Talk:Timeline of the history of Gibraltar

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


Restored Material[edit]

It may have had a POV label but the justification for labelling that as "POV" has never been provided. The material is relevant and cited so I have restored it. Justin talk 19:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again I restored material that had consensus, one that even you Cremallera had agreed to. I also note that I had provided a comment in talk which you have not responded to. Having waited several days for you to comment in talk I have restored it again. Justin talk 09:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat from above, I suggest that we should look at each individual point, decide whether it's really relevant and notable (and only the GoG and GoS positions strike me as really relevant to the History of Gibraltar, the rest deserve at the very most a small quotation in the reference), find good secondary references for each one (or primary references consisting of organizations stating their own positions), and write some good referenced encyclopedic prose which summarizes the controversy very briefly.

In the meantime I will shortly remove the text: "The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar[citation needed], since there are other environmental problems in the Bay[1] and the base located in Rota[2], Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines)[3] without any official complaint. Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar.[citation needed] However, Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida[4] and Ecologistas en Acción[5], have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way."

I would also suggest drafting on this page first. Perhaps "The Government of Gibraltar and other organizations complained that the Spanish government's attitude was inconsistent with its acceptance of US nuclear warships being serviced in Rota." plus references as appropriate? Even that seems excessive for a Timeline article, but I'd really like to achieve consensus if at all possible. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the material for the reason that it is relevant, it is cited and reliably sourced. I would be happy to draft alternate text here yet again if we have to but I feel it is necessary to again point out to you that this wording was accepted by all.
And again I would re-iterate that I dont accept you in the role of mediator, particularly as yet again you've chosen to mediate by imposing your own solution first. Justin talk 15:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Justin, perhaps we could see what other editors think? In the meantime, could you provide a stable url for consensus on the present version? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by that comment, if you're referring to the current draft of the text then the original draft is still in the talk page above. That is stable. Justin talk 15:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I see you've created a new section instead of using the existing one. I've written a comment there. However, in order to move forward, I'll list here the points I think you're trying to introduce in the current article:

  • The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar.
  • there are other environmental problems in the Bay.
  • and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines)
  • Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar.
  • Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way.

Is that correct? If that's the case, please provide reliable sources both related to the Tireless issue and backing those statements up. Cremallera (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those are the points, which all have been sourced as far as I'm aware with the exception of the penultimate point. May I also point out that the version I put back into the article is based on the Paragraph you drafted. May I also point out I initiated a talk page discussion before your revert, waited for a response for a week before restoring. Hence, I do not believe your reverts today mentioning the talk page were in fact necessary - I had already done so. Justin talk 20:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Moving on. So you've got suitable references for the following text, so far:
  • The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar.
  • There are other environmental problems in the Bay.
  • The base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines)
  • Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way.
Please copy the links to the sources next to the phrases above and let's see what we can do about that. Cremallera (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If its one currently unsourced sentence you're complaining about, why not simply remove that pending a source and use the current text? Justin talk 20:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because all these pointers are unreferenced, as I see it. However, the solution is really simple if we follow wikipedia's policies concerning reliable sources. Let's begin by recollecting here the sources backing up the statements drafted above. Thanks in advance. Cremallera (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it is all sourced, with the exception of one point. I also object to the article being changed whilst a discussion is supposedly in progress to achieve consensus. I would be grateful for a revert please. Justin talk 20:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's all sourced, please copy here the links leading to the references so we can take a look at them. Concerning the alleged changes to the article, I've just restored the existing stable version prior to your intervention and subsequent controversy, which is pretty much a standard procedure. Here's the diff. Now let's take a look at those sources, huh? Cremallera (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look this is ridiculous, all points bar one are reliably sourced. Are you disputing a source or can we move on? I don't find it helpful that you're claiming points are not sourced when plainly they are. I also find your accusation of "controversy" unhelpful, you accepted this text before taking advantage of my topic ban to expunge material. I also believe you have in fact inadvertently breached 3RR. May I suggest you revert before I am obliged to make a 3RR report bearing in mind the special editing restrictions on Gibraltar articles. Justin talk 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not breached 3RR although I am not aware of any special editing restrictions on Gibraltar articles. With that said, let's move forward: if you say that the points are sourced, please provide the sources. Just copy the links here so we can analyse those references, is really that simple. Cremallera (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have albeit inadvertently, there are special restrictions stemming from the arbcom case that affect you as much as they do me. So I suggest you read them.
Each point is sourced, I have asked you a direct question as to which you dispute. Please identify it or withdraw your objection. I am also asking you to stop obfuscating and filibustering the discussion so we can move forward. If you do not I will wait then I intend to restore material bar one disputed sentence and if you revert then I am going to ask for admin intervention per the special restrictions on Gibraltar article. Justin talk 21:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Justin, editing over my consecutive edits does not count as reversions per 3RR, moreover when my last edit consists in reintroducing a piece of information from the previous draft. All in all, what I've done (and I could've done it in just one edition had I been more proficient in the business of editing text) is restore the stable version of the paragraph we are discussing here. Again, here's the diff. So, please, keep it that way until we are done with the talk page discussion.
As for what I dispute, and my "obfuscation and filibustering" (thanks for that, mate), I think I've been crystal clear: none of the points you seek to introduce in the article is really sourced as wikipedia policies demand. Some of them lack a source from the get go, and others are just a display of original research in the form of WP:SYN. So, please, add the links to the references you advocate for, and let's read them. Nothing more and nothing else. We are not really going to move forward by repeating the previous conversations but by actually analysing the references. In order to do that, I need you to bring them up here. Cremallera (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already let Justin know that there was no 3RR breach. Later when I am able to get on a different computer not stuck behind a proxy that blocks certain pages, I'll look over some of those sources myself to give an opinion. I have a couple of concerns myself but I'd like to look at all of the sources before I make any suggestions. -- Atama頭 22:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you very much Atama. I'd like to comment on the sources as well. Listing them (so we can discuss them) is the first step forward, from my point of view. Again, thanks! Cremallera (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll put these in bullet points to match the format used above.
  • Gibraltar accusing Spain of using the incident to create a dispute is uncited in the proposed text, but I believe Justin acknowledged that when he said that "it is all sourced, with the exception of one point". He also suggested that we "remove that pending a source". So I don't think there's much of a dispute about that point at the moment.
  • There being other environmental problems in the Bay is sourced by a document currently behind a paywall at Gibnews, and while that's allowed, it makes it difficult to evaluate the source. My concern is that if the document only mentions environmental problems in the Bay, but doesn't specifically mention that those problems would weaken or invalidate Spain's complaints about the repair of the nuclear submarine, that connecting the dots the way it is done in the proposed text would be synthesis. That's speculation on my part since as I've said before I can't view the document.
  • The third point seems to be sourced, there is a site claiming that a nuclear submarine, the Minneapolis-St Paul docked at the base as recently as 2007. I suppose the only question would be the reliability of the site. The photo is an official US Navy photo, but we have to trust the site's reliability in regards to the description of the photo. Our article about the base is inconclusive, it implies that submarines haven't used the base since 1979, though it doesn't state so definitively.
  • The source for Ecologistas en Acción is a dead link so it's difficult to verify the accuracy of the claim that the organization has complained about the uneven way that Spain has handled docking submarines. The source for Izquierda Unida states that Spain allowed the US nuclear submarine Annapolis to dock in Rota in 2001 and yet opposed the docking of the British nuclear submarine Tireless in Gibraltar. It also raises the suspicion that the US submarine was being repaired. So at least one of those sources seems to verify exactly what the text says.
That's my evaluation, I don't have any opinion one way or the other about the inclusion of the text itself, I just wanted to give my thoughts on the verifiability of the points raised earlier. -- Atama頭 06:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the analysis. Here's mine:

  • Gibraltar accusing Spain of using the incident to create a dispute is indeed uncited. Justin refered to the "penultimate point", which was "Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar" and is unreferenced as well.
  • There being other environmental problems in the Bay is linked to an article which does not refer to nuclear submarines in general terms nor to the Tireless issue specifically. The connection here isn't made in the text quoted but by the wikipedia editor, and that's original research. Besides the document is no longer available, so that essentially settles it either way.
  • Exactly the same applies for "The base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines)". The source consists in a picture with the following caption: "Master-at-Arms 3rd Class Justin Solarz, assigned to Naval Station Rota Spain Harbor Security Division, observes the submarine Minneapolis-St Paul (SSN-708) from his patrol boat as the submarine prepares to get underway on 22 Jan. 2007". Again, the source does not state any relation between the issue it reports and the actual content of this wikipedia article. Thus it is not the source but the wikipedia editor who considers that SSN Minneapolis docking at Rota in 2007 is comparable to the yearlong repair of Tireless' nuclear reactor cooling system in 2000. That's, again, original research in the form of "synthesis of published material that advances a position".
  • Lastly, the source for Izquierda Unida (a political party) is a dead link. We've got, however, a 2006 article published in the Ecologistas en Acción's web page. This article "denounces" the docking in 2006 of the submarine Annapolis, "a floating nuclear plant" (sic). The text also states that "the Spanish have the right at least to be informed", and reminds that "the 1986 referendum was approved with the condition of not allowing the transit and storage of nuclear weapons on our territory". Finally, it criticises the political power opposing "the presence of British nuclear submarine Tireless in Gibraltar whilst remaining a silent accomplice in the presence of nuclear submarines in the Bay of Cadiz" moreover when "it is likely that the Rota base is being used to repair nuclear submarines" which is pure speculation, specially when all factual data points us to the conclusion that no repairs of this kind are conducted in the Rota Naval Base (the treaty with Spain was ratified by the US Congress in June 1976 and called for the withdrawal of the squadron from Spain by July 1979. Kings Bay, Georgia, was selected as that new refit site, and the site selected was announced by the Secretary of the Navy in November 1976; A proposed change to the U.S. base agreement with Spain was the withdrawal of the fleet ballistic-missile submarine squadron, Submarine Squadron 16, from its operational base at Rota, Spain. Anticipating that this would take place, the Chief of Naval Operations ordered studies to select a new refit site on the East Coast). I really appreciate the work of environmentalist groups, but they are pretty much target-oriented and will compare the 4 day stay of USS Annapolis with Hiroshima if it need be, and those are not the foundations for an encyclopaedic article. The evidence should be gathered prior to writing the article, instead of holding a position and then searching for sources to back it up. Cremallera (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Atama for that analysis, which from my reading pretty much backs up my point that all bar one point was reliably sourced. May I also point this image
, "ROTA, Spain (Feb. 24, 2010) U.S. Ambassador to Spain and Andorra Alan D. Solomont talks with Sailors assigned to the Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Albany (SSN 753) at Naval Station Rota, Spain. Solomont is touring U.S. military installations and areas of U.S. interest since being named Ambassador to Spain and Andorra in August 2009. (U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Ben Tisdale/Released)". The image shows a rather large nuclear submarine undergoing routine maintenance whilst dock in Rota, Spain and please note the date of 24 February 2010. Again backing up the routine access by American nuclear submarines at Rota, Spain.
I also find it of concern that instead of focusing on content, there is an attempt to rubbish sources to justify dismissing points. This is unacceptable conduct and is in fact synthesis. May I also point out that accusing an editor of "holding a position and then searching for sources to back it up" is a bad faith presumption. I am sure you will claim my comments about "obfuscation and filibustering" as bad faith also, but I will just anticipate that and point out I took the issue to talk several times, whilst you reverted telling when to take it to talk and ignoring the discussion I had attempted to start and refused to answer three direct questions to identify which source you had an issue with. My intention had been to use dispute resolution and ask for a third opinion on the sources but I guess we've had that now.
Can we now please move forward? Justin talk 10:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope so. I don't doubt that the points can be sourced. My feeling - and it isn't a strong feeling - is that this text includes too much detail for a timeline article; it is simply too verbose, too recentist and includes issues which, for me, fall off the edge of either notability or relevance. May I repeat a suggestion, that we may be able to produce a consensus position that makes a suitably brief comment, attaching any relevant references so that anyone interested can follow it up? I'd also like to state that I would value consensus and collegiality far more than any particular version. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no one is discussing whether submarines dock at Rota's or at Gibraltar's ports. I am sure that those vessels visit both military facilities on a regular basis. You are missing the point here. This article does not list the berthing of nuclear vessels in the Straits, but sets a timeline of relevant events in the history of Gibraltar. The repair of the cooling system of HMS Tireless from may 2000 to may 2001 did cause diplomatic strain between Spain and the UK, several political declarations and some European Court of Justice decisions which concluded that the UK did not abide the existing European directives applicable to the case. Routine visits don't. That's why this article includes the Tireless repairs in 2000 but does not state that exactly the same vessel visited Gibraltar in 2004.
Setting a comparison between that very incident and the regular visits of submarines either in Gibraltar or in Rota is out of line. In fact, none of the sources we've got so far bar one does that, thus extracting that connection from them requires original research, something which isn't allowed in Wikipedia. And that's essentially because it's impossible to set an objective comparison between some emergency repairs which required a whole year due to its complexity and were conducted outside law requirements and, for instance, a 4 day fully law abiding visit 6 years later and in a place outside the scope of this article, on top of that.
The reason why I insisted in recollecting here the sources backing up your edition is that this way we can verify them. At this point none of the sources support the version you are willing to introduce. As a matter of fact, some of the points you advocate for are completely unreferenced. I am not trying to rubbish the sources. They are just useless according to Wikipedia policies, Justin. Cremallera (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect I think you misunderstand what WP:OR is, reporting what a source says and you have acknowledged that at least one of the source does in fact back up the assertion is not OR (emphasis added). It is therefore reliably sourced and verifiable. Even Richard acknowledges much of what I wish to insert can be sourced. Also claiminmg you're not trying to rubbish sources but asserting they're useless when an independent third party opinion has already suggested they're not is a matter of semantics. I am working hard at assuming good faith here, which is hard to do given the history here but really don't feel I am being respected or my coptributions valued.
At the moment I am genuinely puzzled by your assertion that the sources don't back up the text. As far as I can see and Atama pretty much agrees with my point that what I propose to re-add is sourced bar the one line I'd agreed to remove for now - and let me remind you that you in fact agreed to this text and indeed helped draft it. I have respectfully asked you repeatedly to identify what you're actually disputing, if you dispute something then you must know what it is I presume. I welcome Atama's comments about where I need to improve the text, because that is clear where the issues are and I can work with that. What I can't work with is whan you will not actually identify which point(s) or source(s) is/are an issue. Justin talk 11:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand what WP:OR is. All the sources bar one refer to subjects not related with the repair of HMS Tireless. The connection is made outside the sources' content and thus, it constitutes original research. Quoting the WP:SYN policy: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. This text, which you advocate for:


Is a perfect example of what this policy is about. To begin with you've got no reference for this statement "The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar". Then it follows the sentence "since there are other environmental problems in the Bay", whose reference is no longer available and -additionally- bears no relation at all with the Tireless incident.
Also, the inclusion of "the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines)" is completely unwarranted because the author of the source provided does not include a single reference to Gibraltar, the Tireless or something even tangentially related to this issue. The fact that the U.S. Sixth Fleet "includes nuclear submarines" was stressed by the editor and not the source, whilst the statement that "this does not raise official complaints" is a conclusion made by that editor as well. Of course, Spanish-American military cooperation is constrained by bilateral agreements, so there are no complaints in principle because it's all agreed upon. However, what the editor does not state is that since the 1975 treaty there have been no major repairs in Rota, such as refitting the cooling system of a nuclear reactor for a whole year. Not that Rota's activity has something to do with Gibraltar's anyway.
But it does not end here, the following text is also unreferenced "Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar". "However, Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida" (here, the reference is a dead link) "and Ecologistas en Acción, have also accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way". Rhetorics aside (X and Y "have also accused", when X and Y are the lone accusers, for instance or the fact that the Spanish Government did not protest because the Tireless docked in Gibraltar -several nuclear submarines visit Gibraltar every year unmolested- but because a major repair was conducted), the last phrase is the only one supported by a source. We can discuss that source whenever you want, but I am still waiting for a proper explanation of the aforementioned text and the suitable references relating all this with the Tireless issue. Thanks in advance. Cremallera (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


OK taking the last sentence first. Modifying it as "Spanish organisations, such as left-wing Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción, have accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota in the same way" is correct and sourced. Yes/No? May I also point out that you drafted this sentence on 11 April 2009.
"The Government of Gibraltar accused Spain of using this incident to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar" - I've already acknowledged this lacks an inline citation and needn't be restored, so I'm unsure as to your point in raising an issue already conceded. I will look for a supporting inline citation but I don't see that as an issue since such comments are well known.
"Spanish officials now frequently complain whenever a nuclear submarine docks in Gibraltar" Since the Tireless incident any visit from a British nuclear submarine to Gibraltar has elicited some complaint from a Spanish official. Now we could comb the archive, identify every visit, find the corresponding protest for exameple [3] or be mature about it and acknowledge it. What do you say?
"the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet (including nuclear submarines)" The fact that Spain complains about British nuclear submarines visiting Gibraltar whilst at the same time having an agreement with the US allowing nuclear submarines to berth at Rota is of relevance and it is cited. One could remove "without complaint" of course. Again this sentence stems from your draft of 11 April 2009.
Atama had noted one aspect of the text which appeared to be synthesis, which I believe was something you'd actually drafted by the way. Indeed looking back it is in your draft of 11 April 2009.
As an alternative and noting Richard's comments about a desire for brevity:
With my original suggestion of moving some details to footnotes/inline citations. The text is much smaller than the original draft of April 11 2009 and captures what I perceive are the salient details. Justin talk 13:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


On the one hand, AFAIK, neither the "Spanish officials" nor the "Spanish Government" complain for "any visiting British nuclear submarine to Gibraltar". Ecologistas en Acción is a private association and it does not speak for the Spanish Government. The Spanish Executive protested in 2000 because HMS Tireless was severely damaged and moored for a year in Gibraltar while a major repair was being conducted, which is not equiparable with a routine visit of any vessel.
On the other hand, your version is as long as the previously stable one, but it contains unreferenced text such as the "Izquierda Unida" statements or questionable sources like the "Ecologistas en Acción" one (or the first sentence, so far), whilst ignoring the outcome of the judicial processes of the European Court of Justice. Court rulings involving a country are usually considered pretty much more relevant. I am going to wait for input from other editors such as Atama and Richard.
In the meantime, please revert your currently published edition until we are done here in the talk page. It is disputed and reintroduces spelling errors which were already corrected. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC) PS: you've done that. Thank you very much indeed.[reply]
Please also note that I self-reverted 15 minutes before you commented here, I'd also provided an informative edit summary on the previous edit that I intended it to be a short term remedy whilst I tried something out. Your comments were completely unnecessary, could you please assume good faith.
Those comments are referenced and are I believe relevant and have a reliable source. Nor am I suggesting that material be removed or ignored, simply rather than cluttering the Paragraph it is moved to footnotes for the purposes of brevity. I did in fact make this plain above and I really would appreciate it if you were to cease the bad faith accusations please. Justin talk 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Justin's last suggestion, which I find much improved, could I ask if there are in fact any good references for Spanish government officials complaining about nuclear-powered ships, let alone every one? The Ecologistas en Acción article doesn't seem to mention anything of the sort.
My only remaining comment is that I'd probably prune the sentence about the opinions of Izquierda Unida and Ecologistas en Acción. They may deserve a footnote but their comments strike me as un-notable, even when some secondary references can be dug up, and of only slight relevance to Gibraltar. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richard in answer to your question [4][5][6][7] and this one only last year [8]. All found with a few minutes googling, no special effort.
Addressing the second point, you could easily prune the last sentence to mention the organisations in footnotes removing the sub-clause. Something like "Spanish organisations[x][x] have accused the Spanish Government of not handling nuclear submarines docking in Gibraltar and Rota equally." The "x" indicates a footnote. Justin talk 17:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Justin. These refs mention GoS objections to the original Tireless visit, and other organizations objecting to later visits. I don't see them mentioning the GoS complaining about every visit.
For the second sentence, I personally don't really see these organizations as being notable enough to justify even a single sentence quoting their nitpicking little point. But I may be wrong. In a hundred years' time, will they be of any interest to the time line of the history of Gibraltar? My answer is no, and that in that case they're not of much interest now. Richard Keatinge (talk)
Richard, I believe you are mistaken, the Tireless incident was in 2000/2001, the references refer to a routine visit by the same sub in 2004. I believe the text originally referred to Spanish officials, not specifically the GoS. I looked for them in response to your query ("could I ask if there are in fact any good references for Spanish government officials complaining about nuclear-powered ships, let alone every one?") that is all. In response to your second point, well in a hundred years time will anyone care about the European Court given it was a minor transgression? Mmmm? Justin talk 19:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The declarations of the opposition party of Gibraltar are not in my top 10 of sources I'd check to know what the "Spanish officials" say in any given time but, specifically, in August 2004 Gibraltar celebrated the "tercentenary", with the visit of Princess Anne of England and -you name it- the submarine HMS Tireless a few days before that. The context is relevant to understand all that jazz because, in the end, it had nothing to do with submarines and everything to do with the ongoing political conflict. Again, this wasn't a routine visit as it was a political statement. Therefore it got a political answer. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today's opposition is tomorrow's Government and the current opposition party is more vociferous regarding the claim over Gibraltar. But you inadvertently hit the nail on the head of my point - that the comments are political statements, the visits of nuclear submarines or whatever are merely the pretext. It was a routine visit, nothing more. Do you think we could allow Richard and Atama to comment? Justin talk 20:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't a routine visit. And yes, any comments by Richard and Atama are very welcome on my part so don't worry, I promise not to irrupt here with that argument until August 2104! Cremallera (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2104? I presume that is an oblique reference to a 90 year closure order. These no longer exist, this has been the case since the Freedom of Information Act 2000. For information. Justin talk 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does this version of Justin's draft manage accuracy, notability, and brevity? It might still be slightly long for a timeline comment, but this may be acceptable since we don't really have a main article on the business:

Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. I'd arrange it chronologically (that is, the declarations on security by the Gibraltar Government first, and the judicial process and subsequent unfavourable decision for the UK later, just as it happened). As for the Spanish groups adverse comments, whilst I do not find their inclusion justified in a timeline, I am OK with that as long as we slightly change the wording to not to suggest that the 2000 protests were made due to the mere visit of a nuclear submarine (but safety concerns) and we attach to them suitable references. On the one hand, at this moment I have not links to the Izquierda Unida statements (the one provided is dead); on the other, environmentalists do not complain against nuclear powered ships visiting Gibraltar but against all nuclear powered ships visits (for instance, the Ecologistas en Acción source protests the presence of U.S. nuclear-powered vessels at Rota, not U.K. ones at Gibraltar); and, finally, I'd be very grateful if we find a reference for the 2004 visit not authored by Gibnews. The guy was banned for a reason. Cremallera (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological order is usually good, here's the revised version:

Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well! And what do you think about what I've said concerning the adverse comments? Cremallera (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, some at least of the adverse comments have related to Spanish ports as well. We could say "and Spanish ports". Or just leave it as it is, on the grounds that this is a timeline of Gibraltar and not of anywhere else, and that if anyone really wants to know more they can follow the references. I have no strong feelings oeither way, but I appreciate that others may have. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And something along these lines?


Cremallera (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You missed a couple of important point in the revised draft. 1) "Before allowing any repairs to HMS Tireless, the Gibraltar Government commissioned a full safety assessment which concluded that there was no significant risk to the public[68]" I think this point is important as it demonstrates the GoG had to be consulted, to consent and ensure it was safe before allowing it to go ahead. 2) The link with the attitude to nuclear submarines operating out of Rota is removed. I think it is an important point to make.


Justin talk 11:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this is a timeline, so let's try a different scope. Something short and basic:


Other relevant information in the footnotes. Cremallera (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a timeline, rather than a full account of a tiresome wrangle, and it now seems to me that we would need to put in an excessive number of things to achieve consensus. A NPOV blow-by-blow account of the whole thing, including the GoG appraisals, ECJ stuff, other ports, and so on, just seems too much for an incident in a timeline. Personally I'd go for the first sentence only of Cremallera's latest version, with lots of references, and a link to the relevant bit of Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar which itself might benefit from some of the references here. Humbly Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd object to Cremallera's offering on the grounds that it is fundamentally at odds with our policy of a NPOV. It gives WP:UNDUE prominence to what was a relatively minor procedural breach. Funnily enough Richard's comments chime exactly with my comments of 2 years ago that we didn't need a blow by blow account of the whole thing as it just seemed to much for what is in effect a footnote in the history of Gibraltar. May I suggest:


This may be slightly longer than you desire Richard but an important point I feel needs to be made is that a former dependent territory stood up against the parent state and said no you won't be allowed to do this unless we say so. That is a significant development for Gibraltar. Justin talk 13:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even with a reliable source saying exactly what you do, I'd suggest the first sentence only for this timeline article. Just a mention, with a link and references... One nationalist point, however mild, tends to beget another until we end with a long and inappropriate essay. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I entirely follow the argument there Richard. This is an article on the history of Gibraltar and an important development in its Government should be reported. This is one point out of the previous texts I feel should be retained. In a 100 years time this would still be noted as significant, whereas the other points would not be. Justin talk 14:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I pass. We've got to the point where mentioning an European Court of Justice ruling over the issue at stake is seen as depicting a relatively minor procedural breach, a nationalist point or something not notable enough. We can't build an encyclopaedia reasoning this way. Cremallera (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In view of those two comments I now strongly recommend the one-line solution:

It is the right length for a timeline article, leaves all the points that could possibly irritate one side or another for references or for another more appropriate place, and it is unambiguously true and referenceable. Do others, especially Atama, have any comment? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ask for a third party opinion on this. Please note for the record I made no mention of anything related to nationalism whatsoever and have focused solely on content. I was talking about the development of the Government of Gibraltar, which is relevant for the history.
If we look at the ECJ judgement it is solely on bureaucratic grounds that the UK failed to adopt for Gibraltar within the prescribed period a European directive. It is not that the UK was negligent or in anyway reckless or did anything dangerous. It is a minor transgression, an oversight nothing more. Let us put things into perspective here please and stop flinging around bad faith accusations and adopting intransigent nationalist positions.
Also we are not saying anything is not notable but that in the interests of brevity certain information does not have to be included. Could someone please explain to me why the Government of Gibraltar standing up to the UK Government should in anyway offend or otherwise irritate certain nationalist positions? Justin talk 17:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be asking for a third opinion just yet as I note that it does not yet fit the criteria. Justin talk 17:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To stereotype a little, one group believes that Gibraltar is rightfully an intrinsic part of Spain and refers to it as a colony. The existence of the GoG and its development could be very irritating to that group. Another set believes that Gibraltar is rightfully a democratic possession of the UK and might get annoyed at comments about, for example, ECJ rulings. I do hope you've noticed that feelings on both sides can run rather high and that scrupulous attention to NPOV - or, better, writing for the enemy - is particularly important here. I repeat my last suggestion immediately above your last comment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have two opinions on this. First, this is a timeline, and as befits an article of that nature we have a series of short entries (on my screen between one to three lines per entry). That is, until we get to the May 2000 entry, where there is suddenly this huge chunk of text. For consistency sake, if nothing else, it seems best to reduce the amount of space given to this particular topic.
My second opinion is that inevitably, getting into the blame of what Spain did versus what Gibraltar did isn't going to be helpful. I completely understand that the intention is to expand the article with as much relevant, sourced information that you can, and I don't believe that there is any intent to illustrate the "wrongs" of Spain and/or Gibraltar in the incident as some sort of political statement or other activism. I don't feel that this is fueled by nationalism. But by dwelling too much on the details of the incident it has the effect of trying to lay blame to one side or the other. It seems clear that this was controversial (and notable), so surely someone must have discussed the controversy. Is it too much to hope for that there was an objective evaluation done at some point, most likely in newsprint? Even two perspectives, one sympathetic of Spain and one of Gibraltar, can be used if one single evaluation isn't available. Would it be possible to keep it brief, and just use a couple of sources that expand upon the details, and leave it at that?
I'd also like to comment on something that Justin said, "an important point I feel needs to be made is that a former dependent territory stood up against the parent state and said no you won't be allowed to do this unless we say so". Is that an objective or a subjective assessment? Can that be implied in the text or does it have to be explicitly stated? -- Atama頭 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The incident had some note in that consent by the Government of Gibraltar was presumed by the RN regarding the repair, however, consent was not forthcoming until the RN demonstrated the repair was safe and that it was a greater risk to move the sub - example [9]. So I would say you could objectively make that call. I feel it is better to imply it with the text I suggested rather than state it explicitly. However, we're still in the process of discussing content, I've suggested this is an important point but I'm not insisting its included. I would hope to convince by strength of argument that it is important.
Also I do not believe we do wikipedia readers a service when we do not include information for fear that it will raise nationalist ire. We deal with that by focusing on content and wikipedia's policy of a NPOV. I'm sure some in Gibraltar find the ECJ ruling irritating but you won't find me in that camp. I would draw attention to the earlier discussions above, I had no problems with it at all. Given that, a fear of causing offence to those extreme nationalist for whom the mere existence of the Government of Gibraltar is offensive is not to my mind grounds for not including content. The judgement comes down to due coverage.
Again I would concur with the comment that by focusing on too much detail in a area dominated by nationalist feelings there is a tendency for it to become a blame game. I tried to make this point before, perhaps badly, when there was a tendency to indulge in what I called "atrocity tennis", whereby one side would insist we had to have details about bad things one side had done but there was a reluctance to include the misdeeds of their own. But again why the hell are we talking about sides again? Is it not possible to simply focus on content and evaluate it objectively without accusing everyone of nationalism?
The question I posed was "Could someone please explain to me why the Government of Gibraltar standing up to the UK Government should in anyway offend or otherwise irritate certain nationalist positions? ". IF the answer is simply they find the mere existence of the Government of Gibraltar offensive then that is no reason for not including it.
Anyway for now, we could simply replace the content with the single sentence. And continue to discuss the merits of the additional sentence I suggested. Justin talk 20:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The single sentence strikes me as a really really good idea. Mainly because it is the appropriate length for a Timeline article.
"Atrocity tennis" - what a relevant concept. I'd just add that it may take two to make a quarrel, but it only takes one misperception, and that's why it's so important to avoid misperceptions. Looking at various suggestions, I've been trying to guess who could be miffed by any given comment and trying to balance out the miffs. Not easy, and I don't think in this case it's possible within what's reasonable for a Timeline.
I'll sleep on it, and hope for comments from all concerned, especially Cremallera and maybe Atama, but I propose to change to the one-sentence version in the morning (while including all the live references). Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the text, as long as Cremallera and Justin are fine with it. I try not to get directly involved with the content of Gibraltar articles if I can help it. (Though I see a tag on this talk page about links needing disambiguation, and might do something about that, the tiny little OCD Wikignome inside me can't help it.) -- Atama頭 22:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having waited patiently for a week without comment I am implementing my proposal. Justin talk 12:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I too will wait for comments. However, I feel that one sentence is better for a Timeline article, and that the entire issue would be better addressed within the Disputed status of Gibraltar article where it can reasonably have a full section, to include all the points that are felt to be notable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats fine Richard but as I've pointed out there is a compelling reasons in my opinion and I have waited for comment after introducing the edit in talk first. I've not seen any compelling reason for not including it.
I can respect your comment as a valid reason for possibly not including that information. One I happen to disagree with on this occasion and I can't help but comment on the irony that when I made a similar argument on other matters you described it as "grounds which I find not relevant to Wikipedia." An accusation most committed wikipedians would find deeply offensive.
As I have politely explained I find there is a compelling reason to include it at the level I have but I'd nonetheless agree the place for including greater detail is elsewhere. That is also a perfectly valid argument, one again that I made elsewhere but was accused of censoring or suppressing information. Again an accusation most committed wikipedians would find deeply offensive. Justin talk 19:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for what other editors think. I'd just commend the thought that we should perhaps include all the major points that could be taken to be partisan, or (perhaps better in a Timeline article) none of them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine but for the record I wish it to be noted that the opinion of those for whom the mere existence of the Government of Gibraltar is offensive are grounds which I find not relevant to Wikipedia. Justin talk 18:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Environmental Safety Group (28/11/05). "ESG Press Release: Professor Benach meets Government and Hassans". Retrieved 2005-12-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
  2. ^ [1] Naval Station Rota
  3. ^ http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08708.htm/
  4. ^ Izquierda Unida (2004, 8 July). "IULV-CA rechaza el atraque del Tireless y se compromete a fiscalizar a la junta en la desnuclearización de Andalucía". Retrieved 2005-12-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
  5. ^ [2]

File:Neanderthal child.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Neanderthal child.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timeline of the history of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Timeline of the history of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Timeline of the history of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_history_of_Gibraltar&oldid=1210723068"