Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Gibraltar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

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)

Thanks for answering this, now my answer to that, a bit late: Having some lines of a heritage language in a newsletter does not mean the same as "is spoken". Given the histories of Gibraltar and of the Jews, the quote above (with the four languages) seems very likely. Maybe you could verify (as I see you live there)? I think the sentence could be improved, --Sukkoth 18:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukkoth Qulmos (talk • contribs)

Hebrew is spoken by the Jewish community, at least a second/third language. I have Gibraltarian Jewish friends who speak Hebrew and, if I'm not mistaken, the Jewish school teaches Hebrew. I'll see if I find a citation though. RedCoat10 • talk 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for answering--I don't see a need to go to a "source", if you are there and can directly verify with the people in question. That's what a source goes back to anyways. Maybe the wording in the article could be made a little more accurate and aligned with the other article. How about, "The Jews speak English, Spanish, Ladino, and Arabic, as well as some Hebrew as a cultural/literary language"? Too long, tho. --Sukkoth 20:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukkoth Qulmos (talk • contribs)

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)

OK, you can put the handbag down now Justin. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And again is that a remark designed to defuse tension or to "calm things down"? No but we can expect you to claim innocence as usual. Now why don't you just chill and see if you can resist the urge to post another ill-judged remark. Justin talk 19:29, 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)

He or she can, if that was the first and only participation in WP until now (as is the case). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:19, 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)

Then I apologise. Sorry. --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:15, 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)

Gibraltar is self-governing in some areas and not in others[14], some of which are the typical foreign affairs and defence, but also internal security and appointment of some public officers (especially the Judicial, if you look at that part of the Constitution) according to the Constitution Order 2006:

47.-(1) The Governor, acting in his discretion, shall be responsible in Gibraltar for the conduct (subject to this Constitution and any other law) of the following matters – (a) external affairs; (b) defence; (c) internal security, including (subject to section 48) the police; (d) such functions in relation to appointments to public offices and related matters as are conferred on him by this Constitution: Provided that the Governor shall in respect of external affairs as far as practicable act in consultation with the Chief Minister. (2) For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that any matter which falls outside the special responsibilities of the Governor set out in subsection (1), or which is not a function which this Constitution or any other law requires the Governor to exercise in his discretion, is the responsibility of Ministers.

You can also see a few instances in the Constitution where it states that the Governor can override some of the Lesgislature and Executive powers in exceptional situations when he judges it otherwise “would prejudice Her Majesty’s service.” For example:

54.- (4) The Governor, with the prior approval of a Secretary of State, may disregard the advice of the Public Service Commission in any case where he judges that compliance with that advice would prejudice Her Majesty’s service.

(I am sure this is a prerrogative that the GB government is not eager to use if it wants to keep the people of Gibraltar happy, but one never knows when an exceptional situation may come by. The GB Administration has sometimes changed a Gibraltarian law in modern times).

As you can see, the Governor responds not to the people of Gibraltar but to the Secretary of State.

I think this is self-government with important exceptions. I don't think this can be called true-blue self-government without any further explanation. --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

They're theoretical powers as the Governor is the representative of the Queen as head of state. In practise, such powers would not be used or they're not used as you try to intimate. In practise, the Governor of Gibraltar is a mere figurehead, just as the Queen is a figurehead. In theory, the Governor has the power to appoint public officials, in practise he appoints those officials who are elected. Just as in theory the Queen can appoint the Prime Minister, in practise she appoints the democratically elected leader of the winning party. In the UK, the monarch has in theory the power to dissolve parliament, in practise she would never do that. Similarly the Governor may have theoretical responsibility for the police, in practise its devolved to the Government of Gibraltar. The only exception to the responsibilities for Gibraltar are defence and foreign relations which remain the responsibility of the UK. And even there it is not clear cut, the Gibraltar Government takes many responsibilities for foreign relations such as until recently representing itself at the C24 hearings in New York. As the Queen's representative, the Governor in theory reports to the Secretary of State who then, in theory, reports to the Queen. In practise he would not do so without consulting the Government of Gibraltar. You're taking things out of context and misrepresenting the way democracy works in theory and practise in Gibraltar.

Now the article already makes it plain that Gibraltar is self-governing with the exception of defence and foreign relations, it mentions the C24 and the fact that Gibraltar has asked to be delisted. So the article as it currently is written accurately reflects the current situation in Gibraltar. The one fact that we don't currently have in the article is the decision of the Gibraltar Government to no longer attend the C24 as it is irrelevant. Justin talk 16:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The introduction also doesnt just say its "Self-government without any further explanation" it states its a self governing British overseas territory. They can read further down in the article on its powers or they can click and read what British Overseas territories are. Im stunned you guys are still talking about this, plenty of sources backing up the use of the term Self governing lol. Also i think you will find most of the places called Self Governing are in the same boat as Gibraltar, they are not sovereign states.. they are self governing territories which dont control everything. If you can find me something which has total powers (control of defense, foreign affairs etc) called a self governing territory or self governing country in its introduction on wikipedia.. id be very interested to see it. . BritishWatcher (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In common usage the concept of "self-governance" typically refers to internal government, for which the Government of Gibraltar enjoys total control. External affairs vest in the UK, as does defence. However, the principally of Andorra, like Gibraltar, does not enjoy responsibility for defence, but this hardly means that it is not "self-governing". The label "self-governing colony" has long referred to those territories with an elected legislature. It was no doubt created to differentiate between colonies that were ruled directly from Westminster and those that enjoyed some measure of devolved government. On its own, "British Overseas Territory" is not incorrect but lacks precision becaue it could well imply some form of political integration with the UK, like the overseas departments and territories of France. Prefixing “British overseas territory” with "self-governing" helps make this distinction. --RedCoat10 • talk 19:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to apologise for not having entered into this discussion earlier but I have been busy elsewhere. Having now read the entire exchange, I must point out that RedCoat's above post explains the reason why I originally included the term in the article's lead. Overseas territories are often confused with being either colonies, or as RedCoat points out, integral parts of states. The term "self-governing" avoids such confusion by making clear that Gibraltar is neither.--Gibmetal 77 ^talk 08:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar is self-governing end of story. Imalbornoz comments in other places indicate an agenda based on lack of understanding of the situation. But if you read the Wikipoedia article it does not describe 'a mess' in Gibraltar and nor is it 'governed like a colony'. The references make trhat clear. --Gibnews (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To review the common ground and propose a consensus alternative: I think we all have agreed somewhere along the discussion that Gibraltar is self-governing except for some matters. We disagree about how to reflect that fact in the lead.

The only thing we can agree on is that Gibraltar is self-governing. The sooner that is accepted the quicker this argument will be over. --Gibnews (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One alternative is to suppose that an overwhelming majority of the people looking for information in the article (I think we all agree too that this is its main purpose) will already know that a "self-governing British overseas territory" does not have full self-government in all areas; then it would be OK to leave it like that (in that case we would need a consensus citation that refers to Gibraltar as a self-governing territory period: besides me, I think that at least Red Hat has a problem with the current one -but let's not focus the discussion on that now).

Another alternative is to think that mamy people will not know that (for example, a non-British non-historian non-international politics specialist doing some research -for homework, for leisure,...). In that case, those people would have to go into the depths of the article in order to not be misled. To avoid that, we don't need to put all the details in the lead, but it could simply reflect the fact that "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except (...)". BritishWatcher brought a citation from the BBC in line with that (although, as he said, it got the UK term wrong).

I propose to work in the second alternative. Even I could agree with something like the BBC citation, which does not say anything about internal security or appointment of public officers, if someone is willing to give me some evidence that in practice these areas are in the hands of the Government of Gibraltar (I promise I won't be hard to convince: I understand the fact that sometimes some things that go in a Constitution in practice work differently, and that it is not as easy to bring evidence for practice as for theory). --Imalbornoz (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You can add a caveat about defence and foreign affairs supported by the BBC cite if you feel it is necessary. However, given that its amplified later in the text I feel it is unnecessary for the lead. If you want an example of the appointment of officials see [15] click on "Constitution and Parliament". It is slightly misleading as it follows the text of the constitution. The Chief Minister is the leader of the elected party, you can verify that by looking at the CV of the Chief Minister. Gibraltar Police Authority website is [16]. If you want an example of how it works in practise see [17], the Governor appointing the chair of the police authority on the advice of the Chief Minister. Justin talk 08:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that Imalbornoz might use his time more productively in updating the Spanish Wikipedia so as to reflect the truth about Gibraltar, instead of solicting editors there to change the English one ^[1]

Having the correct information there might prevent ill informed people posting comments like:

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!).^[2]

I was at the press conference and don't recall Sr Moratinos saying anything like that. When the full statement is published we can refer to it. --Gibnews (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Reflecting further on this, I don't think the lead needs a caveat. As Redcoat10 pointed out above "In common usage the concept of "self-governance" typically refers to internal government, for which the Government of Gibraltar enjoys total control." Self-governance in this context already implies internal government, to add a caveat explaining that seems superfluous. Justin talk 11:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly feel that if self-governing appears, "internally" should qualify it. Source: Overseas Territories, House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, p. 16 "Most Overseas Territories have elected governments. These have varying degrees of responsibility for domestic matters, ranging from Bermuda and Gibraltar which have almost complete internal self-government to Tristan da Cunha and the Pitcairn Islands..." If the original reason for adding the text was that someone might get confused about what a BOT means (something which is in fact very clear in law), then it's more arguable that "self-governing" is utterly ambiguous. As far as I'm concerned, the choices should be (1) put the text back how it was for many years or (2) add "internally". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I very, very strongly indeed feel that it doesn't need it. I also very, very strongly indeed feel that the text should not be returned to a form before the consitutional changes as it is very, very strongly misleading. So I'm going to vote for option (3) which is no change. Actually switching sarcasm off, once again you wade in with size 10s in an unnecessarily confrontational manner raising tensions. Again this isn't a personal attack, merely trying to raise your awareness of this issue. Now do try and resist the temptation to respond in a way to further raise tension won't you. Justin talk 12:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Wade in"? All I did, Justin, was express my view which happens to differ from your view. Can you respect that we have differing views? There really is no need to reply to other editors like that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem respecting someone's right to have a different view. I object when they express it in the manner that it is their way or the highway. And again this isn't a personal attack, merely trying to raise your awareness, but you do that all the time. Hence, my comment about wading in with your size 10s. Justin talk 16:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think 'internally' might be redundant. Have a look at the wiki page for 'self-governing colony' – "self-governing colonies — for the most part — control their internal affairs, the British government retains control of foreign affairs, defence and various international trade matters". Same principle, we're just using 'BOT' instead of 'colony'. -RedCoat10 • talk 12:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the Foreign Office Committee in the 2007-08 period is by all standards a better source than (again) a UN officer (Ambassador Donigi) who once in 2001 proposed a text for a referendum that included the expressions Gibraltar and self-governing territory (which is the current citation), don't you think so? --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean, taking into account that you disregard all sources pre-2006 and think that the UN is not a neutral source. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually think those remarks are helpful? Do not complain of bad faith when you make remarks that raise the temperature of the discussion. Justin talk 12:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I guarantee that there is nothing personal in my putting forward the current contradiction between the standards for sources that have repeatedly been explained by some users and their support for the current citation. I am just trying to help them realise this contradiction so that they can decide what to do about it. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe those remarks have generated less heat than if -for example- I had exposed that it is very convenient to ignore that contradiction in a citation as long as it supports one's own POV. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah right, so you genuinely feel that distorting what people have actually said in this "debate" is helpful in moving things on? Forgive me, when I saw your post this morning I thought you may have actually listened, seems I was wrong. I guess I was just wasting my time in providing those links in answer to your questions. Ah well you live and learn. 16:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that since the 2006 constitution Gibraltar is anything but self-governing. It might not suit some editors opinion but its accurate and supported by references. --Gibnews (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is: The Foreign Office Committe says that Gibraltar has "almost complete internal self-government" [18] and the BBC says that "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy"[19] which is not the same as plain self-governing. On the other hand, until now, only UN's Ambassador Donigi in 2001 (...) has supported otherwise. --Imalbornoz (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]Its pretty much immaterial, Gibraltar is self Governing in that the Elected Government of Gibraltar make the decisions, based on EU directives like everyone else. The committee you refer to is not the 'Foreign Office Committee' but the Foreign Affairs Committee. But really this is just about pushing a delusional Spanish POV that Gibraltar is a colony, and its not. --Gibnews (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops... thank you for the correction and sorry for the typo. BrittishWatcher proposed that link to the BBC as a citation, so I don't think he will support your opinion that it is immaterial. Also, I wouldn't say that a statement by a tri-partisan Parliament committee[20], responsible for monitoring the FCO, which is headed by the Secretary of State to whom the Governor of Gibraltar reports, is immaterial to the status of Gibraltar. BTW, I recommend that you read more of page 16 of the above mentioned report 2007-08. It sheds a lot of light on the different types of overseas territories and their different responsibilities. On the other hand, I'm afraid that just saying "Gibraltar is self Governing" is immaterial original research, as long as it doesn't come with any relevant and verifiable post-2006 source to support that statement -according to your non UN and non pre-2006 standards (which the current citation does not meet). --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No there a multitude of sources to support that assertion and we say that Gibraltar is a self-governing British Overseas Territory. And so we're back to the same circular argument where you deny the obvious fact that the Gibraltarians govern themselves. As has already been pointed out the way the terms is applied means the caveat you wish to apply is superfluous. Tell you what come back when you have the intention to actually listen and debate, continuing to push the same nonsense has exhausted my good faith, I don't know about anyone else. 16:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the first place, I wouldn't say that Gibraltarians don't govern themselves (except in some areas). In fact, I am sure that you agree with me in that statement. Furthermore, I totally agree with the British FAC statement that Gibraltar has "almost complete internal self-government". Don't you? If you don't, please explicitly cite an alternative source (from the multitude that you talk about) and we will discuss about which one should prevail, or whether both of them should be stated in the lead of the article. Just repeating once and again that "Gibraltar is self-governing, that's a fact and we have multitude of sources to support that" will not allow this discussion to move on (which is something I am also desperately wishing for). Please, bring those sources in. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I quoted the wording from a large firm of international lawyers which you scoffed at. It seems good enough for wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources were provided. You rejected them on the basis that they were from Gibraltar and therefore must be POV. I suppose the BBC is also rejected on the basis its British. Perfectly valid reliable sources have been provided you've simply rejected them. As has been repeatedly pointed out the nuances of the Government of Gibraltar are amplified in the document. So I repeat again I don't see the point in further conversation since it will eventually go round in a circle once again to the point where you'll demand for an entirely spurious and unnecessary reason a change in the lead favourable to the Spanish sovereignty claim. Justin talk 19:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Way out of the impasse...

May I suggest that a series of options are collated and people sign their name against which they prefer (and we open things up to outside opinion)? I don't think the current discussion is proceeding in a very constructive manner. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We might as well have a vote on whether the earth is flat. The only reason to deny that Gibraltar is self-governing is to further the irredentist claim which seeks to deny the Gibraltarians rights as a people. The hard part is going to be changing the wording in the .es wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Our friend above's (very reasonable) point is not that it isn't self-governing. Just that it's not 100% self-governing, in that foreign affairs and defence are not 100% up to the Gibraltarians themselves. Are we going to try and find a wording we're all happy with, or are you just going to sting him to death, the Spanish editor arriving at the Gibraltar page, to suffer the same fate as a bee straying into a foreign bee hive? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 19:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As was pointed out above, the reason we have an impasse as you put it, is that there has been a circular argument repeatedly returning to the same demand to change the article to favour a certain POV. Once again we see an WP:SPA seeking to skew the Gibraltar article in favour of the Spanish POV, not to imrove it and make the article more neutral. I mean look at this morning, he asks for some examples of how things work in practise, so I provide them. Does he look at them and ask questions? No, he returns to the same point that Gibraltar Government doesn't have responsibility for internal security. I despair, when I saw the post this morning I'd assumed he'd listened but then he goes straight on back to square one. What we're seeing is an attempt to align the article with the POV article on es.wikipedia that minimises the self-governing nature of Gibraltar.

And again Red Hat at least some of the responsibility for the current situation lies with your good self inflaming matters. We were discussing possible changes in wording when you waded in making demands. That instantly closed down the discussion

To also re-iterate the point. The article does explain the limits on self-government in Gibraltar but as Redcoat10 pointed out, adding the terms you seem to want are entirely superfluous. The very phrase used implies internal self-government.

So the article already reflects the limits on self-government in Gibraltar and you seem to want to add an entirely superfluous terms for a reason that doesn't seem all that clear to me. Justin talk 20:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made no "demands" whatsoever. All I've done is state my views, which I have as much right to as anyone else - if I inflame you by getting involved with a differing opinion to yours, that is your problem, not mine. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm fed up of this. Life really is too short. When we're all on our death beds, I doubt arguing at the Gibraltar talk page and being rude to others will be one of the highlights of our lives that we look back on and think "that really was time well spent". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You stated your views saying it had to be a) or b), if you take a direct response as an inflamed one, then to be frank you're giving yourself more credit than you deserve. Justin talk 21:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I've been away for a while (driving away for the weekend with the family; BTW, it's weird how I have found myself a couple of times thinking about this conversation ...). A lot of comments have been inserted, so it seems I will have to catch up. First of all (trying not to sound too cheesy), I have to say: Come on guys, don't despair, I am sure that sooner or later we will be able to strike an agreement. This morning we were moving towards it. Please excuse me, as I am afraid that I am going to be a bit long, off topic and personal in this entry, but maybe it helps to undo the knot we are in.

This morning I was ready to learn more about the police and internal security of Gibraltar (thanks Justin for the links, I really used them and now I know more about the Royal Police of Gibraltar, the Police Authority, its new Chairman -about whose appointment I had a question that I didn't know how to word without seeming picky- and so on). Justin was also ready to accept some caveats about foreign policy and defence. Then, Gibnews transcribed again my infamous previous comments (BTW, revealing that he goes to press conferences) and... Justin reflected a bit more and backed up from his previous position. I unfortunately also went back (although, Justin, to be fair please admit that I have never again mentioned Gibraltar's internal security -please review the discussion).

I am not going to assign blame to anybody besides me, so I don't make the situation more tense (I am sure that each user can make his/her own examination of conscience). But I will admit on my own that 1) if I hadn't written elsewhere things about Gibraltar that surely hurt some people's feelings (on my -insufficient- discharge I will insist that they were outside of WP, before this discussion, and did not necessarily reflect my views as they were a wrapup directed at a cocky interpreter boasting about his MA degree while making bad translations) then surely it would have been easier to keep negotiating (and maybe Justin would not have backed up) and 2) I could have kept trying for the agreement when Justin backed up instead of going back on my own. So, I apologise to whomever's feelings I have hurt.

BTW, when I removed the lawyers' citation, I did it because I really thought it was immaterial (with all the respect to Gibnews and what seems a large and prestigious law firm; but the context of the "self-governing" citation seemed more commercial than informative, thus my -I will admit- sarcastic reference to the next sentence "Gibraltar is well placed etc"). But I will admit that I added "Gib" to "law firm" and "GIB POV" as stupid retaliation, because I thought that Justin's comment to his previous removal "POV edit by SPA" was meaning that my I had a POV because I WAS SPAnish (you will excuse me, I had only been really editing for 3 days...). It will be hilarious as soon as Justin -please- admits that there is a high probability that my user is not a SinglePurposeAccount from an expert user.

About RedHat's proposal, I think it is worth a try. It will at least be interesting and maybe it helps us to reach a consensus. I have a question: if this is a WP standardised procedure, is it out of place to ask that on the side of each option we summarise the sources that support it? (forgive my stubborness, I am from a region famous for producing really hard heads). Good night and good weekend. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe were Justin trying to be offensive, he'd likely switch to his mother's tongue (Spanish) for you. He is not an indirect chap ;). Unless it is egregious I rarely assume people are trying to wind me up or attack me, on wiki people that are wanting to do that are /far/ more obvious about it. I have no issue with edits that state she is 'internally self-governing', 'self-governing', 'a British Overseas Territory', 'a self-governing British Overseas Territory' or any combination thereof, if we can find cites. The cite I put in was a stop gap measure to halt the edit war that was occuring at the time and is far from perfect. I'd suggest we look, over the weekend, for cites for any proposed edits? --Narson ~ Talk • 00:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Trust me if I was being offensive you'd know about it. ;-) Justin talk 21:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No EU country can claim to be 100% self-governing, however in the case of Gibraltar under to the 2006 constitution its a reasonable description of the reality. The Spanish POV is that its a colony of implants ruled by Whitehall. Its frankly amazing to see the nonsense trotted out in other places. I contributed to the discussion on the Economist forum before seeing the mention of it here. Spain objects to Gibraltar joining international organisations, like UEFA because it encourages the view that Gibraltar is not just 'little Britain' but an entity in its own right. They fought to prevent Gibraltar licensing Satellites (we have three up there), and the Spanish state spends a disproportionate amount of money trying to keep Gibraltar down with a campaign of misinformation which is echoed here. In the end promoting hatred is as productive as making biological weapons. The article is about Gibraltar, it IS demonstrably self-governing and that is what it should say. --Gibnews (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

unindent

To kick off discussions, can anyone actually articulate what is wrong with the current lead supported by the BBC cite, with the limitations of the constitution explained in the politics sections? I'm also kind of curious if someone would be prepared to correct the POV errors in the Spanish wikipedia article. Justin talk 21:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

About the content of my options: I think most other editors in this discussion have agreed that, although Gibraltar’s Constitution states that the Governor is responsible for foreign affairs, defence, internal security and appointment of public officers, the GoG has in practice control of most internal affairs. I think that any option that silences any of the points above would not reflect the reality of the Gibraltar governing status.

About the sources: As I have found some sensitivity about avoiding “to push a Spanish POV” that supports “Spanish irredentism”, I have resorted to British official sources. I have found that the UK’s Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) and House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) have positions that are material to the case -as they have an impact in the governing status of Gibraltar-, and they officially reflect all of the above facts. I hope nobody will accuse them of pushing a Spanish POV or Spanish irredentism (e.g. both of them defend delisting Gibraltar from the UN’s non self-governing territories list). That is why I propose them as sources.

My options in order of preference:

1) A lead that restores the previous consensus defining Gibraltars’s status as “British Overseas Territory” and then giving the details about degree of self-government afterwards, as in the FCO website country profiles [21].

2) A lead that defines Gibraltar’s type of government, but only if it does so with precision:

2-a) In my opinion, the most precise and simple technical definition is the FAC’s: “Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government” [22] (pg. 16).

2-b) Another option that I think defines the situation with less complication (albeit less precise) is that “Gibraltar has a considerable measure of devolved government” as the FCO explains in Gibraltar’s profile under the Politics section [23]. We could even complete this expression with “especially in internal affairs”.

2-c) Another option is to say that "Gibraltar's Constitution gives the GoG responsibility in all areas except in external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" [24] pg. 147-8. I am open to agree that -as Gibnews and Justin have pointed out- in practice most internal affairs could be considered in the hands of the Gibraltarians so that we can add something to explain it (we would still have to find some additional sources).

2-d) I am open to other options that other editors may propose - as long as they define with a minimum degree of precision the level of self-government that Gibraltar has and they come with an official or academic source or a mix of several ones.

I want to focus now in collating options, but I think I have to explain why I still don't support saying that Gibraltar has complete control of internal affairs (although, as you can see, I can agree to say that in practice it mostly does): I still see that the FCO and FCA are cautious not to say that, and I also have to solve some doubts about it through Justin's links and other sources (e.g. the fact that in 2007 it was the Governor who suspended the Chief of Justice –after complaints from law firms-, while the Chief Minister of the GoG emphasised “the GoG’s complete distance from the process”[25] pg. 80; or some controversy about the Governor appointing the new Chairman of the Police Authority shortly before the Commission that should have advised this appointment was constituted [26][27][28]).Imalbornoz (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I ask the question. The phrase "self-governing British Overseas Territory" is used. In English, the language would imply internal self-government a qualifying statement then becomes superfluous. The statement already has the precision that you requested. So why exactly do you feel the lead needs to be changed, when it makes the very point you seek?

And the article already amplifies that the Gibraltar Government does not have responsibility for foreign affairs or defence and that is retained by the UK. So precisely what is wrong with the current arrangement with the lead and amplification in the main text?

I would also point out that the article at present doesn't acknowledge that the GoG has represented itself at the C24 as the British Government has chosen to cease its attendance. So the statement that Gibraltar has no responsibility for froeign affairs is actually slightly misleading; to make the point the article as currently written actually understates the responsibilities of the GoG.

You have never actually said what is wrong with the current article. Your original claim was that it was controversial, it isn't. Next it was biased and now you acknowledge that it isn't. You have also acknowledged above that essentially the Gibraltar Government has control of internal affairs and then in the next paragraph backtrack saying that you have doubts about our explanation for the way the GoG works. Are we heading in the direction of a circular argument again where we return to issues already settled?

I'm also curious about an answer for my question on the es.wikipedia article. Justin talk 08:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I have already read your arguments for saying that "self-governing" is enough. Now I want to ask why do you think that it is wrong to explicitly qualify that expression in the lead. If there is nothing terribly wrong with qualifying it and you can avoid misleading some readers who are not used to the expression, why oppose it? --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't answer your question. I believe that there are many people who would understand that "self-governing" means 100% self-government (I, for example). In fact, I haven't seen once the FAC or FCO use that expression: they always qualify it (I suppose that they do it to avoid mis- or over-interpretations). Now I think I can ask you to answer mine (sorry for forgetting to answer first...). --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

To re-iterate the point, the lead actually says "self-governing British Overseas Territory". As written in English that implies it is internal self-government. To add a further caveat to that is superfluous, ie unnecessary embellishment, its unneeded (akin to saying bluer than a blue thing). I'm assuming there is a language problem here so I've tried to say the same thing several ways. You seem to think it misleads readers but it doesn't.

In return, I don't believe the lead to be misleading in the context its used the expression definitely indicates internal self-government. If it wasn't a BOT it would be a state and the point about self-governing would be superfluous eg would you describe Spain as a self-governing country? Just as in pre-dominion days the likes of Australia were self-governing colonies => the implication being internal self-government otherwise they wouldn't be colonies. By qualifying it as a BOT the expression means internal self-government. I don't see how anyone would assume it meant 100% self-government, if its 100% then Gibraltar would not be a BOT. I would also assume that the FCO/FAC qualifies it as both are responsible for the foreign affairs of Gibraltar ie in that context it needs further explanation as to the responsibilities of the FCO/FAC not the status of Gibraltar. Justin talk 10:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that in common usage "self-governing" means 100% self-government, then Andorra is not self-governing, which is of course positively absurd, not least because it's a sovereign state. I'd also like to point out that there was never any "previous consensus" - it's just never been discussed. And I'm still baffled as to why the Falklands have been described as a "self-governing BOT" since 2004 (long before their new constitution was adopted) and no one's raised an eyebrow. Yet here we're all suddenly commiting a cardinal sin. RedCoat10 • talk 10:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And to re-iterate the point made earlier by Gibmetal77. People assume that BOT are either colonies or integral parts of a state, whereas in fact they are neither. Adding the caveat self-governing makes the distinction, indeed the official policy of the British Government is to devolve Government to BOT as far as is practical. Some like Gibraltar and the Falklands are ~~almost~~ responsible for internal self-Government, others like the Pitcairn Islands have less for what are practical reasons. Justin talk 10:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So, have we all been discussing for so long because you guys say that you want to avoid "unnecessary embellishment" of the lead? I would beg that you relax your aesthetic standards and allow for 5 words to better describe the government status of Gibraltar, at least to agree with what British technical experts (FCO and FAC) consider precise enough to include in their documents. For example, Justin's last sentence in his last post. Would you? --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No that is not what we've been discussing and this tactic of yours of constantly misrepresenting the discussion is not helping matters. Discussion has repeatedly shifted because you keep moving the goalposts. To re-iterate the point yet again, there is nothing wrong with the current lead. Now again we patiently explain why and you go straight back to the circular argument again. I tried very hard to explain it in simple terms, in simple language and you seize on one term and attempt to dismiss legitimate concerns. To re-iterate the lead as currently written already makes the point you claim you wish to make, you have not provided a rationale for a change. Justin talk 11:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I suppose you don't disagree with your own statement above that "Gibraltar (...) (is) almost responsible for internal self-Government"? Myself, I agree with it. I think we both have just reached an agreement. In fact, there is a cite for that statement from a source that I think no editor in this discussion will put in doubt (the FAC). Do you agree to post it in the lead? --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

RedHat and Narson were also ready to accept qualifying the "self-governing" expression in the lead. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've struck through the typo, it was a typo nothing more. Narson was prepared to consider several options not just the edit you insist upon. RedHat has his own agenda. Again the lead as currently written already makes the point you claim you wish to make, you have not provided a rationale for a change. Justin talk 12:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please say that you don't agree with me, that the current lead is not misleading, that you won't accept 5 more words in the lead that would make a perfect match with a quote from the FAC (and with your pre-correction previous post)... But please don't say that I haven't given rationale for qualifying the "self-governing" expression. I will say it once more: I think that the current un-qualified expression in the lead may be misleading (e.g. to people not used to the different status of British Overseas Territories) and I agree with the FAC and FCO in always qualifying it in order to avoid confusion. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of making positions clearer: I know you consider it unnecessary to place it in the lead, but could you, please, tell me whether you agree or not with the FAC in that "Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government"? --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

unindent

You now assert it may be misleading. Let us look at the sentence again. "self-governing British Overseas Territory". If we simply say "British Overseas Territory", the confusion is either another word for a colony (which it isn't) or its an integral part of the UK (which it isn't). Adding self-governing clarifies that it is responsible for internal Government. If it was a state adding self-governing would be superfluous, as it isn't a state the term in this context indicates internal self-government; the reference to BOT is actually extraneous in the context as you could add several terms e.g. colonies and it would have the same meaning. Again the FCO/FAC makes the distinction because it is responsible for the external affairs of Gibraltar not for any need to qualify the status of Gibraltar to avoid confusion; you misrepresent the reason. You say it may be misleading but clearly it isn't. Now I assumed it was simply down to the fact that English is not your mother tongue and have repeatedly attempted to explain to you how the sentence already fulfills your stated purpose. If your stated reason is now that you think it may be misleading, hopefully I have demonstrated why it isn't. Again you didn't give a rationale, you've changed reasons several times and on each occasion after offering an explanation your reason for change has altered. A) it was controversial then B) it was biased, now C) it may be misleading with a few steps missed out between.

And in answer to your question, no I don't consider it necessary to add a caveat in the lead. I am perfectly content for the limits of the Gibraltar constitution to go into the politics sections. However, what I would dispute is for the literal word of the Gibraltar constitution to be taken out of context as it is on the es.wikipedia article to misrepresent the degree of autonomy enjoyed by the Government of Gibraltar. Justin talk 13:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I think I understand it. I agree that your explanation may not be necessary for someone acquainted with BOTs (a Gibraltarian, for expample; or a Wikipedian used to editing in BOT articles). On the other hand, my point has repeatedly been that it may be misleading for people not acquainted with that context -not with the English language, mind you- (for example a Texan College student doing some research, or someone from Utah planning a trip to Gibraltar). In fact, it has been repeatedly been argued here that self-government means different things in different contexts. My position is that if we are only 3 or 5 words away from avoiding that ambiguity, it may be worth the effort.

About my question: it was not whether you considered necessary to add a caveat in the lead (you have already clearly stated your opinion about that). It was (and is) -independently of whether this sentence should go in the lead- do you or don't agree you with the FAC in the concept that "Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government"? --Imalbornoz (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you're completely missing the point, it has nothing to do with BOT. You could for example write Self-governing colony, which would in the context used indicate internal self-government. The context of the sentence indicates self-government not the fact that BOT follows the phrase. Its a feature of the English language.

Gibraltar does not have 100% internal Self-Government as the Governor is an appointment of the FAC, that does not however imply that Gibraltar does not have internal Self-Government. The phrase on the page you refer to is intended to demonstrate that the degree of self-government in BOT does vary according to the ability of the territory to self-govern. The Pitcairn Islands with a population of 46 have only an island council for example. Used in context the sentence has meaning, taken out of context its meaning could be misconstrued. You demand a yes/no answer to an open question which is impossible. Justin talk 14:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

By way of your example, the Texan college student and/or the Utahn traveler can read up on the self-governance "limitations" (so to speak) of a British overseas territory in its respective article, hence the wikilink. There is no need to add superflous text to the lead section when it can be easily found within the linked articles. --Gibmetal 77 ^talk 16:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So I understand that you agree with the FAC in its statement (in a context that does not allow for misinterpretation). In what sense could the FAC's sentence be misconstrued in the lead's context? Could "almost complete internal self-government" be misinterpreted to anything other than Gibraltar is one of the BOTs with highest levels of self-government (which according to Gibmetal77 his edit was meant for)? --Imalbornoz (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, taking a neutral example. Do you consider Andorra, a separate nation state to be self-governing? Yet it doesn't control its own currency, nor does it control its own defence but it is a member of the United Nations. You seem to set an impossibly high bar for self-governance of 100%. Yet even nation states do not achieve that, Spain and the UK are subject to limits of the EU, the ECHR and the UN.

Again, the phrase we use in the article is "self-governing British Overseas Territory", the context of the sentence indicates internal self-government, further amplification isn't needed. So do you accept that or we still going to argue about it? Or are the goal posts moving again? Do you want to make a point or dance around some more? Justin talk 15:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are any more questions, I think I have made my point. On the other hand, I still don't understand your rationale for saying that my proposed edit might be misconstrued, so I'm asking you so that you can explain it to me. Would you? --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibmetal and Justin have already pointed out why removing 'self-governing' results in an ambiguous description of Gibraltar. The difference between a BOT like Pitcairn Island and Gibraltar is fairly significant, such that it's worth noting for the sake of accuracy. In any case, the lead is not the place to expatiate on the nature of self-governance in Gibraltar, nor the extent to which Gibraltar governs its own affairs. The appropriate section is the 'Politics' section where, unsurprisingly, it's already explained. RedCoat10 • talk 18:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Its the introduction which needs to be concise. Stating that Gibraltar is self-governing is important, because its only accurate since the 2006 constitution abolished appointed members of the HoA and the Governor was replaced by elected ministers in significant roles. The good news needs to be communicated clearly to those who think otherwise. Its splitting hairs to describe it as anything less, as indeed no EU country is 100% self-governing anymore. I really don't understand the objection. --Gibnews (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me? You explain it time and time again, yet you come back saying you don't understand it. I've explained the point to you repeatedly, its exhausting good faith to ask for it again. Justin talk 21:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT My summary of the situation is as follows:

I understand you three don't want to leave "Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory" alone in the intro, because 1) you want to make a difference with BOTs that practically don't have self-government (GibMetal77 dixit and most of you agreed) and 2) because you want to communicate the good news (Gibnews dixit). So far, to support this option editors have proposed the Hassans cite in their page Why Gibraltar [29], UN Ambassador Donigi's proposed referendum's text in 2001 in Gold's book (see above), and the BBC [30] (which, I have to say, does qualify "self-governing" with "in all areas except defence and foreign policy").

You don't want to have FAC's statement that Gibraltar has "almost complete internal self-government" because 1) you say that it's unnecessary so you want to save space -and if a Texan student comes to the page, he should investigate further to find out that "self-governing" BOT is not 100% self-governing, and 2) Justin says it can be misconstrued - for which he hasn't given any explanation (even though I asked him at 14:49).

Red Hat and Narson seemed to be ready to add some qualifying text to the "self-governing" expression. Red Hat also said that he would accept leaving Gib is a BOT alone; but that, if you add self-governing, you should mention the UN's list in the lead. Narson would accept the option of only saying self-governing without any further qualification. Red Hat has proposed the FCO country profiles [31], the book "Gibraltar, Identity and Empire" [32], and the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 2007-08 report [33]. Narson has proposed the above mentioned BBC cite.

On my side, I am ready to agree with you if you want to explain the governing status of Gibraltar in the lead, but only if you don't go half-way and qualify it. Specially if you count that the further explanation is only 3 or 5 additional words. I propose the British House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee cite [34]. I agree with Red Hat in that the UN's list is notable enough to be in the lead (if it talks about self-government).

I would say those are the current positions. Any additional comments to this summary? Any more common ground? --Imalbornoz (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No that is not the case at all. We make the point that there is no need to qualify the statement as it is currently written because it already means internal self-government AND THE FACT THAT IN THIS VERY ARTICLE THE LIMITS ON SELF-GOVERNMENT ARE EXPLAINED FURTHER DOWN, emphasis added to make the point that you continuously ignore. There is no need to mention the C24 in the lead as IN THIS VERY ARTICLE ITS EXPLAINED FURTHER DOWN, again emphasis added to make the point that you continuously ignore. You continue with the bad faith ad hominem attacks that we're trying to hide details that are IN THIS VERY ARTICLE, again emphasis added to make the point that you continuously ignore. And you ask for yet another explanation when the same thing has been explained by myself, Gibmetall77, Redcoat10, Pfainuk, Gibnews and BritishWatcher.

I did actually explain my comment about being miscontrued. But here it is again, the comment is in that article because the FAC/FCO ARE ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF GIBRALTAR. In that article it is needed to explain the function of the FAC/FCO in that context NOT TO EXPLAIN THE LIMITS ON SELF-GOVERNMENT IN GIBRALTAR. Simply lifting one phrase and quoting it out of context its meaning could be misconstrued. Again I add an emphasis because you repeatedly ignore the same point.

You're continually misrepresenting what people are saying and you've changed what your argument continuously. Either its controversial, or its biased, or it may be misleading or perhaps somebody from Texas or Utah might not be able to understand the English language. Justin talk 22:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Again to re-iterate the comments above are not in any way a personal attack, the emphasis is added purely to make the point due to the frustration that the same point has been explained ad nauseum and yet we return yet again to the same circular argument. Justin talk 22:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I also am very frustrated. I keep asking questions that are not answered (also, I keep being accused, but that at least does not affect the content of the article). Let me explain my frustration with one example: I ask "How can the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee's statement that Gibraltar has "almost internal self-government" be construed to say anything else that Gibraltar has one of the highest levels of self-government of BOTs"? (that is, what alternative meaning to the one I propose could someone find?) You say "the FAC/FCO ARE ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF GIBRALTAR. In that article it is needed to explain the function of the FAC/FCO in that context NOT TO EXPLAIN THE LIMITS ON SELF-GOVERNMENT IN GIBRALTAR. Simply lifting one phrase and quoting it out of context its meaning could be misconstrued."

Forgive me, for I don't see any alternative meaning there (I will be happy if you give me one, if you don't, I -without any bad faith intended- will have no other option but to think that a) you want to keep it to yourself or b) you are not able to find any reasonable alternative meaning). --Imalbornoz (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

One more point, about the current citation -which is from UN Ambassador Donigi proposing in 2001 a text for a referendum: So far, Red Hat, Narson (who inserted it as a "stop gap measure to halt the edit war") and myself have explicitly said we are not happy with it. I won't even use the fact that many other editors have indirectly discarded it by saying that all pre-2006 or UN related sources should not be taken into account. As I see no edit war at the moment, I say that -unless someone provides a very strong objection- we could put it away in the refrigerator. --Imalbornoz (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If that is a 'lets call it a day, leave as is and move on' I second the motion. --Gibnews (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually meant to that we put the cite AWAY (remove it) until we find an alternative consensus lead or -at least- cite. Given that, at least, 3 of the editors in this discussion are not happy with it, I think it would be the right thing to do. --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Imalbornoz, with all due respect, it doesn't seem like you're actually taking part in the discussion or putting forward any counterarguments. Instead you just harp on with the same points. Until you provide any rationale for change there will be no change. Repeatedly going round the same loop of argument is considered disruptive and is not conducive to harmonious editing. RedCoat10 • talk 11:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, 'Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense.'[35] A self-governing colony is described as a colony where "the legislatures of British self-governing colonies — for the most part — control their internal affairs, the British government retains control of foreign affairs, defence and various international trade matters." Just swap 'colony' with 'BOT'. It is OBVIOUS that the concept of 'self-governance' does not extend to defence etc., as evidenced by the term "self-governing colony" and the Andorra example. RedCoat10 • talk 11:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Imalbornoz what are you on about? You ask questions, they're answered and then you ask exactly the same thing again and again and again. I've already pointed out that myself, Gibmetall77, Redcoat10, Pfainuk, Gibnews and BritishWatcher provided you with an answer and you're still returning to the same point. Its not an accusation its a matter of written record, as is the circular argument, constantly misrepresenting the positions of fellow editors and you go round and round the same loop of argument. Again I note that despite making the point incredibly obvious you've returned to exactly the same point again.

Again if you use a quote out of context you change its meaning. Now you can assume what you like but you've had an honest answer. Whether you chose to disregard it is up to you but do not return and ask the same question again.

As far as the stop gap reference goes, replace it with the BBC reference or anyone of a number of references that all say exactly the same thing as far as I'm concerned. But an academic reference is perfectly valid to use. Justin talk 12:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Just so that your worries don’t go unanswered:

I have provided rationale for the change. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and Narson (who is the one who provided the current cite) seem to have been convinced by that rationale. The cite is from a UN official in 2001, which is a source and a time period you have repeatedly said you don’t consider reliable. If you are willing to admit cites from UN officials of the same or superior ranking, then say so. If you don't, because you consider the UN a non-neutral organisation, it would be coherent to remove it. Unless your standard is: only accept cites that support your POV (which I suppose it isn't).

Repeating my questions: If you don’t answer my questions or don’t take into account my arguments, I have to repeat them. The other option is to think that you don’t want to answer my questions or listen to my arguments, and that would mean presuming bad faith on your side. (see below, as well)

Not putting forward counterarguments: I have not only done that, but I have also asked questions trying to understand your arguments repeatedly.

Disruptive editing: I have politely abstained from editing the article as soon as I have understood the concept of edit warring (which I honestly don’t think I pushed too far), even though the current cite has been put into question by the same editor that inserted it. Instead, I have followed the dispute resolution policy step by step, discussing with you, looking at content and trying to find common ground.

Returning to the same point in spite of Justin making his point obvious: I asked Justin (at least 3 times) in which way does he think that my proposed quote (Gibraltar has “almost complete internal self-government” [36] ) can be misinterpreted, what alternative meaning he thinks that it can be given in the article. Justin has done everything (in fact, just one thing, although repeatedly) but to answer in which way he thinks it can be misinterpreted. He has only said that, out of its context it can be misinterpreted. He has not provided any alternative wrong interpretation. Why should I stop asking the question in different ways? (except if I assume bad faith on his side).

According to Justin’s last post, “if you use a quote out of context you change its meaning”. I quoted a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 2007-08 report where it dealt with the several types of self-government in British Overseas Territories. We are discussing how to describe -in the lead of the Gibraltar article- what level of self-government Gibraltar has. I don’t know how that can be out of context. I would say that the current cite (UN Ambassador Donigi proposing once in 2001 a text for a referendum in Gibraltar) is more out of context [37], but you all seem to accept it.

Regarding the BBC cite (brought by BritishWatcher): If you agree, I will insert it while we look for a better definition, as it is much better than the current one (although I don't agree with it 100%). Beware that, in order to not take it out of context, I will have to put exactly what it says regarding Gibraltar self-government: “Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy” [38].

Now,please, answer my questions and pay attention to my arguments as I try to do with yours... It will avoid all of us wasting time and losing our temper... --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary and lack of consensus

To summarise:

Imalbornoz has not provided a rationale for change, Narson and RHoPF simply made suggestions. To present them as editors convinced by the eloquence of his argument is not supported by the written record above.
His questions were answered, he simply returned to re-iterate the same tired worn arguments.
Above I re-iterated the same point that no less than 5 separate editors have made. He returned this morning to again re-iterate the same argument.
Repeatedly spamming the same argument is disruptive.

I don't know how anyone else feels but as several editors have quietly and patiently explained at length as to why the current article makes the point he claims is needed and discussion on proposals have not progressed given the above, then I suggest there is neither clear consensus or argument for change and these discussion are not going to produce one. Hence, there is no need to change the lead and further discussions on these lines will not provide anything useful.

If a clear and compelling case is actually made then there is of course grounds for change but at present there are none. At the moment my mind is open to this being either a genuine misunderstanding due to a language barrier or the natural conclusion of a failed attempt to further a POV agenda. Either way I suggest this discussion has sputtered to a natural end. Justin talk 17:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Does everybody else agree with Justin? --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(I don't, but as this is very disappointing for me, I don't know what else to say...) --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Replying to our points would be a start. RedCoat10 • talk 18:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That you understand that Gibraltar is self governing and whatever happens here is not any business of Spain would be good. --Gibnews (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the current situation, I have asked for mediation at the Mediation Cabal. --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You haven't actually listed the case here as required, though I did find it. I must admit I would be surprised if any mediator agrees to take on the case as I doubt mediation will go anywhere. I am disappointed to note that even in your listing at the mediation cabal you have chosen to misrepresent the case of other editors (but not totally surprised). Justin talk 16:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Details of the mediation cabel page can be found here
I think the discussion is finished on this page.
--Gibnews (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Details of the NPOV page discussion can be found here
Where to next I wonder ?
--Gibnews (talk)

Details of the "Reliable sources" page discussions can be found here, here and here
RedCoat10 • talk 10:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikiquette alerts Here
WQA filed by Justin talk 07:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC) --Gibnews (talk)

Sources for the self-governing status of Gibraltar

It seems that we have a variety of sources to define that status. I have opened a question in the RS Noticeboard.

(I didn't know I had to post those links here before). --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Overhaul

I have followed the debate about the "non-self-governing" status of Gibraltar, and find it unbelievable that AGAIN, a sound and referenced point is rejected by some editors. The territory is on the List of UN Non-Self Governing Territories. Period.

This is yet another example of misrepresentation and obstruction by some editors with a pro-British bias. I have participated in similar debates on this talk page before, with the same dishonest attitude by some people with an obvious political agenda. They twist your arguments, question your references or reject your sources. They impose their one-sided point of view with dishonesty, cynicism and even sarcasm. They prevent the text from being neutral and balanced by shoving aside constructive opinions and contributions. The result is a biased article which only reflects the British point of view. Irrelevant information like the "Jane’s Country Risk" study is rammed into the Main Page because it is pro-British. But relevant facts like the Non-Self Governing status of Gibraltar are rejected. Endless facts are ignored or rejected because they appear as a threat to the status quo of Gibraltar and its legitimacy. There is no mention of the basis of the Spanish claims: territorial integrity and UN Resolutions mandating decolonization. There is no mention of the debate on the arguable "transfer of sovereignty" under the Treaty of Utrecht citing the interpretation that property of the territory was transferred (real estate), not sovereignty. There is no mention of the UN Resolution against the Referendum of 1967. No mention either of the debate on territorial waters, the shifting of the border by Britain, the ilegal trafficking. I will not go on. Personal political points of view have been imposed on this talk page for a long time now. Enough is enough. The whole article needs to be reassesed, from beginning to end. JCRB (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The territory is on the List of UN Non-Self Governing Territories and this is mentioned in the article. Oops. Talking of bias, you got nowhere the last time because you waded in with accusations of bias, utterly failed to assume good faith, not to mention the sockpuppetry agreeing with your self. Oh and continuing with the now utterly discredited Spanish accusations of trafficking clearly demonstrates your pro-Spanish bias and POV. No we might mention those accusations in the article but in the interests of NPOV we'd also have to mention that they have been thoroughly investigated by independent authorities and found to be utterly without foundation. But then as we pointed out the last time, we do have an article on the sovereignty dispute, its covered in this overview article with due significance, this article is already somewhat too large and shoe horning more irrelevant crap and your original research won't improve it. Justin talk 07:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar is only on the list of non self governing territories because of the money and effort Spain wastes in contesting its removal. The reality is something quite different and the C24 is immaterial to what happens in the territory. Given that 99% of Gibraltarians do not want to be part of Spain trying to defame us with lies on Wikipedia is a natural follow on from sieges, restrictions and other nonsenses which have made less impact than cannon balls but are much the same. --Gibnews (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, failing to assume good faith, POV? Give yourself a break. You've used all that before against many good editors. It doesn't work anymore. Good faith is lost when you repeatedly reject proven facts and solid arguments. All attempts by constructive editors to make this article a bit more subtle and neutral have been obstructed by the editors with supposedly "good faith" like you. The only "irrelevant crap" as you politely put it, is the Jane's Country Risk study. No other country or region articles have this on the top of their main page. It is so blunt in its pro-British bias it is ridiculous. Regarding illegal trafficking, I couldn't care less whether it's mentioned or not, but it's just another example of facts ignored. And please, don't try to convince me the trafficking is fiction. Just concentrate on all the other issues that could make the article just a tiny bit more neutral, starting with the Non-Self Governing status of Gibraltar and the reasons for Spain's claims: territorial integrity for example. And Gibnews, don't waste your time telling us what Spain spends money on, nobody cares. PLus, try to be a bit more subtle in your arguments. Your bias is just so blatant. JCRB (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish claim to Gibraltar is fully described in the article Disputed status of Gibraltar If by Neutral you mean you would like to include the nonsense about Gibraltar circulated in Spain, where the issue is still used by the opposition to embarrass the Socialist Government. Politicians make outrageous claims and large amounts of your taxes are spent on the cause of, for instance, trying to prevent our children from playing international football see Gibraltar Football Association.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'illegal trafficking' and probably you are not either. It may be convenient for Spain to blame Gibraltar for its failings, as was done with the Prestige oil spill and to claim that nuclear submarines are routinely repaired in Gibraltar to account for the high levels of cancer in the adjoining area, ignoring other factors, like The San Roque refinery and chemical works. But wikipedia should stick to what is demonstrably real, so that anyone reading it gets an accurate overview of what Gibraltar is like and not the defamatory poison pen version previously promulgated in Spain of a colony of polluting criminal ex-pats living in stolen land. --Gibnews (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Largest district

I'm a bit dubious about the claim that Westside is the largest district. Although the area is heavily populated, Laguna and Glacis probably contain more people and there are no formal 'districts' in Gibraltar, what do others think ? --Gibnews (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I did it so it would be in line with articles such as Monaco. However, I don't mind if it's reverted as you're right in saying that there are no offical districts. --Gibmetal 77 ^talk 00:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well in the text it says Gibraltar has no administrative divisions. It is, however, divided into seven Major Residential Areas, which are further divided into Enumeration Areas, used for statistical purposes.

On reflection it might be better to change 'reclamation area' there to 'Westside' in order to disambiguate it from future reclamation areas on the eastside. In which case there is something in the article to support the item in the table. But as far as I know there are no boundaries defined anywhere, and although we know where the south district ends, where does it begin ?

Indeed the new rental flats being built west of Rooke are on reclaimed land, is that part of Westside or what exactly is it ? --Gibnews (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should change the 'reclamation area' to 'Westside' for the same reason.

I was under the impression that the South district begins at Southport gates and I would have thought that the new Harbour reclamation is also part of Westside. This is just speculation but take a look at the zones outlined here for the purpose of the Development Plan. --Gibmetal 77 ^talk 11:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, we are agreed on part of that. Is Southport gate next to the tax office, or is that referendum something or other and southport gate is opposite the police station at the entrance of the south mole ? I got a copy of the new 'discover Gibraltar' guide which includes a map but its gone into hiding. --Gibnews (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It is next to St. Jago's Building (Income Tax Office) marking the end of Main Street. I'm unaware of a gate located opposite the Royal Gibraltar Police HQ...

Going back to the first issue, surely you would agree that Westside is Gibraltar's most populated district/area/zone... --Gibmetal 77 ^talk 00:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think so, but not sure how one defines the Glacis/laguna group which is actually on the Isthmus. There is a gate at the entrance to the South mole, I'll take a picture of it before its redeveloped. --Gibnews (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Life expectancy

There seems to be some dispute about this, the latest data available from the Government of Gibraltar is based on the 2001 census as 78.5 for males 83.3 for females giving a mean of 80.9 The UN list cited in Wikipedia only shows territories with 100,000 inhabitants or over so Gibraltar is not explicitly listed but shares a position with Spain and Norway. The data shown in the CIA factbook is clearly out of date as is some of its other content. --Gibnews (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless explicitly disputed, I think national statistics are best sourced from whatever Gib's ONS is called. Not to say that the CIA factbook is wrong or isn't a reputable source, simply that statistics change so damn fast that the snap shot that a reference guide will use is likely to be superceeded. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The existing article listing the countries by life expectancy refers to the CIA World Factbook, a reputable source which is anually updated, while the Gibraltar Census is 9 years out of date already. On the other hand, the UN 2006 list cited remains silent about Gibraltar and does not allow to draw any particular conclusion about any sort of ranking for that matter.

- Gibnews: your opinion on the trustworthiness of the CIA Factbook is interesting, but very far from authoritative.

- Narson: we could quibble about the reliability of the sources for days but, provided that both are acceptable, we should objectively stick to current data. Especially when statistics change so damn fast.

Anyway, what happened to WP:BOLD guideline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.35.2 (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion of the CIA factbook is that they consolidate data from other sources. However the ONLY source of life expectancy data for Gibraltar is the Government statistics office, and the figures I refer to are the latest available from them. As they are different from the CIA factbook it is clearly out-of-date. Please desist from removing correctly referenced material and engaging in edit wars. --Gibnews (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The CIA data appears to be more current (2009) but is based on estimates. I'd suggest we use both the last concrete numbers and the estimates (And remove the ranking unless it is sourced). I'm surprised if the Gibraltan ONS doesn't have its own estimates for this year though. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no 2009 data or estimates officially available. The only figures issued are the real ones based on the census so there will not be any new figures until the next census. They do not issue estimates. However, unlike other statistics these figures are not going to change much as the system has a high inertia. The latest statistics I have are the ones quoted. I see the CIA refer to five FM radio stations here. There are two. They probably corrected the other glaring errors from reading wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

While I have no particular opinion as to which source is most appropriate here (though I, like Narson, am surprised that the GoG doesn't produce any estimates), I do think it's reasonable to ask exactly what this section is doing in the lead. These - life expectancy and Jane's Country Risk - are details, and they are not the sorts of detail that normally go in the leads of articles. Better, surely, to put Jane's Country Risk into the politics section and the life expectancy into the demographics section.

Why are they tacked on the front of the paragraph on the Spanish claim? Is there supposed to be some connection between these figures and the Spanish claim? The implication is that there is, but it's not clear what. If there is no connection, then they don't belong in the same paragraph. If there is a connection, then it needs to be explained further, because it isn't clear what this connection is.

Per WP:LEAD, we say:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible.

It is not clear to me that Gibraltar's life expectancy and its rating in Jane's Country Risk are among the most important points in this article - bearing in mind that they're not mentioned elsewhere in the article. I don't think we that the current emphasis of the lead does reflect the relative importance to Gibraltar of these figures and of the Spanish claim. And by failing in this, we don't exactly go out of our way to demonstrate neutrality. Pfainuk talk 08:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that the life expectancy is not significant, its close to a European norm and it happened to be there and belongs elsewhere. Jane's is significant and should stay, along with the mention of the Spanish claim. However, one might expect it to slightly improve over the 2001 figures given improvements in health care so the model the CIA use must be wrong. --Gibnews (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how exactly Jane's review is relevant and deserves to stay in the lead section. I mean, the Vatican City held the pole position in that list, and still there's absolutely no reference to it in the respective article.

As for expecting an improvement over the 2001 census figures, please notice that your hopes and expectations do not constitute reliable sources, neither are parameters to discredit any given source.

And last but not least, I don't mean to be rude, but statistical sampling lacks a purpose when analysing populations as tiny as Gibraltar's, thus not being of any particular usefulness apart of drawing quite generic trends, at most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.37.77 (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Life expectancy is important if one lives in Gibraltar, and to compare it to other territories, where the citizens have worse medical care and living conditions. The official statistics are:

Year	Men	Women	Mean
1981	71.4	75.5	73.45
1991	73.4	80.4	76.90
2001	78.5	83.3	80.90

I think you can see a bit of a trend there, which suggests the CIA manufactured statistics are unreliable. The figures for Gibraltarians wanting to be part of Spain are certainly statistically insignificant which seems to create a degree of annoyance on the part of others, including users of ya.com. --Gibnews (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. A pretty broad trend. For instance, a plane crash in the neighbourhood next to Gibraltar's airport, or any kind of not-really-that-catastrophic accident (God forbid anyway) would ruin life expectancy statistics of such a densely populated piece of land, while actually not altering llanitos' real life expectancy. The same kind of incident -say- in Portugal would have a negligible statistical relevance. I think you can see the point. As I've said, I don't mean to be rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.37.77 (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you ought to read up on Wikipedia:No original research. RedCoat10 • talk 17:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been no incident to upset the figures, and for example a aircraft accident would affect a random aged spread of people, so providing it did not land on Mount Alvernia, the retirement home, it would not have any statistically significant effect. The murder rate is however highly affected by whether there is one in a particular year. Finally the carbon footprint is skewed because we export a large amount of fuel for ships per head. --Gibnews (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever guys. But as Pfainuk pointed out, it is not clear that Gibraltar's life expectancy and its rating in Jane's Country Risk are relevant enough to qualify into the lead section. I do concord with him. As for the reliability of the figures, I don't really think that the mention of statistics basics constitutes original research. There are reasons why the 2006 UN report cited above does not include statistics for territories under 100.000 inhabitants. Really.

Anyway, I've already said that if we have to include this information, we should use updated data as seemingly any other criteria could be deemed as original research according to your latest comments, even when WP:OR states that

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions"

Which does not mean that every published argument should make it into the article. And that's why talk pages exist.

The ONLY real data available is the data shown which gives a mean life expectancy of 80.90 years which compares favourably with other nations. There is no 'updated data'. --Gibnews (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's your opinion. 2009 CIA Factbook is as published and valid as the 2001 census, while not out of date yet. The List of countries by life expectancy article refers to it without such a fuss.

And what's up with "Jane's most stable and prosperous countries in the world" review? Why on Earth should this be in the introductory section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.37.77 (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not an opinion its a fact. The only source of reliable data is the GoG. The CIA figure is speculation, and clearly wrong. --Gibnews (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

<deindent>That is overstating it a bit GibNews. The Gibraltarian government is a reliable source, but it is not God. It is not impossible for life expectency to fluctuate. The BBC has them at 76 for man, 82 for women. The 2006 estimates have them at 80.06 combined (77 for men, 83 or women, roughly). --Narson ~ Talk • 08:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really, the GoG is the ONLY organisation that actually measures this. Although people may reference the CIA, I suggest you ask them where their figures come from as they don't have an office here anymore. You might enquire as I have why they show a map of Gibraltar from before the war. Its certainly not impossible for things to change, but someone's ill informed guess is not reliable data. The published figures I quoted are. Until recently the CIA stated Gibraltar had a railway. --Gibnews (talk)