in the lead. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Moderately support Ecemaml

My first argument is that none of the articles on BOTs qualifies which kind of BOT they are (only this and the Falkland Islands; as both are subjects of a territorial dispute and its inclusion or not seems to have to be with NPOV... I recall that in every BOT where no dispute is in place, no mention to its degree of self-government is mentioned in the lead sentence). Therefore, I can't see any valid reason to include it in the lead sentence (BTW, Scotland does not include any mention to self-government in its lead sentence).

Having said that, I found the mention to "intenal self-government" much better than the previous.

Finally, as usual, I support strongly Pfainuk's first proposal.

Against:

• Oppose Already indicated this is not acceptable, compromise has been offered but seemingly some people aren't prepared to accept it. As for lead fixation, not in this case it is a case of censoring the lead because some people wish to skew the POV of the article. Not helpful. Justin talk 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Totally. Let us recall why we are here - a small number of editors are in denial about Gibraltar being self governing because it impacts the Spanish territorial claim. To say that stating Gibraltar is internally self-governing is a concession to me is insulting, it is a concession to telling the truth, and that is what Wikipedia should reflect. Gibraltar was largely self-governing under the 1969 constitution - which upset Spanish sensibilities considerably, enough to close the frontier and impose other restrictions. But under that constitution there were two ex-officio members of the assembly appointed by HMG. In practice and certainly since the late 80's these members too no active part in parliamentary business and under the 2006 constitution their role was abolished making the parliament 100% elected and devolving any residual powers exercised by non-elected members to the legislature and Government ministers. The role of the Governor as nominal head of state, mirrors the Monarch in the UK and simply isolates some functions of the state, eg the judiciary from direct political control of politicians, which is considered a desirable thing in a democracy. That Gibraltar is both on paper and in reality self-governing no doubt upsets the sensibilities of the Gib bashers even more. But we are not writing these pages for them, Wikipedia exists to inform people, not pander to delusions. Tough, that's the way it is. Gibraltar is now internally self governing and to censor it is quite unacceptable. Indeed it needs to be prominently shown so there is absolutely no doubt about it. Here we can argue until the end of time about this but it will not make any difference to the way things are, and that is what we should describe not a convenient misstruth. --Gibnews (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - Nuff said~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Surely, self-government is important enough to be mentioned in the lead. Indeed, that is done in the Scotland article, and what is good for Scotland is good for Gibraltar I reckon, more so that Gibraltar enjoyes a greater degree of self-government than Scotland does. Apcbg (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Scotland article says:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. Occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, it shares a border with England to the south and is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands including the Northern Isles and the Hebrides.

No mention to self-government in the lead. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Both articles have introductions (the text above the first section of the article) comprising few paragraphs each, and the Scotland article deals with self-government in the last paragraph of its introduction. While I wouldn't mind having self-government mentioned someplace near the end of the Gibraltar article's intro, the issue of Gibraltar's UN-alleged lack of self-government is brought up already in the first paragraph. Which means that's the place to mention self-government too.

• Oppose - I see no virtue to this compared to the compromise above offered by GibNews. Can we please work on one proposal for a section of text at a time. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think self-government is important enough to go in the lede. That doesn't mean it has to go in the first sentence (I maintain support for my previous proposal). This goes to strong oppose if it is proposed that mention of the C24 list remain in the lede paragraph. Pfainuk talk 19:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

San Roque revisited

The discussion on whether to include a mention of San Roque on the main Gibraltar page has rather died down but we are left with the rambling remnants of a RfC and a POV tag in the main article.

We did, after arguing at much length come up with come consensus wording about the departure which needs to be left alone. BUT in order to move on and bury this issue I make the following proposal :

EXISTING
By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed.

PROPOSED
By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left peacefully. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with the many settling in San Roque, Cadiz.

Again lets have a VOTE on this, limited to one line and not sermons, lectures, invitations to rate articles, rants about 'most noble' etc. They went, its over lets see if we can settle this as well. --Gibnews (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Voting to include this wording (revised 31/01/10)

• Agree --Gibnews (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree - with "most" replaced by "many" as suggested (unless the former were properly sourced). Apcbg (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - you saw my reference below which uses the term "most"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

'Most' would be 'more than half' I suppose; is there any specific data on the distribution of settlers? Apcbg (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree - Justin talk 21:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I dispute that the majority settled in San Roque, the population settled in many different places - example the fishermen went to Algeciras. It gives undue prominence to one of many. My suggestion is relocated to nearby areas of the Campo de Gibraltar. Justin talk 21:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Almost Agree - not "peaceful", per Imalbornoz. And "many" not most. "Many" is in three of Ecemaml's source and "most" in only one. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree - with the original "most": reference - "Most of the civilians who left Gibraltar never returned. Of those who left, most settled in the town of San Roque, overlooking the Bay of Gibraltar." [68] page 9. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree - with many. I wouldn't go with Justin's suggestion as Jackson's book also says some settled as far as Medina Sidonia, Ronda and Málaga - neither in the Campo de Gibraltar. --Gibmetal 77^talk 17:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Still Disagree It is picking one of many, why single one out? It is being given undue prominence due to the modern context of elements of Spanish nationalism and this misleads readers about the exodus of the population. Justin talk 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Moderate disagree. I agree with the reference to San Roque (although references provided above prove ad nauseam (see User:Ecemaml/Selected_quotations_about_Gibraltar#San_Roque) that most of the Gibraltar inhabitants settled down in San Roque, I found any wording as an acceptable compromise redaction). However, as Imalbornoz points out below, there's no reason to include an assessment so dubious as "peacefully". Is there any reason not to leave the first part of the sentence as it was? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC) PS2: the sources also prove that giving "prominence" to San Roque is simply given due weight to each settlement
• Almost Agree. My main problem is with the word "peacefully": it is not in the current consensus sentence. What sources say is "took what they could carry of what had not yet been plundered, and then filed through the gate towards the ruins of ancient Carteia" (George Hills -ancient Carteia=San Roque), "a dejected procession filed out of the Land Port" (William Jackson), "transported themselves and their movables across the new frontier to the Campo de Gibraltar, and especially to San Roque." (Stephen Constantine)... But no relevant source seems to think that the word "peacefully" is appropriate for that exodus (and I sure agree with them, taking into account we are describing 4,000 people leaving their homes a few hours after rapings, desecrations, plundering and murders in retaliation took place, not a walk into the countryside for a pic-nic). Sorry for the verbose comment :-( but I thought those sources had to be mentioned. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Almost Agree. I too have a problem with the word "peacefully". Sources say the population left fearful of the abuses of the British soldiers. That is hardly a "peaceful" exit. JCRB (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Carteia was the Roman name for the Campo area, most certainly not just the town of San Roque, which anyway did not exist as such at the time. The Roman ruins spread far and wide. The municipality of San Roque is quite different from the town and has nothing to do with Gibraltar at all. --Gibnews (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked for a vote not a lecture. Yes, San Roque is a great place for a picnic, even today, providing the wind is blowing away from the refinery. --Gibnews (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry again for the "lecture". In the first sentence, we had consensus without the word "peacefully" and -theoretically- were only discussing for a new sentence to be added (or not) about San Roque. If you leave the consensus sentence alone (if it ain't broken don't fix it) and focus the discussion in the new sentence about San Roque, my "lecture" will not be needed (and I'll gladly either remove it or collapse it). Thank you very much. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Your lecture was unnecessary and its clear you didn't bother to consider what is being suggested. Read again, with the emphasis added to draw your attention. "We did, after arguing at much length come up with come consensus wording about the departure which needs to be left alone.". The English phrase you're looking for is "Sorry, my bad, I fucked up." Justin talk 17:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposition to solve the long running debate is on the table. Having altered the wording once, I do not intend to change it again. The additional wording is simply adding to what was there. As regards 'peacefully' that was indeed the way they went. Not being shot at as they left and not murdering further allied servicemen. No fighting at all. Lets recall there was a surrender with more generous terms afforded than were to the Moors when the Spanish invaded Gibraltar. But the question is shall we conclude the argument over something that happened 300 years ago, and get on with something new, or not? The consensus says YES. --Gibnews (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I want to end this discussion. IMHO, "Peacefully" is out of place (women "peacefully" leaving the place where they were raped, and families "peacefully" leaving their homes after they were plundered?) and would not add any qualifier to the consensus sentence. The sentence already says "after order was restored" so it already means that no shots and murders were happening at the moment of the exodus. Anyway, I can come up with a few other words reflecting that the sources do expressly mention: "departed dejectedly / sorrowfully" "carrying what had not yet been plundered"... but I won't insist in including them in the sentence. Come on, if you really want to finish, let's not start a new discussion around the sentence which we already agreed upon after long discussions-mediation-RfC... -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Let's try this: PROPOSED
By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with many settling in San Roque, Cadiz.Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree Sorry I really can't see the rationale for singling out San Roque out of a number of places they went. Why not pick Algeciras for example and San Roque only became significant years later. Justin talk 09:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree totally, but why are we starting a new variation when it seems the majority agree with my proposal as above? --Gibnews (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• This variant follows comments from editors, above, and it is demonstrably more defensible and unambiguously sourced. Per Imalbornoz "peacefully" is inappropriate, and "most" is not universally agreed by the sources; I also beg leave to doubt if anyone was actually counting at the time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Did that need to be bolded? Whether we even mention San Roque still has to be agreed. Justin talk 13:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree Q: Why give prominence to San Roque and not Algeciras? A: Because the vast majority of reputable sources do give prominence to San Roque over other destinations, even sometimes it's the only destination they mention (e.g.: Maurice Harvey: "Gibraltar. A History" page 68, Frederick Sayer: "The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe" page 117, Allen Andrews: "Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar" page 54, Edward G. Archer: "Gibraltar, identity and empire" page 34, George Hills: "Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar" page 176, William Jackson: "The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar" page 101, Stephen Constantine: "Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704" page 15,... and 90 references more in English -there are quite a few addtional ones in Spanish as well). That should be enough for Wikipedia. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

“ Key words: "national unity" and "territorial integrity". It refers to the UN's position that the people of Spain is deprived of the unity of its territory. Therefore, it considers that the people of Spain is the people of the territory.

Key words: "referendum" and "a contravention" It means that a referendum held among Gibraltarians does not advance the self-determination of the territory. Therefore, it considers that the people of Gibraltar (or the UK) is not the people of the territory.

”

- Where you pervert UN resolutions to claim the UN supports the Spanish position and where you lost any trace of credibility. Sources do not mention San Roque to the exclusion of all of the places where the population went, the only reason there is a significant push for inclusion to the exclusion of others are related to Spanish nationalist claims that the people of San Roque are the real Gibraltarians. Your "answer" only justifies its inclusion in the History article, where no one disputes it, whereas there are numerous example of overview articles which don't feel the need to include it. Thats the test that really counts, not misrepresenting sources. Now I am perfectly entitled to hold the view that I do, your constant hectoring merely convinces me I'm correct in that view. Justin talk 16:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Justin, you may be entirely right about Spanish nationalist claims; the point is that this view simply isn't relevant to the task of building a good encyclopedia article. The facts are notable and referenced and more notable to the sources than many other items which are non-contentiously in the article. Your points may be very annoying to many people, but the facts are still notable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, in case you haven't noticed my position has been consistent, I accept that mentioning it on the history article is fine but I don't see the need to mention it here. Facts that are notable and referenced that receive due coverage for the article. So a) please do not imply that I'm trying to suppress facts and b) please don't adopt Imalbornoz's tactic of misrepresenting my position, because I am starting to get really irritated by both. From what I've seen above, the arguments on both sides are finely balanced but I don't seem them tipping in the favour of mentioning San Roque in this article. What I really don't appreciate is the constant questioning of my motives, when its clear that at least some of the editors making these accusations have their own agenda and it isn't about writing a quality encyclopedic article. Justin talk 17:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The views expressed above Imalbornoz are not facts, its just his or a Spanish nationalist view of things. The UN resolutions in queston were passed in the sixties, and are of no consequence. The referendum to which one refers was the referendum organised by HMG, not the two subsequent ones organised by the Government of Gibraltar. One which resulted in a change of policy by the Labour Government and the second which is taken to be an act of self-determination by the people of Gibraltar.

The mere fact that we are now discussing sovereignty shows that the agenda to include a mention of San Roque derives from that and not to record what happened to the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar, who in practice occupied the territory for less time than the Gibraltarians have. The principle of territorial integrity has no application to Gibraltar excepting the attempt by Spain, which does not dispute the grant of the sovereignty of the territory under Utrecht, but does complain about the Isthmus which is an integral part of Gibraltar today, and the argument of territorial integrity applies to the airport, sports field and housing estates built thereon very well.

Now you see the can of worms that opens up - whereas the previous small concession in mentioning a Spanish town which is quite irrelevant to Gibraltar achieved almost complete approval albeit some were grudging about it and would like more. NO the article is not about imaginary claims and tribes of lost imaginary 'Gibraltarians', defectors, cowards and murderers, its about the history of Gibraltar and San Roque has no place in that, it is a mere curiosity that it was founded by those leaving Gibraltar of their free will.

Further most of the references are taken from Spanish primary sources, and simply repeated and garbled by authors of secondary material. --Gibnews (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, Justin, nobody mentioned sovereignty in this discussion until you brought it up, and the whole point is that it has nothing to do with the reasons for including this fact in the article. If I were you I'd leave that can of worms un-opened; to change metaphors, there is no purpose in tilting at windmills. I appreciate that your positions are well-entrenched, but they are just not relevant to the point at issue. The facts should be included, as above, because they are well-referenced and more notable than many facts already uncontroversially in the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard where did I mention sovereignty? It seems you are we going down the same route of making assumptions about people's motives and misrepresenting their opinion. I really do not appreciate having my comments twisted out of all recognition and if you're going to go down that route then you lose my respect. Justin talk 22:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Justin, what is all that with the UN about? We are talking about the exodus of pre-British Gibraltariards (or call them X) to San Roque. I am afraid that you just missed (or avoided) the topic. The lack of valid arguments does not justify using this last resort of citing posts out of context and crying "Spanish nationalist!" (which I am not) or -as Gibnews has done- talking about some conspiracy to claim the sovereignity of Gib for Spain (which I haven't, but even if I had it would not invalidate my arguments). The game in Wikipedia is about sources, not about the personal views of other editors. By the way, I find the way you cite my posts (off topic, out of context and trying to paint yours truly as a hard-core nationalist) very offensive and I beg you not to do it again. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC) PS: I'm just kidding with the term Gibraltariards, as some editor raised the topic of "who are the real Gibraltarians". No offense intended.

Really, you're not a Spanish nationalist? So why are you spouting the same Spanish nationalist interpretation of UN resolutions, which is also nonsense? Thats why I consider you have no credibility. I find the nationalist nonsense you've posted and the opinions expressed in them to be highly offensive. They're not cited out of context or off topic and the fact you're trying to defend them, or as previously laugh them off, or some other diversion tactic doesn't cut the mustard.

I neither missed nor avoided the topic, you seem to think endlessly repeating the same argument to browbeat people into submission is effective. You've had an answer, you simply choose to ignore it or as usual misrepresent it; you offer nothing else. I'm fed up with taking the time to explain things to you, you just ignore it and repeat the same nonsense.

You've never once actually addressed the topic or even accept that people can have a valid reason to disagree with you. Justin talk 23:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just explaining a commonly accepted interpretation of the UN resolutions, but never personally supported the arguments behind that interpretation. Why don't you focus on sources like you are supposed to here, and stop meandering about the (supposed) POV of other editors? You are right about me repeating my argument: "sources, sources, sources". And I'll keep doing it unless you engage in a reasonable dialogue and prove that most sources don't consider San Roque as a notable episode -much more so than many other issues in the same section of the article- in the History of Gibraltar (that's the procedure here in WP; it's a bit embarrassing to have to remind this to a much more experienced editor like you, so please don't make me do it again). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't believe you anymore, you have utterly lost credibility with me. I don't defend or present arguments I don't believe and I don't find your explanations credible. Equally people have expressed a counter argument, the arguments for and against are more finely balanced than you'd have people believe. And you're sadly misinformed on how wikipedia works, its about consensus. Simply because you can source something doesn't mean you can force undue coverage of events into an article. Neither is brow beating anyone who disagrees with you an effective tactic. As regards your patronising comments, grow up and stop behaving like a small child. Justin talk 00:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Steady on Justin - please don't use language like that. Consensus absolutely does not trump verifiability (== sources). We can all agree that the sun is blue but that doesn't mean we should put it into Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And where did I say that consensus trumps verifiability? Answer I didn't. Here we go again. Consensus is still about what constitutes due coverage of the subject and relevance to the article. How about actually listening to the argument for once, instead of always trying to make it into something it isn't. Justin talk 08:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets' try again: PROPOSED WORDING: By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with many settling in San Roque, Cadiz.

• Agree; these facts are agreed in multiple sources, and receive more notice than other facts which are already uncontroversially in the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree - Yes, sources mention San Roque but they also mention many other places within the provinces of Cádiz and Málaga. If we had figures for the distribution of these people, that would be another story but unfortunately we don't... --Gibmetal 77^talk 19:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree - if we have to mention San Roque we need to make the point the inhabitants who did not remain left peacefully and were nor driven out. I really can't see a problem with that and indeed there was grudging agreement on my wording, so why do we need to change it again and endlessly repeat arguments. They left, its over. Unless their descendents want to buy property in Gibraltar, which they can under EU law. --Gibnews (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree Agree with Gibmetal77. Justin talk 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Agree: For the nth time: San Roque is given prominence as the main destination of the exodus of pre-British inhabitants of Gibraltar by an overwhelming majority of British reputable sources writing about the History of Gibraltar (for example: User:Ecemaml/Selected_quotations_about_Gibraltar#San_Roque). Their exodus was not exactly peaceful (the article currently says with the support of several sources: "they felt that staying was too dangerous"; adding "and left peacefully" is quite a shocking oxymoron). In case some editors think these sources are not enough and keep disagreeing, what would the next step be? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. Here is a reference (yet another to add to Ecemaml's): [69] "Of the 4,000 inhabitants, all but 70 fled across the isthmus into the hinterland of the Campo de Gibraltar, many settling temporarily (or so they thought) in San Roque." ps I cannot believe that such a large amount of time is being wasted by so many people for such a trivial matter The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but then some want it to be their way or nothing, they have no though of compromise and if they don't get their way they tie the page up in reams of tendentious argument. How many articles have multiple simultaneous RFC going? Justin talk 08:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, that's the way things go in these articles. You can have 90 sources giving prominence to one thing and some editors will still disagree... (I don't know anything about behaviour or motivations, but the effect is that changes in one direction take so long that many times editors get fed up and change just doesn't happen). BTW, I have a question (as a not too experienced editor in WP): is there a point when systematically opposing edits in spite of overwhelming evidence can be considered disruptive? (I don't necessarily say that we have reached that point here, I am just asking). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Which actually bears no relationship whatsoever to the matter at hand but you just carry on making false allegations again. Typical really, don't address the point, make offensive allegations about people and blame everyone else for deadlock. Thats considered disruptive, so you go right ahead and report me to whoever the hell you like. Go on, in fact I actively encourage you to make an ass of yourself doing it. Justin talk 11:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree - I'd rather we considered wording proposals one at a time. Apcbg (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Sources say the population left fearful of the British and Dutch soldiers. JCRB (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fearful of what? Future conflict? Justice for their murders of soldiers, having signed up to a peace treaty after being soundly beaten. Whatever they left and they never came back. Except looking for employment, food and to steal things as they still do today. --Gibnews (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

San Roque, the coda

Perhaps we could go back to what I hoped would be a process for achieving consensus on this subject? My apologies for leaving it so long, but I was hoping that delay would let tempers cool. (Instead feelings seem to have become even more inflamed.) Here I copy (and slightly edit) from the above discussion.

The Rfc by Atama was:

Should the main Gibraltar article include information about the town's population founding San Roque, Cadiz following a mass departure after the town was surrendered to British forces? One suggestion is to include that detail of the exodus, and other details, in the History of Gibraltar article and leave it out of the main article. But others feel that the information is too important to leave out of the summary in the main article.

Arguments for inclusion

1. The facts (as drafted above, hereinafter just "the facts") are verifiably included in several reputable English-language histories of Gibraltar. No such history has been produced which omits the facts. They are found to be more notable to reputable historians than several points which have been included without controversy.

This seems unequivocally relevant and important. Indeed, on its own it seems quite adequate to justify inclusion.

Disagree merits inclusion in the article dedicated to a detailed history, it doesn't follow that it belongs in an overview. Especially when you acknowledge it as a peripheral issue to the actual history of Gibraltar. Justin talk 14:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

2. The town of San Roque has, because of the facts, some legal and demographic continuity with Gibraltar. It is within the former territory of the Campos de Gibraltar. Many of the previous inhabitants of Gibraltar settled in San Roque, which kept Gibraltar's historical standard, granted by the Catholic Monarchs, its establishment privilege, its coat of arms, its records, its city council. Thus it has some legal and demographic continuity with Gibraltar. This is notable to anyone with an interest in Gibraltar.

This is at least mildly interesting and does tend to establish notability, not only to Spanish nationalists and Gibraltarians, but also to anyone with an interest in Gibraltar.

Establishes notability and relevance to the Campo de Gibraltar, the history of San Roque and even the History of Gibraltar but it does not follow that it is relevant to an overview of Gibraltar itself. It relates to the legal and demographics of the Gibraltar of over 300 years ago (emphasis added). Justin talk 14:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against inclusion

1. The town of San Roque is no more than a fairly close neighbour of the modern British territory of Gibraltar, the actual subject of the article.

On the basis of past practice, this article is indeed about the area of the present British-occupied territory. However, it also makes reference to matters which affected or were affected by that area. The destination of many of its inhabitants and of its council is peripheral, but may seem relevant enough to justify brief comment in this article.Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You argue it is peripheral, but may seem relevant which is not a strong argument for inclusion. If it is peripheral, the inclusion in an overview does not follow - and that is one of the arguments against. Justin talk 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

2. San Roque is described as the most important settlement to result only because the administrative functions were transferred there, but many of the residents dispersed elsewhere into the Campo de Gibraltar, founding Algeciras and San Roque, some going even farther afield.

Historians say "many" or "most" of the inhabitants went to San Roque. The number was clearly notable.Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The relevant words being Historians, this is an overview and not intended to provide detailed historical information about peripheral information. Justin talk 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

3. The people who left Gibraltar played no further part in the history of Gibraltar, nor were there any significant repercussions from their departure.

Again true, but the destination of many, perhaps most, of the inhabitants may seem relevant.Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

may seem relevant ie not a strong argument negating the point. Justin talk 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

4. The article is too long already and the facts surrounding the founding of San Roque could be trimmed for brevity in what is an overview article. Other encyclopedias do not mention the facts.

True and relevant. However, argument 1 for inclusion seems to address the same issue but with somewhat more weight. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Utterly disagree about weight, you acknowledge it is peripheral, therefore it is one of the facts that can be trimmed for brevity. The two don't follow from the other. Justin talk 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

5. The facts belong in the History of Gibraltar article not necessarily an overview article.

An arguable position rather than an argument in itself, but based on a sound understanding of the role of overview and detail articles. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And points one way to a compromise but one I note that was never actually considered when it was suggested. Justin talk 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

6. The facts are only notable to people who want Spain to have sovereignty over Gibraltar.

Not actually quite correct. They are mildly notable to me, and to historians of Gibraltar.Richard Keatinge (talk)

I draw your attention to the fact that the point is not reported correctly yet again. Not that I actually consider this to be a valid argument either way but the point is that under Franco, the people of San Roque were portrayed as the real Gibraltarians and the people of Gibraltar mere squatters. It was merely pointed out as a motive for pushing for inclusion by one side not an argument against inclusion. I am rather disappointed that you have not thought to revise the comment, given that has previously been pointed out. Justin talk 15:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

7. San Roque's claim to be the real Gibraltar is irrelevant to Gibraltarian, UK, or international law. Such claims can be offensive to Gibraltarians.

Here we come to the nub of the matter. I suggest that this argument is not relevant to our task of building a good encyclopedia article. Many very offensive facts are highly notable. Indeed, it could be argued that their very offensiveness makes them notable and worth inclusion here. We are not here to settle the world's problems or even take a view on them. We are here to write really good encyclopedia articles about them. We have wasted an immense amount of time on arguments on this point; further comment seems likely to justify administrative intervention. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No its not the nub of the matter, its not an argument either way on encyclopedic matters. It appears to have been seized upon to justify ignoring more valid arguments against inclusion. It is not something I have ever argued as the basis for not including it; though I have noted that some editors push for inclusion for reasons related to it and are unwilling to compromise on that basis. Lets actually follow the argument rather than falling into the trap of making assumptions about people and misrepresenting what they have to say. Justin talk 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary of my response to the request for comments

There are still editors who object to any mention of San Roque on grounds which I find not relevant to Wikipedia. I suggest that the arguments above should be decisive on the matter. To repeat, the destination of many, possibly most, of the previous population of Gibraltar is verifiably included in several reputable English-language histories of Gibraltar. No such history has been produced which omits the facts. They are found to be more notable to reputable historians than several points which have been included without controversy. It may help certain editors to note that I am British and I find the idea of a modern Spanish claim on Gibraltar on the basis of San Roque's history absolutely laughable. But, I repeat, neither this claim nor any supporters it may have are of any relevance to this article.

To add fuel to the flames, the word "peacefully" has been added to describe the exodus. Appreciating Apcgb's point that we may need to take this one word at a time, nobody has produced any appropriate reference for this word and it seems clearly inappropriate to describe people trudging away from their homes after a riotous military conquest. It should not be included.

I responded to a request for comments. I suggest strongly that the only arguments legitimate for our task here are on the side of inclusion.

I repeat the proposed wording from above.

PROPOSED WORDING: By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with many settling in San Roque, Cadiz.

Some editors may feel that my comments are unfair. I believe that they are thoroughly defensible. Unless anyone can come up with some new arguments I intend to change the article to the proposed wording in a week or so, and in the event of any further repetition of invalid arguments, or unjustified reversion, I will call for administrative help. In my view such help might well include censure and even blocks of certain editors. Valid comments will be welcome, of course. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Very Strongly Disagree Your comments are unfair and your stated course of action is not acceptable; you are declaring a revert war and threatening admin action on anyone who dares to disagree. Absolutely not and if you attempt to bulldoze it into the article I will also call for administrative help. I will also not accept having a comment misrepresented again. I don't accept your assertion that the argument tips in favour of inclusion, it is more finely balanced than that. Justin talk 12:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ADD I also note you fall into the trap of declaring that editors oppose all mention of San Roque. Frankly this is bullshit and I am utterly and completely hacked off that this false and malign assertion is repeated time and time again to discredit anyone who disagrees with one side of the discussion. Enough already, this is not the case at all. The position has been clear from Day 1 that they consider it undue coverage to add it to this article but that it very properly belongs in the History article. So not unnaturally I find your comments about "repetition of invalid arguments" to be more than a little hypocritical. Justin talk 13:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I hope that I am addressing some of your underlying concerns by saying that San Roque needs to be mentioned in this article partly because it forms the basis (for modern times, a thoroughly feeble basis) for certain claims over Gibraltar. Those claims are a matter of ongoing relevance to Gibraltar, and a casual reader should, I suggest, find some reference to their factual basis. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No Richard you're not, quite frankly that is certainly no argument in favour of its mention; its giving undue coverage to fringe material.. You accept my point that the issue is peripheral, in which case shoving it in anyway is giving it undue coverage. Neither have you acknowledged you were incorrect to assert that people are seeking to avoid any mention of San Roque, that clearly isn't and never has been the case. Justin talk 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

NO JUSTIN. San Roque is not fringe material. It has much to do with the history of Gibraltar, and this has been widely demonstrated. Denying this is rejecting verifiable sources and common sense. Some editors try to avoid mentioning San Roque to keep readers of this article in the dark about the original Gibraltarians and how they fled the rock following its occupation. Any historian would argue this deserves mentioning. JCRB (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happens in San Roque stays in San Roque and has nothing to do with Gibraltar. The people were not Gibraltarians they were Spanish cowards who ran away from their crimes and future conflict. Not very nice Spanish people who failed to defend the territory they occupied, surrendered broke agreements and murdered soldiers. There again, the peace of Utrecht was broken, the Treaty of Seville was broken and Spain failed to honour the agreement to move out of Olivenza. --Gibnews (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

From my talk page, moved here where it seems better placed:

Refactoring comments on Justin

Great do you also plan on refactoring your comments? Justin talk 14:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel that too many innocent electrons have already been squandered. I'll probably leave it for a bit. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, so you'll leave that offensive and untrue allegation that I'm suppressing mention of San Roque at all costs? That is just great, so....objective and even handed of you. Justin talk 16:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff where I've said anything so specific? I'll be glad to remove anything that was incorrect. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

[70] "There are still editors who object to any mention of San Roque on grounds which I find not relevant to Wikipedia." which happens to be a) untrue and b) not objective or even handed. If you redact I will do likewise. Justin talk 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you are still objecting to any mention of San Roque in the Gibraltar page? The page that we were discussing? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No I don't object to mention of San Roque per se in the right context and that is misrepresenting my position. That is what I object to, if you want to play semantic games about it, then I really do lose any respect for your opinion. Justin talk 17:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

To get this clear, are you now happy to agree with mention of SR on the Gib page as per recent discussion? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You know that I've made my position clear plenty of times and it isn't reflected in your comments. I don't agree with your edit and I have a reason that is entirely in line with wikipedia policies see WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. You acknowledge its a peripheral issue, your words, but still suggest giving it undue coverage. As a peripheral issue I consider it entirely appropriate to be mentioned in History of Gibraltar. So your comment is misrepresenting my position and if you're persisting with it, then you're not being objective, even handed or fair. Justin talk 17:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So you do object to the much-discussed mention of San Roque in the Gibraltar article? I believe that we have discussed the arguments for and against this at length and repeatedly, but I do not see the need to change my comments, nor to repeat them here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No I disagree with your edit proposal and the rationale for it and there is a big difference. The difference between us is that I don't feel the need to characterise your opinions in terms couched to denigrate them. Justin talk 18:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, one last try. What mention of SR on the Gib page would you find acceptable? Richard Keatinge (talk)

Achieving a consensus

PROPOSED By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left peacefully. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with the many settling in San Roque, Cadiz.

Achieved more votes in favour so IMHO that is the wording that should go in. Wheras I appreciate your efforts Richard, you have failed to grasp what this is all about, and unilaterally imposing YOUR personal view, which is not supported, against one which is, cannot be correct. The only reason I have not done this already is that I have waited for others to comment on it, having been chastised by someone for reminding people to vote in a neutral manner. However, its cooked for long enough. If we have to have a mention of San Roque it needs to be qualified with the fact that the people left peacefully.--Gibnews (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have waded through the mountains of verbiage on this subject in the archives. I feel that this point has gone on for far, far too long. This has been achieved partly by the introduction of endless minor changes as we seemed to be on the verge of consensus. I feel that the addition of the word "peacefully" was yet another of these, in addition to being a bizarre and unsourced description of the event. The archives come close to justifying their inclusion in WP:LAME and that includes the attempts at mediation and at administrative action. Indeed I note that I arrived here in response to the efforts of an un-involved administrator.

You may be right that I have failed to grasp what this is all about. I will accept the verdict of an administrator in this matter and will strive to act on any comments that an administrator may choose to make on my own conduct. But I feel that we need a resolution. Think what all this effort could have produced if it had been directed at improving Wikipedia in other ways. Perhaps moving on is the best solution, even if it has to be imposed? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, there has been way too much utter crap wasted on this. This is solely because those pushing for it will accept nothing but what they demand. Getting close to an agreement for it to fall apart is a negotiating tactic, if you look just as agreement seems about to be reached, it always going back to an earlier demand and it falls apart. Another tactic is making a series of posts to raise tension and then pretending to be reasonable. What you don't seem to grasp is this isn't about improving wikipedia, its about using it as a platform to advance an agenda. And they'll wear anyone who disagrees with that down by tendentious argument. An imposed solution? What might have helped would have been some admin intervention but everytime you ask for help its dismissed as a "content dispute", or a smokescreen is applied where I'm blamed for something I didn't do. I've had 4 AN/I threads making empty complaints about me, not to mention the posts on admin's talk pages calling for censure. If the solution you propose is imposed, then we might as well just give up, it'll only embolden them to push for more. Justin talk 22:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is neither bizarre or unsourced. Article I of the terms of surrender specifies that the Soldiers etc could march out within three days or remain.

"Some four thousand people left the city only about seventy of the original Spanish inhabitants took the risk of staying behind in the town that at the time had twelve hundred dwellings. As the procession reached the windmill on the isthmus, de Salinas made a moving speech to the refugees vowing not to rest until they could all return to their city. Then they dispersed into the Campo seeking temporary homes." - Sir William Jackson, The Rock of the Gibraltarians P101.

They left willingly under the terms of the peace treaty, so it was was peaceful nobody 'drove' them out. So whats the problem? Anyhow in the straw poll only one editor objected, indeed the thing you objected to Richard was changed. So yes lets bring this to a close, with the wording people have agreed to. --Gibnews (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually that reminds me, the sources claims 6000 settled at San Roque, all of the comtemporary counts put the Spanish population of Gibraltar at 4000. Given that a significant chunk of the population settled in Algeciras, Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga something doesn't quite add up. Justin talk 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I really does not matter, the important thing is that they left as the above excerpt from Jackson (a reputable British historian who based his book on Spanish accounts) says, they marched out. Nobody counted them, and the numbers and location vary. The article on algeciras says it was founded by fishermen from Gibraltar, so a number went there. Some went to San Roque, but there was sustained objection to saying 'the Campo' Again, the wording I propose only had one objection to its use (from Justin) and acceptance or grudging acceptance from others, so whats the problem with including that and calling it a day. Its clear that there are some people in Spain who hold the view that 'we was robbed' in 1704 and can't get over it. But its not really a pressing matter in relation to Gibraltar which is the topic of the article, and frankly the new leisure centre, which is not mentioned at all, is more important that a bunch of squatters who left three hundred years ago and are immaterial to the future of Gibraltar from the point they walked away from defending the territory against invaders. --Gibnews (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Richard, with each one of his words. It is clear that everyone has tried very hard. It is clear that no consensus has been reached. It's time to go and ask for some outside arbitration and get over with this dispute. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Back in June last year, whilst doing some research on the Economist website I came across the following unpleasant post of Imalbornoz's:

“ I have been reading the comments. And have to say that I am very surprised. To wrap it all up:

The Peninsula of Gibraltar is a colony, in fact one of the territories in the UN's list to be de-colonised. It was ceded to Britain, under the Treaty of Utrecht, as long as it had British sovereignity. The British have occupied that Peninsula as well as some other territories (the isthmus, waters, ...) beyond the Treaty's limits. If Gibraltar is decolonised (i.e. it loses British sovereignity) it should be returned to Spain, according to the treaty.

Spanish Minister Moratinos visited Gibraltar last week in order to negotiate how to mend some of Gibraltar's many disorders that have arisen under British rule (criminality, smuggling, tax evasion, ..., which The Economist sees as... a good case of development!).

Some Spaniards have protested that FIRST comes international legality (UN's list of territories to be decolonised, Treaty of Utrecht, occupied territory beyond the Treaty...) and THEN comes solving the mess inside Gibraltar (which will be difficult, as long as it is ruled as an overseas colony, and not as an integral part of a democratic state).

Then, some Englishmen make a big fuzz: they confuse Gibraltar with an island (and insist on it), they say that treaties don't matter just because because they are 300 years old and some people feel this or that, or they forget important parts of them (in doing so, they criticise Spaniards for writing in capital letters).

All of this contradicts my previous view of The Economist (gambling, smuggling, tax evarion...: din't TE defend economic development via a free market with a soul and with rules?), of British people (wasn't theirs the country of respect to laws and contracts no matter how old?) and translators...

”

He also wrote:

“

1. The UN and Spain (and other countries) consider that the right of self-determination (and to self-governance) should be exerted by people of the territory, not the people in the territory.
   
2. In the case of Gibraltar, the UN says that the people of the territory are the Spanish people. Of course -being a bit realistic for a change- the UN does not say that UK should return Gib to Spain and that's all; the UN says that the Governments of the UK and Spain should reach an agreement so they stop having a dispute about Gibraltar. They almost did with a proposal of shared sovereignty some years ago (in 2004, I think), but it was rejected by Gibraltarians and the public opinion in the UK.

”

Of JCRB, Willdow observed, completely independently, unfortunately it got buried in tendentious argument:

“ Regualarly breaks 3RR which would imply regular edit warring. Good faith is obviously not assumed and bullies other editors into submission. Don't take this as a personal attack. I am purely stating my opinion from what I can see in the contributions list... _Will^dow (Talk) 16:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC) ”

This is the editor that Imalbornoz portrays as "defending" the "UN POV". Both advance a single minded agenda and that isn't to improve the article. Justin talk 00:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, hopefully he has learnt that the views expressed in the economist forum, based on the nonsense in the Spanish wikipedia are false. Mainly because the English version is more truthful. I did manage to get rid of the line that Gibraltar was occupied by 'British pirates' though. The accusations of being the largest polluter on the planet remain (I think) which is a joke. But really we should focus on the Gibraltar page here and not nonsenses elsewhere. --Gibnews (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Justin? What was the point of that? Do you really think those off-wiki quotes from me are relevant for deciding what reputable sources say about Gibraltar? Really, although you make me feel extremely flattered by your citing me (wrapping up a discussion in a forum in The Economist, just for fun, after some cocky translator kept putting other people down for their bad English; those comments were not intended for anyone here in WP -in fact I had not yet began to edit here- but I have already apologised for it about four times here in WP), I have to say that I don't deserve so much attention: there are much more reputed sources (you can see a few ones brought by Ecemaml, Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Dailycare and myself). On the other hand, you were not trying to launch some implicit ad hominem attack, were you? Justin, Justin... -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

[71] Just to draw attention to how comments were refactored and in particular the terms redacted. Justin talk 12:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Those references to comments at the heat of the discussion are somewhat irrelevant now. I also thought we had left behind personal criticisms. Have we run out of arguments? I think arbitration is necessary at this point. JCRB (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if you said what you want, If you 'almost agreed' to the wording I proposed, but are only unhappy with it saying that the Spanish left peacefully in accordance with the articles of surrender, then we don't have to argue about anything else. Does almost mean yes or no ?? --Gibnews (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, if you are asking me, I am glad to answer:

• "yes" I agree with the second sentence as you propose it
• "yes" I agree with the first sentence as we agreed after Atama's recent mediation (the one that is currently in the article)
• "no" I don't agree to add any more qualifiers to the first sentence. In any case, what the sources say about the moment when the previous inhabitants of Gibraltar were leaving is that they did it in a "dejected procession" (William Jackson) and "carrying what had not yet been plundered" (George Hills). I am sure that a proposal to add those two texts would be rebutted by some editors, causing another long discussion (even though they are sourced, much more sourced in fact than the word "peacefully"). That's why I will not propose any more additions to the first sentence as it is: it just explains the facts without any further positive or negative decoration. I hope that, eventually, you will realise that doing the same is the reasonable thing to do.

Thanks for asking. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was trying to get a view from JCRB however if you are basically agreeing to put that wording and move on, I think we have a consensus, whatever JCRB's opinion might be and despite Justin's objection. I take the point about the redundant 'the' and trust its removal will not generate another 100k of disputes. Perhaps some may think including the word 'peacefully' is wrong, but they left under the terms of a peace agreement, were nor driven out at gunpoint and to their credit marched out in an orderly fashion. Re-reading your earlier message, there is some confusion about San Roque the municipality and San Roque the town. If Hills refers to the Roman name that referred to the Campo and not the settlement now known as San Roque. However, for the avoidance of another long argument about inclusion or not, I propose of you accept the peaceful aspect of the departure and I accept the mention of a town in Spain which played no future part in Gibraltar's history we can all move on and stop waffling about it. --Gibnews (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both Gibnews and Imalbornoz. This is great, could I just point out that in Gibnews' second sentence, the word "the" is redundant? We should have "many" rather than "the many"... hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

One more go

PROPOSED
By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left peacefully. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with many settling in San Roque, Cadiz.

ACTION
The wording has been proposed and the majority of editors who responded were in agreement. Alternative wordings received less support. I really do not think we can please everyone SO Unless anyone can come up with a really good reason NOT to use the above, I propose that after three days Richard Keatinge applies this wording to the article, and we all breath a sigh of relief, and kick s..t out of anyone who tries to resurrect the topic again. It is not necessary to vote further. --Gibnews (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Very delicately and tactfully, may I suggest "without further violence" rather than "peacefully"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that if RK's wording change is included. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the word "peacefully": 1) it is not sourced, 2) it contradicts the first part of the sentence that staying "was too dangerous", 3) it would be more reasonable to add the qualifiers that reputed sources do support as notable instead of peacefully ("dejectedly", "carrying what had not been plundered", 4) it is redundant, because the sentence already says "after order was restored", 5) the current wording of that sentence was agreed after a long mediation. This is just ridiculous, what's the point of adding that?

I thank RK very much for looking for a solution half-way. I am afraid it might be redundant as well: what's the difference between "without further violence" and "after order was restored"? Anyway, I will keep an open mind and see if someone comes with a reason to include that text (a reason I don't manage to find by myself). Richard, what would be the "encyclopaedian" argument for adding "without further violence"? Are there any other arguments that we should take into account? Which ones? Thank you very much and sorry for pushing this discussion a bit further. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree We have acknowledged that San Roque is a peripheral issue to the departure of the population. It is only one destination out of many and I don't see the need to give it special attention. If we give extra attention to one place out of many we are giving undue attention to a peripheral issue. The motivation of those seeking to give undue attention, with such persistence, to San Roque are related to the extreme Spanish nationalist position that the people of San Roque are the real Gibraltarians and the current population mere squatters. Thus, in giving attention to a peripheral issue we are giving undue attention to a fringe issue.

To make it plain I have no objection to the mention of San Roque in the right circumstances. San Roque may be a peripheral issue but in the History of Gibraltar we do have the time and space to devote to it. It may also be worthy of mention in the Disputed Status of Gibraltar. What I really do object to, is the people who mischaracterise my opposition to this edit proposal as "suppressing mention of San Roque at all costs" or "on grounds not acceptable to wikipedia" I have put forward a perfectly acceptable policy based rationale for my disagreement. A perfectly acceptable compromise for an overview article is to avoid mention of peripheral issues and delegate that to the more detailed article. This is within the guidelines of wikipedia for an overview. That compromise suggestion was rejected out of hand by the editors who demand we must mention San Roque in this article.

What isn't acceptable grounds for wikipedia are the rationale put forward by JCRB "Some editors try to avoid mentioning San Roque to keep readers of this article in the dark about the original Gibraltarians and how they fled the rock following its occupation." because wikipedia is not a soapbox to advance such an agenda. Nor is it a soapbox to proselytise constantly about "rapings, desecrations, plundering and murders in retaliation" that happened 300 years ago. Because that is simply using emotionally charged language to try and close down the debate and paint the opposing viewpoint as unacceptable. I note that a perfectly reasonable compromise by Richard is rejected purely because we have to continue with the language that the people were forced from their homes.

We have wasted too much time and effort to such a peripheral issue, that many times I have thought to simply "let the babies have their chocolate" so to speak. I am utterly fed up with having my position mischaracterised and labelled as "unacceptable" when I have tried to discuss the subject in a reasonable manner and really for me the last straw was having someone who claimed to have set out to be a neutral arbiter to choose to repeat the same baseless allegations made by disruptive editors who are using wikipedia to advance an agenda. The question about when I would find acceptable to mention San Roque in this article are a loaded question. So Richard "When did you stop beating your wife?" I answered that a lot time ago, when it gives due coverage to a fringe issue.

I also object to the bad tempered disusssions, largely prompted by the constant bad faith accusations of censoring or suppressing "the truth". I haven't seen one person come up with a valid policy based reason why the argument I put forward is incorrect. I'd be perfectly willing to listen or be swayed by such argument, what I'm not prepared to accept is to be bludgeoned into accepting an edit by reams of tendentious argument and constant bad faith accusations. Maybe I'm just a stubborn old git but my position had hardened solely because no one has thought to advance an argument why I'm wrong or mistaken. Neither do I respond well to editors making demands or threats of admin action.

So whilst I might be persuaded to accept the compromise suggested by Richard, I probably will find the amendments suggested by Imalbornoz unacceptable. Justin talk 11:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Imalbornoz, you are correct that there is no "encyclopedic" necessity for including the phrase "without further violence". Reasons for accepting it are that it appears to be a tolerable summary of the sources, who describe a deeply dejected procession but not one that was being helped on its way with further blows. And that, if there's one idea central to Wikipedia, it is respect for other civilized and informed minds, even those we feel to be extremely annoying stubborn gits. A compromise may be reasonable, even a compromise using nobody's preferred wording. Indeed I suggest this particular phrase with the hope of finding an acceptable compromise which may enable us all to turn our attention to more profitable endeavours, not because I particularly want it in myself. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

With fervent hope for unanimous acceptance, I have inserted the text "without further violence. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with many settling in San Roque, Cadiz." Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you but no I still disagree and no one has actually come up with a convincing counter argument. I would prefer you to remove it yourself until we do have agreement. Justin talk 20:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see how many others oppose all mention of San Roque first, thanks. Would those who really can't live with the present wording (and, I feel compelled to say with loathing, would prefer to return to the previous argument - it really starts to hot up about Archive 14) please stand up and be counted? Justin, I hope that I can ask you in the meantime to reconsider the arguments above, the opinions of our peers, and your position on this point? I very much hope that you will come to share my conclusion that the current wording, like so many other things in life, may not be ideal but is actually reasonable and tolerable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I have considered those opinions, it would be nice if they were to do the same in return rather than simply making bad faith accusations. Sorry but it is far from ideal and no I don't see imposing it as reasonable and tolerable. Justin talk 09:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"oppose all mention of San Roque first", is unhelpful and given the previous comments hardly conducive to convincing me to agree with you. Justin talk 12:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your point of view here Justin, but could we please give other editors the chance to turn their thumbs up or down before we re-enter the arena? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but that isn't good enough, specifically this has NEVER been addressed. There is an undue haste to ignore it and just give in. Well no I'm not prepared to accept it simply being ignored. Justin talk 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think "peacefully" is too much. "Without further violence" -IMHO- is not encyclopedically justified, but I am ready to accept it for the sake of consensus (in the hope that other editors will act in reciprocity in other parts of the article). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

There isn't a consensus to introduce that text is there, so lets not edit war to keep it. Justin talk 12:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the plea to avoid edit wars was ignored. I see, so thats how its going to be, tag teaming to force it into the article. Thats how consensus is achieved is it? Justin talk 18:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

May I point out that we have quite possibly the worst opening to a Wikipedia article imaginable.

Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. It nonetheless remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories as Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from the list.

Any sane individual not involved with the silly debates on this talk page would think that the authors of this article are unable to properly structure their sentences and are inadvertently using the "nonetheless" in the second paragraph to refer to the final clause of the first sentence. Which means that we have wording to the effect of "despite being located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar, Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories". I hope everyone here can see how utterly ridiculous this state of affairs is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should put San Roque to bed before restarting this, however this:

“ Gibraltar (pronounced /dʒɨˈbrɔːltər/) is an internally self-governing British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. ”

Achieved approval from the majority of editors involved, sufficient to change the intro. It answers you complaint about 'nonetheless'. The matter of the Spanish objection is mentioned later in the article where it is appropriate. Although the Spanish government objects to a lot of things, it has little effect or importance. --Gibnews (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I have no objection to changing the wording, the argument against it seems a little contrived. Cerainly I do not agree with removing certain terms. Justin talk 20:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing contrived about it, Justin. It's a simple matter of writing good English. There should not be a clause on a different topic in between the two clauses that "nonetheless" is being used to contrast. The present wording is something that only a bunch of squabbling Wikipedians could come up with. What Gibnews writes above is fine by me. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Its fine by me too. I'm just waiting for the howls of protest. Justin talk 20:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a howl, but if anyone wants to make any constructive comment on the text of User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar do feel free. Also edit it if you like. I'm fairly sure it's better English than the present version. I would like it to be a first stage towards an improved and agreed lead to this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. I would add internal security as an additional exception (see several sources in the list above). --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

For the body of the article I'd agree. For the lead I'd suggest that we need "some powers such as" followed by one example only. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I implacably oppose such a suggestion. Its a deliberate attempt to mislead by taking advantage of the fact that many elements of British constitutional law are based on custom and practise rather than a written constitution. I have explained this at length to Imalbornoz but he still comes back with the same line again and again. I've asked what it is he doesn't understand and he doesn't reply. The edit would be misleading and it is designed to play down the 2006 constitution. Wikipedia should be about explaining things to readers not using semantic arguments about sources to produce an article that misleads. That is POV WARRIOR territory. Justin talk 09:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I like Richard's proposal even better: defer mention of Gibraltar's political status to the last paragraph of the intro, where everything relating to it can be sensibly summarised. This way we avoid the "I MUST GET MY POINT INTO THE OPENING SENTENCE!" and "WELL, IF HE GETS HIS POINT IN THE OPENING SENTENCE I HAVE TO GET MY POINT THERE TOO!" wars. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not needed Red Hat, I oppose removing self-governing from the lede, removing it is pandering to those who would edit the article to say Gibraltar is a colony. It is a necessary qualification as not all BOT are self-governing e.g. South Georgia. I've also explained repeatedly to Imalbornoz why what he demands is inappropriate, I have asked dozens of times what exactly is it he doesn't understand and he is still pushing the same line. Justin talk 09:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

judiciary

Removed the comment about the judiciary. Its misleading; the judiciary may be appointed by the Queen but only on the recommendation of the Government. It is a matter of custom and practice as is much of British constitutional matters; see Page 6 of [72] for example. The text implies the judiciary is imposed from London, which is simply untrue. Justin talk 09:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep on playing with User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar. We may get somewhere useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I admit I am no expert in the interpretation of British or Gibraltarian law (as I suppose most people in this discussion). Therefore, we have to look and see what reputed sources say.

Many sources define the areas of self-government in Gibraltar as the matters that do not fall under the Governor (e.g. Chief Minister explains that the new Constitution maximises "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor")[73]pg 4). This is an important point in order to know how to judge in which areas is Gibraltar self- or non self-governing.

A strong case can be made to say that the Judiciary and internal security are de iure and de facto managed by the Governor (with some collaboration and advice by the GoG, to be fair), looking at reputed sources (anything else would be WP:OR and, sorry Justin, but you and I can be wonderful persons but not necessarily reputed sources on the interpretation of Gibraltar's Constitutional law). Therefore let's take a look at what the sources (not you or me) say:

• De iure, the Constitution says clearly which matters are attributed to the Governor:

“ 47.-(1) The Governor, acting in his discretion, shall be responsible in Gibraltar for the conduct (subject to this Constitution and any other law) of the following matters – (a) external affairs; (b) defence; (c) internal security, including (subject to section 48) the police; (d) such functions in relation to appointments to public offices and related matters as are conferred on him by this Constitution: Provided that the Governor shall in respect of external affairs as far as practicable act in consultation with the Chief Minister. (2) For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that any matter which falls outside the special responsibilities of the Governor set out in subsection (1), or which is not a function which this Constitution or any other law requires the Governor to exercise in his discretion, is the responsibility of Ministers. ”

• De facto, we can see that several sources support that internal security and/or the public service/judiciary are exceptions to Gib's self-government:

• Gibraltar's Chief Minister's comments emphasise "the GoG’s complete distance from the process" of suspending the Chief of Justice, which was carried out by the Governor.[74] (pg 80)
• The Chief Minister also says: The new Constitution "maximises self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers."[75](pg 4)
• PriceWaterhouseCoopers says: "Constitutionally, Gibraltar is a British dependent territory with internal self-government, the United Kingdom being responsible for defence, foreign affairs, financial stability and internal security."[76]
• The CIA says: "the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability"[77]
• The UK FCO says: : “The Constitution thoroughly modernises the UK-Gibraltar relationship. Key elements include limiting the responsibilities of the Governor to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service”[78]
• The UK FAC says: that the responsibilities of the Governor are in the areas of "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service"[79]
• The Secretariat of the Commonwealth says: "The governor represents the British monarch who is head of state and retains direct responsibility for all matters not specifically allocated to local ministers: principally external affairs, defence and internal security"[80]
• The UN says: “The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar"[81] (pg 3)
• The Gibraltar Police Authority says: "a. Accountability: to be accountable to the Governor on policing aspects of national security including internal security (section 12); to be accountable to the Government for those parts of the Annual Policing Plan which do not relate to national security (section 15)." and "The Authority has 7 members. The Chairman is appointed by the Governor acting on the advice of the Specified Appointments Commission. One member is appointed by the Governor, one member is appointed by the Chief Minister and the remaining four members are appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Public Service Commission." [82]

I hope these sources help clarify the matter. My conclusion is that many sources (including the Chief Minister of Gibraltar) say that the Government of Gibraltar does not have the main responsibility/power/self-governance in the area of internal security. A few others also include the public service and, as a matter of fact, the Chief Minister himself admitted that the GoG had nothing to do with the suspension of the Chief of Justice (which I would say is a significant power in the area of the Judiciary public service). --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work Imalbornoz. I too know very little of UK constitutional law, but can you produce a form of the lead which summarizes the situation with suitable brevity? I have put a fork of the lead on a user subpage, User_talk:Richard_Keatinge/Gibraltar, feel free to edit it. The purpose is to give us all the chance to play around with wording and try to produce a consensus. Or at least, following recent precedent above, something that almost all of us can live with. I hope for a minimum of personal insults too. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Justin's and Richard's copyedit summarises very well the role of the Governor in certain appointments. I have added internal security to the matters controlled by the UK, rearranged the references (adding a few ones), and have tried to summarise (in the words of the UK HoC FAC) the common denominator of all sources about the level of self-government of Gibraltar: "almost complete internal self-government" (I think no source contradicts this text). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you that internal security is NOT controlled by the UK ? --Gibnews (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

FFS here we go again and again. No, no, no that isn't how it works. There is a fundamental difference between what is written and what happens in practise. I've explained it till I'm blue in the face and you still come back with the same thing again and again. Now either explain what it is you don't understand or just stop it. This is just a blatant example of tendentious editing, where you ignore the explanation to state a position again. Its also abusing WP:V to try and bludgeon a misleading edit into an article when you are fully aware that isn't how it works. If this is how it is going to go, then lets just take this straight to arbcom now and be done with it. Wikipedia should be explaining how it works in reality, not trying to weave in a misleading edit to deliberately understate the amount of self-government enjoyed by Gibraltar because that is what is happening here. I have had it, really I have just had it. Enough. Justin talk 18:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that the Spanish constitution says that the King does all sorts of things, that does not mean that he governs the country. Similarly the Governor is acting on behalf of HM the Queen. Certainly the last Governor was under no illusions as to his role, and the current one was told in no uncertain terms at his swearing in ceremony what to expect. The CIA factbook is out of date. If you look at its map, it still shows a 'neutral territory' between Gibraltar and Spain. Its also ahead of its time as it refers to the Cervantes institute which has not opened yet. I could find lots of references to Spain being a fascist state - Google gives 105,000 hits for 'spain fascist state' but it is not, today and neither is Gibraltar governed by the UK. --Gibnews (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Try this wording: "Under its 2006 Constitution Gibraltar has for almost all purposes complete internal self-governance. Defense, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the United Kingdom; as within the UK, certain powers such as appointments to the judiciary remain with the Crown via the Governor but by custom and practice are only used on local advice." Any progress? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

NO WAY Gibraltar has internal self Government. Full stop. Internal security is NOT the responsibility of the UK. It is provided by the Royal Gibraltar Police, answerable to the Police Authority. The Gibraltar Police Authority is an independent body that is responsible for securing that the Royal Gibraltar Police operates as efficiently and effectively as possible within available resources; providing information on police issues to the community; operating and supervising a procedure for handling complaints against police officers; and generally for ensuring high standards of policing in Gibraltar. www.gpa.gi

The Home office, the Foreign office and the baked potato office have no say in internal security. The CJ is appointed by the Crown, as he holds a Royal warrant. Recent history shows that the CJ upset the locals and is no longer in office. I'm told the last time that happened in the UK was 1650 and the CJ then was on the take, wheras ours was most certainly not.

"Under its 2006 Constitution Gibraltar has internal self-government. Defence and foreign policy remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom; as within the UK, certain powers such as appointments to the judiciary remain with the Crown." --Gibnews (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the judiciary and internal security have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the UK. They are not controlled from London, I would even object to what Gibnews suggests because it isn't telling the full story. We should be explaining to the reader how it works, not pandering to a POV warrior who seeks to diminish the progress of self-government in Gibraltar. Justin talk 21:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Composition of the Gibraltar Police Authority.

The Authority has 7 members. The Chairman is appointed by the Governor acting on the advice of the Specified Appointments Commission. One member is appointed by the Governor, one member is appointed by the Chief Minister and the remaining four members are appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Public Service Commission." " [83] It seems fairly clear to me that we need some form of words that expresses the indisputable reality of self-governance and the framework of constitutional monarchy, where certain lines of responsibility do go outside Gibraltar. Unless we want to argue the constitutional theory with the FCO, GPA, and a lot of others. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that they're appointed by the UK Government? Which is what you just reverted to. So is that how we explain things to readers now, by reverting to a version that you know to be incorrect. This is a great day for wikipedia isn't it, edit warring to add a none consensus text, ignoring a policy based rationale to impose a none consensus edit - one it seems you don't have an answer to as you've ignored it twice and the people who edit warred to get what you gave them never answered and now reverting to something you know is wrong. Seems that informing readers and building a quality encyclopedia isn't high on the agenda at all. Why don't we just replace the article with Gibraltar Espanol and be done with it. Justin talk 22:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

They appear to be appointed by the Governor, who is appointed by the Monarch on the advice of the UK's government. He is not elected by the people of Gibraltar. Yes, I have a good idea of the reality, which I am sure is indeed of effective self-governance, but I hope you can agree that there are lines of responsibility for the internal affairs of Gibraltar which go outside Gibraltar. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office should know what they're talking about in this context, and so should the Gibraltar Police Authority. It seems to me that the present wording expresses this rather well. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Except the Govenor doesn't do the decision, no more than the Queen picks your local Chief Constable; though that is a crown appointment. And the edit you've reverted to says specifically its the UK, WHICH IT ISN'T. Its within Gibraltar, by Gibraltarians for Gibraltarians and executed by Gibraltarians; democratically elected. The present wording does not express it well at all but I'm not going to indulge you in an edit war. Whats the point of inviting input if you just ignore it. I still haven't had any sort of rebuttal to my earlier argument, other than you ignoring it. Seems like a pattern is emerging. Justin talk 22:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Justin: first, calm down please. Second, Imalbarnoz has provided a series of references to substantiate his claims. That 2007 Government of Gibraltar press release is about as clear cut as clear cut can be: "(the constitution) maximises our self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers. All other matters are the competence of the Gibraltar Government, the Gibraltar Parliament or other Gibraltar legal institutions.". No matter what you might think, that is what the Gib government itself states, and the only proper response if you disagree is to find sources which contradict that statement. You can't "argue" it away on the basis of logic or your own opinions - that is not how Wikipedia works. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes he provided references, but they are OUT OF DATE. Now read This which makes the process clear. To be a member of the authority you have to apply to the Government of Gibraltar Human resources department. That is a pretty big clue that its NOT anyone in London who decides. Note the wording of the press release issued by the Governors office that the head is appointed on consultation with the CM.

The structure is like that so the police are answerable to the Police Authority, appointed by the Governor on the recommendation the GoG, the idea is to provide a level of separation, so neither the Governor or the GoG have DIRECT control of the police. If, as a wild example, a bunch of armed foreigners land on a beach firing their guns, the RGP arrest them, who do you think the chief of police calls ? a) Chief Minister, b) Governor c) Ghostbusters? and who gets the apology? --Gibnews (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Deadlinks

I was just looking at one or two of the references and noticed a deadlink. I went through the rest and found quite a few. Rather than litter the article with I'd rather just list them on here for now.

1. - 10
2. - 13
3. - 14
4. - 32
5. - 33
6. - 35
7. - 42
8. - 44
9. - 47
10. - 48
11. - 52
12. - 56
13. - 65
14. - 76
15. - 80
16. - 82
17. - 107

_Will^dow (Talk) 10:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)