Talk:Gibraltar

Trivia

The article on Gibraltar is now quite long, perhaps too long. Some thought and effort could be made in making it more concise and moving content out to child pages.

There is a persistent attempt to include "The Gibraltar Magazine" in the newspapers section. This is a monthly freebie advertising magazine which mostly contains "features" promoting its paid advertisers. There are a number of such publications and I would not consider any of them notable.

As there are a handful of newspapers in Gibraltar its reasonable to mention all of them, particularly The Gibraltar Chronicle which is arguably the definitive record of news in Gibraltar since 1802, making it the worlds second oldest daily newspaper in print.

Gibraltar is often mentioned in films and tv programmes so there is no point in including trivial references, but the 7 minute intro to the Bond movie, The Living Daylights, which shows the Rock in a spectacular manner is in itself notable.

What do other editors think? --Gibnews (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable proposal to me, I rather dislike trivia sections personally and they are discourage by guidelines anyway. Justin talk 17:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My reaction to reading the article for the first time (just now) is that it is well done. I don't think it is too long. No doubt it could be polished a bit but I'd vote against any wholesale pruning. Jusdafax (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I only meant the trivia section, as some of that has little relation to the territory. --Gibnews (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jews Speak Hebrew?

The language section says that Hebrew is spoken by the Jewish community. Unless many of the Jews are Israelis, that seems highly unlikely. The independent linked article on the Jewish community of Gibraltar says they speak English, Spanish, Ladino, and Arabic. That seems to make a lot more sense. Does anyone know for sure? --Sukkoth 17:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukkoth Qulmos (talk • contribs)

I believe there is a weekly newspaper published with Hebrew content. --Gibnews (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Should the introduction include the governing status of Gibraltar?

I’m afraid I have provoked some discussion about this issue in several user's pages. Nobody else wanted to start the discussion in the article talk page, so maybe the time has come for me to open my first discussion in an article. First of all, I would like to say that I am a newcomer, so I will in advance apologise for any mistake and ask you "please, WP:DONTBITE this newcomer". As I understand that this issue is quite sensible –specially for Gibraltarians–, I promise I am honestly trying to stick to facts and obtain a NPOV (and expect the same from others).

Since April 2009, the first sentence of the introduction to this article has the expression “Gibraltar is a self-governing (,,,) territory”. I have not found any similar articles in WP starting like this. The fact that the article did not contain the sentence in the previous 7 years didn’t create any controversy (although, as some have pointed out, things can change in 7 years). Also, I have found many contradictory references in Internet: some say Gibraltar is self-governing and others say it isn’t.

My position is: I would support the previous situation and describe Gibraltar neither as self-governing nor as non self-governing, because it is less controversial (the absence of the term has not caused any discussion in the last 7 years). In case that it is decided that the introduction is better with a description of Gibraltar’s self- or non self-governing status, it would probably need some very significant reference (in order to avoid discussion).

The current citation (brought by Narson) is Gold, Peter (2005). Gibraltar: British or Spanish?. Routledge. p. 259:

“(…) in October 2001 (…)” “(…) on his annual address to the UN Fourth (Special Political and Decolonization) Committee (…)” “Caruana revealed that he had an ally in this regard within the UN itself. He referred to a paper written by the Chairman, Ambassador Donigi, in which he had proposed that a referendum should be held in Gibraltar on the question: “Should Gibraltar remain a self-governing territory of the United Kingdom?”. If Gibraltarians voted so to remain, Donigi argued that Gibraltar should no longer remain on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.”

I am not sure this third-hand transcription of a UN officer’s proposal for the text of a referendum is enough reference (although I will admit that it does indirectly refer to the current status of Gibraltar as a self-governing territory).

What do you think? --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar is a self-governing territory. That is a verified fact WP:V from a reliable source WP:RS. That is the standard for wikipedia. You are seeking to misrepresent the status of the territory for POV reasons related to the Spanish sovereignty claim. You dismiss sources solely on the basis of their nationality, which is unacceptable. You have elevated a minor matter of the UN C24 seeking to give it undue prominence. You misrepresent the list maintained by the C24 as the official UN position, it is not. The UN does not dictate sovereignty, as you claim it does, neither does the C24. The only reason Gibraltar was ever included, was because it was listed by the UK. The edit you propose is not acceptable because it is deliberately and intentionally misleading. Justin talk 20:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Its important to note that Gibraltar is self-governing because Spain tries very hard to claim otherwise in support of its irridentist territorial claim, frequently referring to the territory as 'the last colony in Europe'. Britain no longer has 'colonies' and there is no evidence that Gibraltar is governed in practice by anyone apart from its elected parliament. Since the 2006 constitution which came into effect in 2007 the Governor is the ceremonial head of state representing HM the Queen. He no longer enjoys 'reserve powers' or exercises control of the Police etc. The article represents the reality post 2007. Views expressed in books published prior to 2007 are out of date. --Gibnews (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The BBC also describes Gibraltar as self governing.[1], although they do say its a self governing part of the UK.. but they cant get everything right can they hehe. I see no reason why self governing shouldnt be stated in the intro, just aslong as somewhere on the article goes into detail about what powers it does and does not have. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I understand from your comment that you consider that the C24 is an unreliable source and its position is not the official position of the UN, but that the official position of the UN is a reliable source (as you seem to assert that the current citation is from a reliable source WP:RS). Is that so? (BTW, is one supposed to answer here according to WP's indenting guide, or is it all right and more comfortable if one answers at the bottom of the page?). --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No as I have repeatedly pointed out the C24 is not the official view of the UN. To represent it as such is misleading. Justin talk 15:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I note sarcastic comments about citing Hassans as a source. They are a large firm of international lawyers based in Gibraltar, if they say Gibraltar is "self-governing tax-effective, well regulated, well placed and well developed." it is more significant than anything in the Spanish press about it being a 'nest of pirates' etc.

• Iberian Lawyers award

--Gibnews (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(Massed ec, response to OP) I believe you are making a common mistake - or maybe even two.

First, you seem to assume that UN bodies are somehow politically neutral - that the position of a UN body constitutes neutrality. Such a position is intuitive but does not actually stand up to much scrutiny. Most obviously, the Korean War was fought between the UN-backed South and the Chinese-backed North - the UN picked one side, so its point of view in that case was clearly not neutral. Why should we assume that it is neutral in other cases?

Second is that the UN's list of "non-self-governing territories" - overseen by the Committee of 24 (the C24) - is somehow based on something other than political expediency. It was founded for a noble purpose, sure, but has long since become a political football.

That said, even at the beginning, the list of "non-self-governing territories" used a rather bizarre definition of "non-self-governing". 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

Pretty clearly, this defines a whole lot of places as "self-governing" that do not govern themselves, and potentially defines a whole lot of places that govern themselves as "non-self-governing". As such, it does not adequately describe whether a state is self-governing or not. England, for example, has no government of its own (independently of the UK), but it is - apparently - self-governing. Meanwhile, entities that are not far from de facto independence are included on the list.

Where even the original definition didn't describe a self-governing state, the list since then hasn't and doesn't match that definition - it has become essentially arbitrary. Portugal's overseas provinces of Mozambique and Angola were on the list before they became independent, but France's overseas départments - with equivalent status - are not and never have been. Britain's Overseas Territories are on the list, but the Crown Dependencies, which de facto have a similar status, are not.

The most bizarre case is Western Sahara - which is (apparently) not independent, but doesn't belong to any other state. So, apparently, it's not self-governing, but also not governed by anyone else either. The place isn't in anarchy - note that Somalia (much of which is in anarchy) is not on the list - it's just that the C24 have decided that it belongs on the list.

The C24 use this list as a stick to beat the administering powers with. It no longer has any other significant purpose. Its definition of "self-governing" is not the definition that most readers would reasonably expect to see (that is, that the entity governs itself) - not least because its definition of "self-governing" is entirely arbitrary. As such, I do not see that inclusion on the C24's list prevents us from using the term "self-governing" in reference to Gibraltar. Pfainuk talk 21:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, there is a lot of original research going on above. Dismissing UN lists for this or that reason is not on: Gibraltar is on the UN list of non-self governing territories, and whatever the actualities or politics of the situation, that is a seriously notable fact. 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)

The article already refers to the c24 list and mentions that it is on the list. Its in the politics section. Its not worth including in the lead IMHO. It is also misleading to represent the C24 list as the official position of the UN, it is not. Justin talk 15:00, 5 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 agree with Narson overall. There is only one detail: I am not sure that we can verify that Gibraltar is simply "self-governing" as such. On the other hand, I am sure that we can A) verify that Gibraltar is self-governing in some matters and not in others (of course, it would require some work in order to make it precise but to avoid making it too lengthy a description) or B) that "Gibraltar has a considerable measure of devolved government". --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar is self-governing it is a precise description. It does not need work. Justin talk 15:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to double check but I believe the old British term for that stage of things is 'Internally Self Governing', where a territory has total internal autonomy and only certain key things are reserved for the UK/Privy Council (Military and Foreign affairs are usually the big two). I'll double check later to see whether the term is used by RS to describe Gibraltar. If so, it is a rather concise way of describing things. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar is to all intents and purposes self-governing - it would be an error of fact to claim otherwise. I note that the Falkland Islands have been described as a "self-governing overseas territory of the UK" since 2005 (on Wikipedia) and there have been no objections. RedCoat10 • talk 14:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, Pfainuk, are you saying that Narson's is not a reliable source due to its lack of neutrality? (The citation refers to a UN officer's proposal). Do you think it should be deleted? --Imalbornoz (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

NO. Justin talk 15:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Academic sources are generally reliable, so I'm happy with it. I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't say that Gibraltar is on the C24's list (in the proper place) - I'm saying that I don't think that the C24's judgement on what constitutes "self-governing" is reliable by any stretch of the imagination, and thus that use of the C24 to justify the removal of the words "self-governing" would be flawed.

I'm also pointing out that the UN is, practically by definition, a political body, and that its judgements (generally speaking) do not constitute NPOV. Look at the UN in any detail, and I think this assertion is perfectly obvious. Every UN Security Council resolution, and every UN General Assembly resolution, takes one side or the other on a political issue. How can such a body possibly be considered politically neutral? Pfainuk talk 17:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Justin and Pfainuk, as you will see from the text above, the academic source in Narson's citation (Peter Gold's book) does not say per se whether Gibraltar is self-governing or not. It says, as Narson pointed out, that a UN officer (Chairman and Ambassador Donigi) considered the status of Gibraltar as self-governing in the text of a proposed referendum. It is the UN officer who calls Gibraltar self-governing not Peter Gold. Therefore, you should consider a UN officer reliable in order to accept the reliability of Narson's citation. Do you? --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As I keep saying. however 'academic' Golds book may be it predates the current constitution so its views are not applicable except in a historical context --Gibnews (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please let's not confuse neutral and notable. The UN's views are notable, but they are not neutral. The UN's views deserve mention, but only in the context of how Gibraltar's political status is viewed by all the involved parties - Britain, Gibraltar, Spain and the UN. Mentioning all the views is how the article stays neutral. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Gibraltar, not what Spain's view of Gibraltar is. The place for that is in the article about the sovereignty dispute. In that different POV's can be expressed, the article about Gibraltar is not the place for the fantasy and delusion of 'Gibraltar espanol' --Gibnews (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is what the article does already. But then the edit proposed is not neutral. Justin talk 19:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept that the UN's views are always notable, any more than China's views are always notable or Norway's view are always notable. If a branch of the UN makes a decision about Gibraltar that has no practical effect on anything, I would argue that it is likely not to be notable enough to mention in this article.

I note again that I am not arguing that inclusion on the C24's list should be removed from the article. But it shouldn't be moved to the lead. I argue that inclusion on the C24's list cannot reasonably be considered evidence that Gibraltar - or any other listed territory - isn't self-governing.

If you talk about a Republican in the context of US politics, you don't just mean someone who opposes monarchy, even though that's the standard meaning of the word. If you talk about a snowball in the context of Wikipedia, you're not referring to a ball of snow. Hookers in rugby are not necessarily prostitutes, and sweepers in football don't generally carry brooms. A driver in golf isn't the chauffeur. In a UN context, if you refer to a Non-Self-Governing territory, you are not necessary referring to a territory that does not govern itself.

The source here demonstrates this quite nicely. It effectively refers to Gibraltar - in a UN context - as a self-governing Non-Self-Governing Territory. Which is accurate, but only makes sense is when you understand that a Non-Self-Governing Territory has a meaning in the context of the UN that is not the same as its literal meaning. Pfainuk talk 20:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] The C24 is sufficiently un-notable that the GoG has decided not to attend future sessions. --Gibnews (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC) I didn't realise that "self-governing" had been slipped into the first sentence of the article. I completely disagree with that. If self-governing goes in the lead, the UN's view on that has to as well, for balance. To Gibnews' point, this is an article about Gibraltar, not an article about what Gibraltarians think about Gibraltar: save that for your homepage. To Pfainuk, the classic sign of original research on Wikipedia is people arguing things on the basis of logic. Your logic may convince you, and that's fine, but you can't argue away the notability of the UN, the global international organisation, maintaining a list of "non-self governing territories". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Except it isn't the UN that maintains a list its the C24, a sub-committee of the UN. It is not a UN view. The UN view is expressed by the security council or the General Assembly not its committees. Gibraltar is self-governing. And its not arguing on the basis of logic, its arguing on the basis of verifiable facts. Self-governing wasn't slipped in, it reflects the change in constitution. I guess Gibmetal77 would be amused at your bad faith accusation of slipping in anything. I for one object most strongly to the bad faith insinuation of that comment but unsurprised it would come from you. Justin talk 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mieow. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Quelle surprise, the RHoPF makes a bad faith accusation and tries to laugh it off. Heaven forbid he should ever apologise. Justin talk 23:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I merely said something was "slipped in there" and you, as you normally do, whipped out your handbag in a flash. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In my case that would be a sporran, ye Sassenach. I haven't seen many Rottweilers with handbags either. Perhaps you could come up with some equally obnoxious analogy designed to raise tension and then claim innocence like you normally do? Justin talk 10:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and to talk of the UN maintaining a list is misleading. The UN did not compile a list, it was the responsibility of individual states to nominate territories to be included. Gibraltar and other territories were only ever included on that list because the UK chose to list them. If it hadn't we wouldn't have the farcial situation of a group of countries less democratic than Gibraltar pronouncing a verdict on a self-governing Non-Self Governing Territory. Justin talk 22:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The way things should be is different from the way things are. Encyclopaedias cover the latter not the former. Yes, I agree it's a ridiculous list. It's not our place to make such judgements though. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, have you ever visited the UN? I have. One of the things you will see if you take the tour is a huge map of the Non-Self Governing Territories. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have worked for the UN and having seen the way it works hold the organisation in utter contempt. Its a ridiculous list which means we give it due coverage, which it already has in this article. The article covers things the way they are. To pander to a POV push and expunge details from the article is changing it to the Way it Should Be as you put it. Justin talk 23:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the French you are looking for might be "je crois que non"? Regardless, the status of the UN list is not up to you or me. The list exists and, given all the wranglings over sovereignty, it's pretty damned relevant. Much more relevant than, say, information about some geezer who happened to be taking off from Gibraltar when his plane crashed. BTW, I'm not proposing expunging anything from the article, if you read my responses properly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To make the point clearly. We both know that Gibraltar is self-governing. Its a verifiable fact, we have a reliable source. It belongs in the lead. There is also the issue of the C24. The article doesn't hide that, its already included, with due prominence. So to cut to the chase do you have a point with this? Are you suggesting we pander to our little POV pusher below and expunge the detail from the lead? If that is the case, then I oppose that. Are you suggesting we include both details? In which case the article already does. You see the confusion? Justin talk 09:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

For the moment, I only want to discuss about whether a statement in the article is verifiable or not. The way things are standing so far, most people in this discussion think that the source of the current citation for saying that "Gibraltar is a self-governed territory" is not neutral (a UN officer). Furthermore, there is a citation for saying that the UN´s official position (NOT the C24) IS that Gibraltar is a non-self governing territory: read Ban Ki-Moon's clear cut statement from 2008 (not pre-Constitution) in the official UN's webpage [4] and read this map of the current 16 territories [5]. Unless you consider that a UN's officer anecdotal intervention (contradicting his organisation's official position) should be a valid citation, I think the current citation should be removed. (on the other hand, see above that I am not saying that the article should state "Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory" either, but "the UN ..."). As it goes, I believe that this reference would only be valid for saying "once in 2001 a UN officer included the expression Gibraltar is a self-governing territory in the proposed text for a referendum" Gold, Peter (etc.) (something that I don't think is relevant enough to go in the article, much less in the lead). --Imalbornoz (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar IS A SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORY. It is a verifiable fact, we have a reliable source; actually we have multiple sources. The C24 list is mentioned with due prominence. To be frank about this, you haven't listened to a word anyone has said, you're single mindedly pushing to have a verifiable fact removed from the article. And its clear its for POV reasons.

I suggest people have a look on es.wikipedia where we'll find a certain editor trying to recruit other Spanish speaking members to come here to support this push to expunge the self-governing status of Gibraltar, in particular an editor who is an admin on the Spanish wikipedia but was blocked on the English wikipedia for disruptive POV editing on Gibraltar issues. You might also care to do a swift google search on "Imalbornoz", where you'll find this editor expressing his views on Gibraltar. People seem to forget the electronic trails they leave behind them.

And again no it is not the official position of the UN that Gibraltar is not a self-governing territory. The UN position is that Gibraltar is not A sovereign state, An integral part of a sovereign state or A state in free association with a sovereign state. It is not, the UN definition of self-governing has no relation to whether or not the territory elects its own legislature, enacts its own laws, raises its own taxes or any other element of governance, which a reasonable person would regard as self-government. You're misrepresenting a situation to push for a change favouring a Spanish nationalist POV. Its not acceptable. Justin talk 09:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If it says Gibraltar is self-governing with respect to internal affairs somewhere later in the intro, and saves the UN list for a later section, I don't have a problem with that. This then could serve as a better reference [6] ("a self-governing community, at least as far as internal affairs are concerned"). But I disagree with the placement of "self-governing" in the very first sentence as qualifier to "British overseas territory". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why given that all populated BOT are self-governing to some degree? Given that is the official stated policy of HMG to devolve Government to all BOT as far as possible. Gibraltar is self-governing with the exception of defence and foreign affairs. But that is also slightly misleading as Gibraltar has represented itself at the C24 for years, as the British Government no longer bothers to attend the annual farce where China and Cuba and various other one party states rule that a democratically elected Government is not self-governing. Justin talk 10:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Was it you that put these words in - is this why you're getting so uppity about it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't, never miss out on a chance to up the tension do we? Justin talk 12:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Justin, please take another look at WP's recommendations for discussion. I am starting to feel a little bit harassed by you, please stick to the article and its verifiability (I will answer your comments about my user in your user's talk page to avoid spamming this discussion). Thank you.

Two more things for the sake of verifiability: 1) What part of Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon's statement in the official UN's webpage "there are 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories remaining on the agenda of the United Nations" (one them being Gibraltar if you make the effort to count to 16) don't you understand to keep saying that this is not the UN's official position? 2) I suppose you don't think that a book saying that once in 2001 a UN official (Ambassador Donigi) included the terms "Gibraltar" and "self-governing territory" in the text for a proposed referendum is enough verification for saying that "Gibraltar IS A SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORY", do you? --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that there are sufficient references to Gibraltar being self-governing since the 2006 constitution was approved, and that there is a consensus here to support including it. Maybe I am cynical but it does begin to look like "Imalbornoz" has the look and feel of a well known Spanish POV merchant. Gibraltar being self governing is a reality that sticks in the throats of Spanish nationalists, but that is their problem and there is no need to alter things here to accomodate thir 'sensitivities'. The article is about Gibraltar and Gibraltar is not Spain.

However, we are all aware of that so lets move on. --Gibnews (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Imalbornoz does raise a good point. If that is indeed the reference for the text, it's not good enough. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a ton of references that I can find, BBC, Russian news service, New Zealand news, various book references, Gibraltar's government, lawyers, MSN Encarta, NY Times, The Economist...it is just a case that saying 'Gibraltar is a self-governing territory (refs), though this is disputed by groups such as the Spanish Government (ref)' or something like that. However, if what justin says about users being canvassed to come here on the Spanish wiki is true, then we need to freeze this debate and speak to the spanish wiki admins. That kind of behaviour is dangerous and shouldn't be rewarded but very heavily punished. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Gibraltar has some degree of self-government. You don't need to keep referring to Spain and anybody's sensitivities. (BTW: I think that you are getting a bit paranoid... I have never used a different name in wikipedia, so you can follow all my activity by looking up my user's activity). I only want to warn that you are contradicting yourselves: first you say that 1) the UN is a non-neutral political body, and books and opinions before the 2006 Constitution are not valid to support any statement about the self-government of Gibraltar but then 2) you accept as valid a citation from a 2005 book saying that once in 2001 a UN officer included that concept in the text of a proposed referendum (please take a new look at the transcript at the beginning of the discussion) and contradicting an explicit statement by the Secretary General. I think this is an important issue (in fact that is why I started the discussion), so I think a satisfying answer is due before moving on. Please... --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about Justin's accusations: he previously accused me of impersonating a newcomer, and also of canvassing. The first thing is clearly not true if you look at how I have started to be more comfortable in discussions since I started to discuss this article. The second accusation can be easy to disprove according to Narson. In fact I have warned of this discussion to all parties (as you all know). I don't think that is canvassing (but in any case, I wouldn't stop the discussion if we don't see a sudden avalanche of rabid Spanish nationalists). --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

By all parties, I mean all of you who undid my edits, plus I asked RedHat for some advice, as you can see in his user's page. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Harassed? What for concentrating on the article and demonstrating the information is verifiable for you to simply ignore it and repeat the same endless circular argument? Is that what you consider harassment? Or the perfectly legitimate activity of following up on an editors contributions when they are an obvious WP:SPA seeking to introduce a POV edit, disregarding reliable sources, ignore wiki policies of verifability, indulge in a spot of canvassing to gerrymander discussions or a spot of single-minded edit warring WP:3RR. And I notice you made enough edits to have been reported for a 3RR violation but nobody did. I suppose that might be harassment as well. Or is it harassment to point out that you wrote [7]:

IMAlbornoz wrote:

July 27, 2009 13:19 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...

(Matt. Stott: it shoud be "vida que vivir" not "vida a vivir" -shame on one of England's top three translation MA degrees...)

Sorry for my poor English (I'm not a language professional)...

Is that harassment? Was it harassment when you came to my talk page alleging bias, then complained that after your bad faith accusation that people weren't assuming good faith. But then accusing someone of harassment for replying to you is not assuming good faith is it? It is not harassment to point out someone's agenda when they come to an article with a pretence of attempting to make it neutral.

The point about the UN has been answered again and again and again. Ad infinitum, you still come back with the same point ignoring what has gone on before. Good faith does not require us to bang our heads against a wall, when someone refuses to listen and to continue pushing their POV.

Turning to the accusations you make in the post I quote above. Spain's accusations against Gibraltar about money laundering have been extensively investigated by independent financial bodies who concluded that not only were they utterly without foundation but that Gibraltar was the model of proprietry. So continuing to assert false accusations long after they've been show to be libellous clearly demonstrates you are most definitely not neutral on this issue.

So now you're claiming to have not edited on es.wikipedia to further your agenda? See [8]. Justin talk 12:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my Gosh, Justin. This is incredible!!! Talking about assuming good faith!!! You are all over the place! In case it is proved that Justin is wrong, is there a way to not reward this behaviour but heavily" warning him not to push people around? ;) I guess I will have to answer here, instead of your talk page. Sorry to others for taking all this room in a personal accusation. I begin in a few moments (let me read all the accusations). --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll save you the trouble.

WP:SPA see [9]

WP:3RR see [10]

WP:NPOV see [11] for POV agenda

WP:CANVAS see [12] and [13] Justin talk 12:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can everyone please calm down? Imalbornoz has as much right to edit and contribute here as the next man, and I frankly don't see him doing anything wrong. Just stick to discussing the issue at hand. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did I ever say he didn't have a right to edit or contribute? What exactly are you accusing me of? Do you really think that is appropriate language to calm things down? It is legitimate to point out his stated POV, when he claims to be making the article more neutral; he isn't. Accusing other editors of harassment, accusing them of bias, is not demonstrating good faith either and its a bit rich to accuse others of bad faith when they respond to such accusations. Its also perfectly legitimate to point out his activities on es.wikipedia when he has denied them. So on several counts his activities here are wrong and run counter to the spirit of collaborative working to build a neutral encyclopedia. To point that out is perfectly legitimate.

And we'd love to discuss the issue at end, except its a circular argument where he ignores whatever points are put to him to re-iterate the same POV comments he started out with. Justin talk 13:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You see, there you go again with that lashing out. Please read Narson's post before suggesting I am accusing you of anything. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Really, so your language was so carefully chosen so it couldn't be miscontrued as an accusation? This isn't a personal attack but you do have a history of raising tension will ill-judged remarks. Justin talk 13:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1st accusation: Accusing you of harassment: I believe that I have the right to start feeling like that when you have: 1) entered in my user's talk page (it was you the first one who did that) to launch all kinds of accusations and then tell me to get out of yours (as I thought I was supposed to do) , 2) repeatedly accused me of edit warring, canvassing, impersonating a newcomer, and again canvassing and impersonating a newcomer, and then accused me again of canvassing, 3) brought in non-WP posts out of context, 4) deleted my invitation to this discussion in your talk page... All the meanwhile I have tried to explain that I am not an expert, I have apologised for disturbing you, have asked you to please stop attacking me... (this accusation reminds me that joke about the policeman who accused the demonstrator for injuring his fist with her nose).

You edit warred, issuing a 3RR warning is legitimate.

I have never told you to get out of my page, that is a blatant lie and I demand an immediate apology.

You have edit warred, you have canvassed and given your activities you are clearly not a newcomer.

Off WP comments that are relevant and germane to the discussion are perfectly valid to raise.

Removing comments from my talk page is within my prerogative, it shows I have read them nothing more.

That supposed joke is a deliberately offensive analogy. It clearly demonstrates bad faith. Justin talk 13:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

2nd accusation: Having a POV. Everybody has one. You clearly have one (don't hide it, it clearly shows). From what I have understood these few days, it is WP and the articles that have to have a NPOV. It is obtained by discussion focused on representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I have tried to do so with all my mind. BTW, the post you bring is OUT OF CONTEXT. It is at the end of a discussion in The Economist (of course out of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). I don't know if the content of that discussion is relevant to THIS discussion, but I will try to put it into context. Many people had been discussing about Gibraltar, and (as you can see if you look at the structure of the text) I was wrapping up different POVs from the discussion (not necessarily mine, for example with the term "colony") and trying to teach some humility to a cocky interpreter who had critisised someone for writing in capital letters, then told everyone that he had one of the three best translation degrees in England, and then wrote a sentence in incorrect Spanish. I would not say it was a serious discussion trying to obtain a NPOV. Just go to TE homepage and read the whole discussion if you have the time. In fact, it was that discussion that brought me to WP.

No the comment is that you're seeking to skew the POV in this article. The post I raised is not out of context. Attempting to spin your contribution there to put a positive light on it is frankly unconvincing. Justin talk 13:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(I still have MANY more accusations to answer, but I have to go home for lunch). I guess this is not necessary, but I think that Justin has put my contributions into question (quite unjustly, to tell you the truth) and I feel the need to clean my image. --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, your conduct in accusing other editors of bias and harassment when they have raised legitimate concerns has called your contributuions into question. And quite legitimately. Justin talk 13:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Third accusation: something about impersonating a new user. What a complicated and/or clumsy conspirator am I! Posting comments in The Economist since last October (about China, aerospace, Spain's star judges, automibile industry in Germany...), to just then post a comment about Gibraltar so that someone can bring it here to say a have a biased POV! And then starting this discussion in WP with the same user. If someone really thinks this is not completely absurd, then I don't know what to think of him... As I previously told Justin, this has amused and complimented me until now... Now I am happy I kept the same user so that it shows clearly that I am not trying to hide anything. Now I have to ask Justin to please find some proof of my impersonation or please not waste anybody's time anymore spreading insidious accusations.

Ah the resorting to absurd hyperbole completely unrelated to the original comment ploy. How original. You do not strike me as a new user and you wouldn't be the first user to claim to be a newcomer with their sock puppet account. I don't see how anyone can claim to be a newcomer with an account with its first edit in 2007. Justin talk 16:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fourth accusation: canvassing. I didn't even know the term until you accused me. What happens is that, when I came from The Economist discussion to complete my view on the issue and saw the "self-governing" expression I thought "So, finally, they have delisted Gibraltar in the UN?" When I saw it was not the case, I thought it was misleading and tried to correct it. When several users undid my contributions, I asked a user I looked up in the discussion page who didn't seem to be a fanatic neither from the British-Gibraltar side nor from the Spanish nationalistic side (as Ecemaml seemed to be). He seemed to be on holiday, so I asked RedHat. As neither of them seemed to answer, I started (a bit frightened I must say) this discussion. Then I warned all of you. Is that canvassing?

You did canvas, the evidence was presented and at least one other editor agrees with me. You were seeking to recruit people you thought would be sympathetic to your agenda. You sought to tip the balance in your favour. Justin talk 16:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fifth accusation: Edit warring. I thought it was all right to change the lead to a previous consensus + a reference to the UN list. And that if someone undid that it was HIM that was edit warring. In case I was wrong, I apologise.

You have edit warred, multiple editors have warned you on that score. You continued to edit war after you were warned, complete with a reference to WP:3RR. 3RR is explicit, you broke it. Justin talk 16:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's all. I'm afraid the issue Justin raised is going to make consensus more difficult and my proposals more difficult to accept even if some of them make sense. I will please ask everybody to ignore these attacks ad personam and please look only at the content of my proposals. Sorry again for taking so much space. --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Again no, you conduct is making consensus impossible to achieve. We have already gone round a circular argument and every time you return to the same flawed argument. The comments were on the content of your proposal till you started with claims of bias and harassment. Justin talk 16:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I'm overly impressed with the goings on at the spanish wikipedia, from my understanding it would appear to be over the line into canvassing (presenting a POV, going to someone you know shares the POV and heavily prompting to an action). Now, ignoring the Justin and Redhat Show, we appear to be drifting off topic here. Do you have any problems with references to the official position on Gibraltar and various other links showing it to be self-governing, with a link after stating there is opposition? I'd suggest that we even wikilink the dissent part of the sentence I suggested to the sovereignty issue page. We do /not/ want to get heavily into the sovereignty debate on this page but I don't think a caveat on a sentence will be too bad. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC) (EC)