Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Request for comment: population movement after 1704

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the History section state that before the occupation of Gibraltar in 1704 there were about 4,000 Spanish inhabitants there, and after it only 70 or so remained, most of the others settling in the surrounding campo, especially in San Roque, Cádiz? Scolaire (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I am deliberately not placing an RfC template or a short and simple statement on this at the moment. If there is a speedy resolution of the discussion it will not be necessary; if not, everything that follows will be part of the RfC.
I found this discussion via the request at ARCA, which is now closed (I was commenting on a separate request at the time). I have no previous input into this article, and very little knowledge of the history of Gibraltar. I was amazed to find more than 20,000 words of discussion over what seems to be a short, factual sentence. As far as I can see, the fact at issue is that before the occupation of the town there were about 4,000 Spanish inhabitants there, and after it only 70 or so remained, most of the others settling in the surrounding campo, especially in San Roque, Cádiz. If this is true, it is a fascinating fact, which greatly adds to the "Modern era" section of the article. And it does seem to be true, as it is stated in both the San Roque and the History of Gibraltar articles, and in a number of books cited on this talk page. The only reason I can see for its exclusion is "too much detail", but one short sentence in an article of over 100 kb is hardly undue weight! So my question is, is there any rational, policy-based reason to exclude this fact? Scolaire (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kahastok, Imalbornoz, Wee Curry Monster, Apcbg, Giraffedata, Thomas.W, and IdreamofJeanie: and apologies if I've missed anybody. Scolaire (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

[Please limit your post here to a "support" or "oppose" !vote, followed by a BRIEF, policy-based rationale. Extended discussion can go in the Discussion section below]

• Support, per my comments above. Scolaire (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment, What exactly are we supposed to either Support or Oppose? WCM_email 12:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The proposal to state that before the occupation of Gibraltar in 1704 there were about 4,000 Spanish inhabitants there, and after it only 70 or so remained, most of the others settling in the surrounding campo, especially in San Roque. Alternatively you can say Yes or No, or any other formulation that makes your opinion clear. Scolaire (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • You haven't made a clear content proposal, so your RFC is flawed from the outset and in addition, no one actively opposes references to the events of 1704.
• Oppose Lack of clear content proposal in the RFC which gives too much latitude to a disruptive editor to expand the section giving undue weight to this event. Support simple short pithy sentence already proposed that has broad consensus eg Subsequently most of the population left the town with many settling nearby.. Significant details only are appropriate in an overview, details belong in the linked History article. WCM_email 13:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Given the plethora of authoritative sources dealing with the "population movement after 1704", the entry (this one) will be improved thanks to the introduction of that bit (which can be roughly paraphrased in one or two lines of text) in the section relative to the history of the Rock (in line to what authoritative secondary sources already do). It doesn't detract, but enhances the comprehension of the "Modern Era" of the Rock. In no way the inclusion of that "short, factual sentence" in a specific historical section of an entry above 100 kb in size falls under the notion of WP:UNDUE or the likes.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I think User: Scolaire has put the reasons why more scholarly and impressively than I could ever pretend to know how to. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• I can't say whether I "support" or "oppose" because it is not clear to me what bare "support" and "oppose" mean in this context.

I support the inclusion of the sentence that already got consensus above, that is based on the feedback of a number of editors and that achieved the support of most:

“ Subsequently most of the population left the town with many settling nearby. ”

I oppose constructions that are either inaccurate or give massively greater weight to specific points than is present in the literature. In particular, I oppose proposals that give more weight to this point than to the fact of the capture or to the Treaty of Utrecht.

I would suggest that, in the general case, the logic "one short sentence in an article of over 100 kb is hardly undue weight!" in the header is absurd. Per WP:WEIGHT, sometimes the most appropriate weight for a given point in a given article is zero. And in the specific case, overemphasising this point is significantly problematic as detailed by WCM below.

And I see zero value in any attempt to persist with dispute resolution. A consensus has already been achieved, and the chances of a wider consensus being possible, given the behaviour of Imalbornoz, are worse than a snowball's chance in hell. Kahastok talk 18:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I support including all those facts, in one short sentence. And it's a good RfC because if there is consensus for this, that resolves 90% of the dispute and a second phase can determine the precise words of that sentence. If there is no consensus for this, we save all the time arguing about wording. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Per WCM and Kahastok, I support the adding of the short sentence quoted by Kahastok, and which already has consensus and oppose leaving it out or adding any more about that episode. I'm persuaded that that would be due weight of this per the consensus amongst the balance of the reliable sources -- DeFacto (talk). 21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

[Please limit your posts here to content- and policy-based arguments, and refrain from commenting on other editors]

No, in fact I don't propose it's excluded, neither does Kahastok also named at ARCA and accused of doing so. This is the nub of the problem, it's one of editor conduct. One editor doesn't accept what people are saying and instead accuses them of editing in bad faith for nationalist reasons. In the ARCA he presented diffs in a highly misleading manner. What is proposed is a simple, short, pithy sentence.

“ Subsequently most of the population left the town with many settling nearby. ”

This had broad consensus, with one exception. One user Imalbornoz insisted it didn't have consensus as he alone disagreed. He also insisted I self-revert, which I did.

There can, however, be two issues with the way this is portrayed. Which needs to be borne in mind wrt to WP:NPOV

One is there is a WP:FRINGE view proposed by Spanish nationalists. This holds that all of the Gibraltar townspeople went to San Roque, and that therefore the modern people of San Roque, three hundred years later, are therefore somehow the "real" Gibraltarians who therefore have a right to determine the modern governance of Gibraltar over the heads of the local population.

Secondly, there is a rather notorious Spanish work produced under the dictatorship of General Franco. Known widely as Franco's red book on Gibraltar Spain. Minister of Foreign Affairs (1965). A red book on Gibraltar. author. "It is also well known that the inhabitants of the City of Gibraltar were driven out and their houses ransacked". This pushes the single view that the violence was a deliberate policy of the invading British forces with the aim of driving out the townspeople. It doesn't reflect neutral academic sources.

Neutral academic sources cite a number of factors, these note:

• The population elected to leave citing their loyalty to King Phillip IV. This is documented in the city fathers letter to the monarch.
• There was an expectation of a Spanish counter attack. The local priest urged the population to leave to be safe.
• The conduct of Hapsburg forces
• One of the aims of the attack was to win the support of the local populace, the violence during the capture was counterproductive and officers sought to end it. There were brutal punishments for those involved.

A further issue has been the regular accusation that the British are somehow ashamed and embarassed by history and have attempted to suppress reference to the conduct of the invaders. Although sourced as the opinion of Garret(1939), a cursory examination of modern and historic literature shows it to be untrue. The events are described accurately in Hills (1974), Bradford (1971), Francis (1975), Jackson (1990), Andrews (1958) and Garratt (1939). In 1845, Ayala a Spanish work is translated verbatim into English by T.James (1845) note also Sayer (1862), Martin (1887), Drinkwater (1824). Admiral Byng and Reverend Pocock wrote detailed eye witness accounts from a personal perspective. All of which document the events to 1704. Aside from anything else the 70 yr old opinion of an author (Garratt) has no bearing on a content discussion and most certainly should never be used to impugn other editors.

The previous material in the article had a simple single sentences that was basically inaccurate and didn't reflect academic literature. Simple sentences presenting only part of the narrative in the literature also have the effect of promoting some of the fringe and nationalist views if not formulated properly. This should have been a simple fix and I agree that the amount of effort expended was disproportionate. Hence, the rather frustrating and unsatisfying outcome of removing the material. WCM_email 11:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I will ask you to strike your remarks about User:Imalbornoz. What he said or what he did has no bearing on the question I asked. As for the rest, any fringe views held by "real" Gibraltarians, whatever was said about the purpose of violence by the occupying forces, whether the people left of their own free will, or whether the British are "somehow ashamed and embarrassed by history" forms no part of the question. The question is whether a short, neutral sentence should be in the article. Scolaire (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I decline, this wasn't formulated as an RFC when I replied to you. You stated you were not formally issuing an RFC. I have replied to you in good faith, you have instead chosen to attack me personally in your edit summary. [1] I have no desire to turn this into a drama fest, I suggest you refrain from doing so. WCM_email 12:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I specifically stated that if there was not a speedy resolution, "everything that follows [would] be part of the RfC". Your unwarranted personal attack on another editor ensured that there would be no speedy resolution. It also had the effect of turning a request for comment on a simple question into something else. I apologise for the immoderate language in my edit summary. And I ask you again to delete or strike through the personal attack. Scolaire (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I thank you for and accept your apology. I will happily remove anything that you can show isn't true or unwarranted. Please feel free to do so. However, any RFC that doesn't address the root cause of the matter will not offer any resolution. Please note, I would have been happy to say my piece and leave it at that. Let's not turn this into a battlefield. As you've now turned this into an RFC I have no desire to deter outside comment with an extended and pointless argument. WCM_email 13:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"it's [a problem] of editor conduct. One editor doesn't accept what people are saying and instead accuses them of editing in bad faith for nationalist reasons. In the ARCA he presented diffs in a highly misleading manner." This is a personal attack, and as such unwarranted. It's what I would like you to remove. Scolaire (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In the ARCA Imalbornoz stated WCM deletes all mention of the population leaving(!) because “there is no consensus”[2] He prefers that the article doesn't mention that virtually all the population of the city changed in 1704(!!!!!), something any source considers VERY relevant. My removal is in response to his insistence it had no consensus [3]. I also repeatedly state on this very page I don't wish to remove it. He is presenting the diff as if I'd arbitrarily removed text, when in fact it was a direct response to his comment in talk. That is misleading. He also stated But after 8 years my conclusion is that, in this specific case, I don't know whether out of a nationalist POV or personal animosity towards me, he has been a POV pusher. , which is fairly clear accusation of nationalist POV editing. As I said I will happily remove anything untrue or unwarranted but I don't believe that to be the case here. WCM_email 13:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm stopping now. Scolaire (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This RFC is flawed

When I commented above I was responding in good faith to what was proposed as a question. In good faith I assumed that Scolaire was seeking to mediate. Since, the talk page has been edited to given the misleading impression I was commenting on the RFC and the OP is now saying some of the things I said did not address the RFC. No surprise there, since I wasn't commenting on an RFC.

The question he is asking is frankly stupid deeply flawed, no one has suggested that this isn't mentioned. No one is suggesting that a brief sentence is inappropriate. It's based on a flawed ARCA in which one editor presented diffs in a misleading way to claim other editors were excluding it. The truth of the matter is that the sentence was removed because one editor claimed it didn't have consensus. And that is the only reason. WCM_email 13:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A request for comment is not an offer of mediation. I do not have, and never had, the least interest in your bickering with another editor. The RfC question refers to content that is not now in the article, and proposes that it be added. That's all. Scolaire (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And once again you make things worse with a personal comment. May I add emphasis to make the point. The RFC is flawed because no one opposes mention of what happened in 1704. WCM_email 13:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And yet it isn't in the article! And is "the question he is asking is frankly stupid" not a personal comment? As you said above, please let's both stop this now, and let the RfC take its course. Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And it isn't in the article because one editor insisted it didn't have consensus diff [4], removed in response [5]! I apologise if I have offended you but it has to be noted that the question as posed doesn't relate to the facts. The fact remains The RFC is flawed because no one opposes mention of what happened in 1704. WCM_email 13:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm stopping now. Scolaire (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with WCM. The RFC makes no sense. I can't just "support" and I can't just "oppose" because it is not clear to me what either option means. Nobody has proposed or argued for zero text, the debate was over what the text should include. Kahastok talk 18:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Wandered by off a RfC list - me three (or four?). I can't !vote without a concrete proposal (or a few options) - text, sources, etc. I agree it might sound like something that might be worth adding - maybe - depends on sourcing (is the the DAILYMAIL? Or 5 academic books?) and wording. Icewhiz (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (continued)

How about we stop repeating this discussion, and go with the text that had been agreed upon previously, with one dissenter. Restarting this discussion every few days is not concensus building, it is refusal to accept concensus. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Amen to that. WCM_email 07:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of user time wasted already for no reasonable purpose. Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maritime border with Morocco

Out of curiosity, any authoritative source backing up this statement currently in the lead (and if possible explaining it)? It's not like the Strait area is precisely a very settled thing in terms of maritime borders (but precisely because of this?), if the Ceuta's and Gibraltar's territorial waters are admitted (that's one POV), Gibraltar's would not border Morocco's. Not to say that in any case Gibraltar would also share a maritime border with Spain aside from that alleged maritime border with Morocco.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A source with a map (showing no less than the british version of the maritime borders: that is, that Gibraltarian territorial waters border Spanish territorial waters as well as international waters, but no Moroccan territorial waters) for more information: [6]. The statement "It shares a maritime border with Morrocco" [sic] was introduced in the lead by 31.83.127.25 on 14 July 2018, providing no source.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

FWIW my understanding is that the British claim three nautical miles, though would assert a right to claim more. A brief search online shows other sources that accord with the El País article linked, but none that imply a Gibraltar-Morocco maritime border - even if we extend Gibraltar's claim out to 12 nautical miles.

As you note, there are also disputes between Spain and Morocco over their maritime boundary in the Strait.

So I would also be interested in seeing if any sources are available to support this claim. Kahastok talk 18:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Asqueladd, thanks for pointing this out. I searched Google and Google books, and found nothing to support this. On the other hand, one can very easily find many sources and maps showing the territorial waters claimed by Gibraltar, and none of them come anywhere near Morocco's - only Spain's and international waters. It appears to have been nonsense inserted by an anonymous IP editor, so I've removed it. --IamNotU (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Gibraltar"

At the risk of sparking yet another discussion on San Roque:

I disagree with this edit and this revert.

This article is written in British English, yes, but that does not mean that it is solely aimed at British English speakers to the exclusion of others.

The page that the text links to and the tooltips over the letters give an explicit pronunciation system. In that system, /ər/ is the sound at the end of "letter" and /ə/ is the sound at the beginning of "about". You can see that explanation if you hover over the letters. In many English dialects, including British Received Pronunciation, these are identical (or, as near as makes no difference), but in many other places - including most North American, Scottish, Irish and, yes, Westcountry dialects - they are not. We have to respect these differences in our pronunciation guides.

In any case, as a rule, non-rhotic speakers will often leave the syllable-final /r/ off a word even if they are explicitly told that it is required or are speaking another language. If they're being told that it's an English word, as here, they're going to default to their native dialect rules. Kahastok talk 16:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

My preference would be to use the Oxford dictionary pronounciation which is "dʒɪˈbrɔːltə".[7] Perhaps an appropriate compromise would be the Macmillan version "dʒɪˈbrɔːltə(r)" [8] which is inclusive of rhotic speakers. Tammbeck (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of further contributions I will implement the compromise proposal, if there are no objections. Tammbeck (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you'll find it not much of a compromise since {{IPAc-en|dʒ|ɪ|ˈ|b|r|ɔː|l|t|ə(r)}} just comes out as /dʒɪˈbrɔːltər/.

The help page that it links to is fairly explicit that it "is best practice for editors" to mark rhotics in these cases - while yes, acknowledging that in practice if often won't be:

Note that place names are not generally exempted from being transcribed in this abstracted system, so rules such as the above must be applied in order to recover the local pronunciation. Examples include place names in much of England ending ‑ford, which although locally pronounced [‑fəd] are transcribed /‑fərd/. This is best practice for editors. However, readers should be aware that not all editors may have followed this consistently, so for example if /‑fəd/ is encountered for such a place name, it should not be interpreted as a claim that the /r/ would be absent even in a rhotic dialect.

I think this is the best idea. I'm happy for you to put the compromise in - but as I say, it isn't really a compromise since what is shown to the reader doesn't change. Kahastok talk 18:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your input. I have implemented the proposed compromise as discussed. Tammbeck (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Gibraltar is pronounced phonetically. According to "Pronunciation" in the MOS page on writing the lead, pronunciation should only be shown for foreign names whose pronunciations are not well known or very unusual English words. Since neither applies here, I suggest we remove it. TFD (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's useful to be able to compare and contrast the English pronunciation with the Spanish pronunciation. Gibraltar is after all effectively (but not formally) a bilingual territory.Tammbeck (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kahastok and Tammbeck: mind if I take the discussion up again? Why should we use {{IPAc-en}} in a different way from how it is used in thousands of other articles, and differently from what is stated at the help? After all, I am pretty sure non-rhotic speakers would not pronounce that final /r/ anyway, no matter how you represent it. In any case, this is something that you either discuss for the system itself or just don’t, you cannot have a different usage according to case-to-case talks. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 12:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. There's no need for compromise here; the non-optional r should be there, not just because it is everywhere else in Wikipedia, but because it's explicitly mandated by the Manual of Style (MOS:RHOTIC) and makes sense. The R is there for everybody, even though in some dialects it gets elided so that the word sounds the same as if the R were not there. The people who speak those dialects know to do that. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Since no one else replied, I changed the transcription following standard usage. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 11:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Add the position of Spain, as it claims its sovereignty, and that fact affects the present and future of Gibraltar. Add also the neutral position of the United Nations.

Good Morning, As I wrote in the title, I would like to put the Spanish point of view, I find that the page is politicized in favor of the United Kingdom. For example, in the first paragraph it states that Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory, having to go down to the twenty-fourth paragraph to see that the UN included it in its list of Non-Self-Governing Territories pending decolonization. This fact gives more visibility to one point of view than another, omitting that Spain also considers Gibraltar as a colony. By the way, the term colony is omitted in the article, I do not know if it is appropriate, but they are things like these that under my point of view give the article a biased appearance.

Following in the same line, in the third paragraph, it is said that Spain claims Gibraltar, but that 2 referendums were made, rejecting by popular majority joining Spain. But it is omitted that these referendums were not legally recognized either by the UN or by Spain, since it is based on several principles, such as the General Assembly resolutions 2231 (XXI) [43] and 2353 (XXII) and it is given a status of self-government to the Gibraltarians, of which they do not possess, being a colony. They also find the principle of the unity and territoriality of a country, in this case Spain. There is more talk about referendums in the history section, but there is no talk of the lack of legality, "legitimizing" by omission for the casual and uninformed reader, who will read what is written and will think that the referendums were legal.

In addition, I find that the issue of referendums is given too much importance when included in the introduction, instead of that there are facts, such as the recognition of the UN as a colony to Gibraltar, which are much more important, since they condition the referendums that have taken place. and what there may be in the future.

There are more facts about the article that I do not agree with, such as the surface of Gibraltar, saying it is 6.7 km, but there are no mentions to the UN that officially recognizes 5.8, or to Spain, which recognizes 4.8 km, since it does not recognize as English territory the Isthmus, since according to the Hispanic country it was illegally occupied after the Treaty of Utrecht, and there are no mentions to this fact in the article. The article should include the 3 points of view, the English, administrative power, the UN, the most "objective" and without political points of view, and the one of Spain, the claimant power. As it is now I find that only the English vision is given a voice.

There are more things that could be discussed, but I will finish this message here, since with the aforementioned there is debate material, and once that is resolved, we can proceed to discuss the rest. Hombre Gancho (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Hombre Gancho: There's a separate article for that, Status of Gibraltar, where everything you want to add already exists. This article is about Gibraltar, its people etc as it is today, only, not the disputed status of the territory, which is why multiple editors have reverted your edits on this article, and will continue to revert them. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that all parts of the text you wrote, and all parts of your message above, treat pro-Spanish arguments as entirely factual and give them a high prominence in this article.

This is not an article about the status of Gibraltar. It's an article about Gibraltar as a whole. If it were an article on the status of Gibraltar, your proposal that it treat Spain's polemic as neutral fact would still be entirely inappropriate. Kahastok talk 13:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. It does not make sense to mention two referendums in the introduction but do not say that they are not internationally recognized. Or that you have to go down to paragraph 24 to find out what is due (the fact that it is on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territory). Why is referendums more important than Gibraltar's status? Especially when the referendums depend a lot on the status of the region to have recognition. Both are important, but one can not be ignored, since in doing so, referendums are legitimized, when they do not.

If it is an article about Gibraltar as a whole, the term colony should be added in the introduction. Not only does the UN recognize Gibraltar as a colony, the European Union as well. As long as those organizations recognize it that way, referendums will never be recognized. It is a very important fact for it to be omitted, considering that there are claims for its sovereignty.

Kahastok, why do you say my proposal would be inappropriate? I'm just calling things by their name, Gibraltar overseas territory as recognized by the UK, and colony, as recognized by Spain and the UN; and everything that derives, sovereignty, territory, economy ... Hombre Gancho (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Gibraltar isn't a colony, and would have been removed from the UN list many years ago if it hadn't been for very stubborn resistance from Spain. Which means that it's seen as a colony ONLY by Spain, and this isn't "Spainopedia". When Spain hands over Ceuta, Melilla and the islands off the coast to the North African countries that have long claimed those territories as theirs the Spanish claims on Gibraltar might get more support, but as it is no one outside Spain gives a rat's hindquarters about the Spanish claim. Spain ceded Gibraltar to the UK for eternal times long ago, and that's something Spain cannot change without the support of the people who live in Gibraltar, and they do not want to become Spanish. And even the UN recognises that changing sovereignty requires the support of the people who live there. Whether you like it or not. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I think there is adequate discussion of Spain's claims in the article. While sovereignty is important, readers also want to know about the history, natural geography, who lives there, what languages they speak, how it is governed etc. The reason it is not called a colony is that both the UK and UN have replaced that term with British overseas territory and non self governing territory respectively. I agree though that the mention of referenda is one-sided and do not agree that the UN requires the support of the residents of Gibraltar to decide its future. That's a disputed issue. Spanish speaking countries do care about the issue because of other unresolved disputes over Puerto Rico, Guantanamo Bay, the Falklands and parts of Guyana and Belize. But otherwise the decolonization process has been a minor issue in the world for decades. TFD (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec) The United Nations does not call Gibraltar a "colony". And as a rule, it doesn't recognise anything as anything. Nor is the United Nations generally in the business of recognising referendums. Just about every referendum ever held has gone unrecognised by the United Nations.

Even if neither of those points were true, it is worth remembering that the United Nations is not some inherently neutral body. Shoot, the United Nations has fought wars in the past. It has a POV that may or may not be significant in any given situation.

Why would your text be inappropriate? Because as I said, it repeatedly and unquestioningly accepts pro-Spanish talking points as fact and in Wikipedia's voice, giving them vastly undue prominence and treating them as though they were neutral. Instead of a neutral point of view, you propose to use an explicitly pro-Spanish point of view. This is unacceptable. Kahastok talk 19:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The reason I find the reference to the referenda to be appropriate and neutral is that it isn't there to argue that the UK is right and Spain is wrong. It's there to answer the question that any reader upon finding out there's a dispute over who should control a place would ask: What do the people there think? Are there factions, constantly fighting like Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, or do they consider themselves an oppressed people like Estonians under the USSR, or is everything how they want it to be, like in Taiwan? The legal effect of the referenda (and there wasn't any -- nothing changed) isn't the point; it's a poll of the people.

If there is an identifiable international position on Spain's claim to Gibraltar that can be discerned from UN resolutions and succinctly stated, I would support adding that information to the article, summarized by one short sentence in the lead. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Who "the people" actually are is disputed. According to the Gibraltar, the residents who are British citizens are the people while according to Spain the people refers to the people of Spain, of which Gibraltar is part. Gibraltar is on the UN list of non self governing territories because the UK put it there and is committed to resolving the dispute. The UK cannot keep Gibraltar under the UN treaty nor can it provide formal independence under the 1713 treaty. I think that the presentation of the referenda is misleading because it presupposes that the Spanish position is wrong. It may or may not be, but until there is academic consensus one way or the other, we cannot come down on one side. TFD (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W I have reviewed and the UN does not call Gibraltar a colony, but a Non-Self-governing Territory. But it is under its special decolonization committee, whose mission is to examine the situation of the Non-Self-Governing Territories under its supervision and to guarantee the application of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Although it is not directly called colony, being under a process of decolonization, it is recognized as a colony. I attached a page of the UN. https://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml Ceuta, Melilla and the islands of the coast are not colonies, however much they are claimed by Morocco. And this is how they were already part of Spain long before Morocco was created. The mention of Western Sahara would have been more suitable. And I take the question of Western Sahara to make similarities with Gibraltar. Western Sahara is currently pending decolonization, and although the administering power is Spain, it is occupied by Morocco, who allows a referendum of self-determination, but only of the Moroccan colonist population that moved Sahrawi autochthonous people. This, according to the UN and international law, can not be done (only the original inhabitants, that is, the Sahrawis) are entitled. And it is similar to what happens in Gibraltar, but with 300 years in between. I would like you to pass the UN sources that say that the support of the Gibraltarians is required to change their sovereignty. By the way, I have written here, I am not sure if I have to write below what I want to answer or at the end of everything. If this did not belong in this part of the text, apologies.Hombre Gancho (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I could point out that you are incorrect on multiple points but that would be immaterial per WP:NOTFORUM. The purpose of the talk page is not for debate. The UN has never spoken of colonies, these territories were considered dependent territories and were named by states upon joining the UN in 1947. The reason why Gibraltar was listed was the UK chose to do so when it joined the UN in 1947. Spain chose not to list Ceuta and Melila. And that's it, it was down to the choice of individual countries. They are now termed a Non-Self-governing Territory, which of itself is a misnomer as it does not refer to whether territories are self-governing (most of those listed are). To infer this means they are classed by the UN as a colony is simply WP:OR and WP:SYN, since this is not what the very source quoted says - it is a conclusion you have inferred. So I and others object to your proposed edit, it is decidedly POV in nature and not one supported by sources. WCM_email 15:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

To add, the very fact that they are considered by the C24 confirms that the people of Gibraltar are recognised as a people. Were they not, it would be outside of the remit of the C24. WCM_email 15:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it follows that since Gibraltar is listed as a non self governing territory, that means the inhabitants are recognized as a people. That wasn't the case in Hong Kong or Goa. TFD (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Technically it does, territories without a people aren't considered by the C24, e.g. South Georgia. The role of the C24 is to represent the people of dependent territories, something it has consistently failed to do. WCM_email 15:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It refers to ""territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government." But it does not say that those people are actually resident there. But the people of the territory are not necessarily the settler population, as for example in the European colonies in India and China. All of these territories were returned to India and China, not made independent. The Panama Canal Zone is another example. TFD (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I think your inferences go a long way beyond what your sources can sustain. The people of Gibraltar are the people of Gibraltar.

The issue more broadly is that you're assuming that the C24 list is based on logical and consistent system of objectively-judged criteria. That's what was intended - but it couldn't much further from the reality. As with much of the UN's business, inclusion the C24 list is in practice based purely on political considerations, with only lip service paid to the principles it is supposed to uphold.

The most obvious example of this is Western Sahara, which is on the list because it is supposed to have "not yet attained a full measure of self-government" - but formally (and contrary to the incorrect assertion above) has no "administering power" at all. Listen to the C24, and you would assume that Western Sahara is in some kind of anarchy - not governing itself, not governed by anyone else either. There is not even an attempt at even internal consistency here. But the countries on the C24 want it on the list, so it's on the list. Kahastok talk 21:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

According to Spain, Gibraltar "was converted to a military base and the inhabitants were expelled....[It] rejects the notion that the interests of the inhabitants of Gibraltar are paramount because its interpretation of Article 73 of the UN Charter is that the reference to “the inhabitants of these territories” was to “indigenous populations who had their roots in the territory”, and this does not apply to the present inhabitants of Gibraltar." (Peter Gold (2009) Gibraltar at the United Nations: Caught Between a Treaty, the Charter and the “Fundamentalism” of the Special Committee, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 20:4, 697-715)[9]

I don't know what relevance Western Sahara has. The administering state (Spain) has no power to govern it or to dispose of it according to its obligations under the UN. It remains on the list because the UN does not recognize its annexation by Morocco.

I am not saying that you have to recognize Spain's position or that it is necessarily correct or even reasonable. I am just saying that the current reference to the referenda without mentioning Spain's position is a violation of weight: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources...."

TFD (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't get that assertion, what we currently have is a statement of facts. It simply doesn't comment or discredit Spain's position, so I don't get how you have inferred it presupposes that the Spanish position is wrong. WCM_email 09:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The implication was that there was nothing controversial about the referenda and therefore the results were decisive in the determining the legitimacy of the British position. In other cases where there is a question whether referenda were legitimate, we always mention it. For example, the 2014 Crimean status referendum.

Why do you object to including the Spanish position, other than you consider it to be wrong?

TFD (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a separate article about the Spanish claim and the disputed status (Status of Gibraltar, which is already mentioned, and linked to, further up in this discussion...) where that material belongs. This article is about Gibraltar as such, not about the dispute between Spain and the UK. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

In that case, why mention the referenda at all instead of leaving it in the Status article. After all, the referenda would never have been held if no dispute existed. TFD (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no such implication, either that there was nothing controversial or the results were decisive in determing the legitimacy of the British position. It is merely a statement of fact.

Your comparison with the Crimea referendum is specious, there is no suggestion that either referendum was not conducted fairly or democratically.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? WCM_email 16:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The Spanish position is that elgible votes were not allowed to vote while inligible voters were, according to their understanding of who the legitimate inhabitants are. That would be undemocratic, which of course was the accusation made in the Crimean referendum. Again, I am not defending the Spanish position merely stating that per policy it should be mentioned. I have posted a question about this at NPOVN. TFD (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you think putting that in the article would push the POV balance toward the Spanish side.

The argument you're assigning to the Spanish relies on there being a significant living population of 320-year-old townspeople demanding a vote in Gibraltar's elections. Which as a concept is so obviously ridiculous that anyone reading it is going to conclude that the Spanish government is talking out of its hat and dismiss their POV out of hand. Kahastok talk 19:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you please quote the section of policy or guidelines that you are relying on. TFD (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

What I am saying is that you've completely misunderstood this. The Spanish government doesn't make the argument you assign to them. If they tried, it wouldn't persuade anyone. It would just make them look silly.

So, in terms of policy, I would suggest that putting it into the article would break all three of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Because what we would effectively be doing is inventing a straw man and assigning it to one side of a political dispute. Kahastok talk 20:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that was not my interpretation of the Spanish position, I was quoting an article by Peter Gold. Anyway, based on your reply, I probably did not phrase my question well. Could you please quote the section of policy or guidelines that you are relying on. I cannot find anything that says views should be omitted because they are "obviously ridiculous," so perhaps you could tell me where to find it. I feel particularly embarrassed since you have found the rule in three places: NPOV, V and NOR. Maybe my word search is broken. TFD (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the second part of this edit quotes an article by Peter Gold?

Spain does not claim the existence of of a significant population 320-year olds as you argue. Of course they don't. And your quote from Peter Gold above doesn't claim they do. Kahastok talk 21:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

No, that summarized an article by Peter Gold who wrote that according to Spain, Gibraltar "was converted to a military base and the inhabitants were expelled....[It] rejects the notion that the interests of the inhabitants of Gibraltar are paramount because its interpretation of Article 73 of the UN Charter is that the reference to “the inhabitants of these territories” was to “indigenous populations who had their roots in the territory”, and this does not apply to the present inhabitants of Gibraltar." (Peter Gold (2009) Gibraltar at the United Nations: Caught Between a Treaty, the Charter and the “Fundamentalism” of the Special Committee, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 20:4, 697-715)[36] Presumably the allegedly expelled persons had descendants.

I don't know where you get the impression he is referring to 320 year old people. Maybe you could drop him a line.

TFD (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

He isn't. You have essentially synthesised such a claim by arguing:

"The Spanish position is that elgible votes were not allowed to vote while inligible voters were, according to their understanding of who the legitimate inhabitants are."

As I have pointed out on quite a few occasions now, this is not something that Spain argues and it's nothing something that Peter Gold says that Spain argues. It's a claim that you appear to have come up with on your own and assigned to the Spanish government. Kahastok talk 17:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

So your interpretation of the Spanish position is that the residents of Gibraltar are the legitimate inhabitants and that no legitimate inhabitants were ever expelled. Since that sounds a lot like the Gibraltar position, I am confused why there is any dispute at all. Or maybe there isn't and I have misread the sources. TFD (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Now you're inventing positions and assigning them to me. That's not significantly more helpful. Kahastok talk 17:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I find that the paragraph in the lead that mentions the referenda is neutral, because while saying the referenda went against Spain, it also says in the present tense that Spain asserts a claim, so obviously Spain didn't accept the referenda as dispositive.

The details in the history section are another matter. The chronology makes it sound like Spain asserted a claim, the residents voted against it, and that disposed of Spain's claim. (In fact, it talks about Spain closing the border, which is consistent with Spain recognizing Gibraltar as another country). If there are sources saying Spain maintained its claim in spite of the referenda, I think that ought to be mentioned at the proper place in that chronology, to maintain objectivity. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say that that is fairly strongly implied by the fact that Spain closed the border.

Part of the problem though is that there is a lot of nuance here that is not necessarily appropriate to this article. For example, while Franco's régime disputed the existence of British sovereignty in Gibraltar, modern Spain does not. I'm not sure precisely when it changed - possibly in 1975, possibly during EU accession talks in the 1980s, possibly gradually over time - but I am sure it'll be difficult to source a date. And I am also sure that dealing with this sort of detail would be far too much weight for this article. Kahastok talk 17:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

What about noting, "Even before [the 2002 referendum] happened it was dismissed as irrelevant by the British and Spanish governments."[10] It's not particularly excessive to mention the recognition given to referendum results. TFD (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Except after the referendum the British Government changed it's position. I've read the article again, "The chronology makes it sound like Spain asserted a claim, the residents voted against it, and that disposed of Spain's claim." I really don't see how you can infer that from:

“ In the 1950s, Franco renewed Spain's claim to sovereignty over Gibraltar and restricted movement between Gibraltar and Spain. Gibraltarians voted overwhelmingly to remain under British sovereignty in the 1967 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, which led to the passing of the Gibraltar Constitution Order in 1969. In response, Spain completely closed the border with Gibraltar and severed all communication links.[38] The border with Spain was partially reopened in 1982 and fully reopened in 1985 before Spain's accession to the European Community. ”

All I see is a neutral presentation of fact, there is no inference in what is stated. WCM_email 12:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Spain's rejection of the 1967 referendum is conspicuous in its absence because this is a chronology. Histories are expected to lead up to something, and the last thing stated is the result. It reads like in response to conflict in the 1950s, the governments of Spain, UK, and Gibraltar agreed in 1967 to resolve the issue by asking the residents what they want, the residents spoke unambiguously, and that ended it and Franco's claim became history. There must be subtleties of border politics that I don't get if Spain's closing the border in response to the people saying they wanted to remain British clearly shows Spain thought the referendum was meaningless and continues to this day to think Gibraltar should be part of Spain. It would be better to include those facts explicitly so the history doesn't end with "the people have spoken." Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Spain's objection is treated appropriately in the linked article on the sovereignty dispute. And really I don't see how you can make the inferences you have done so, unless with an overly active imagination to create a problem that does not in fact exist. We do not have to turn every article on Gibraltar into a treatise on the sovereignty dispute. I am minded to suggest that the better article to tackle would be the awful article on the sovereignty dispute that is basically three separate commentaries written by editors unable to collaborate. WCM_email 15:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

No one is saying that. The problem is that the sovereignty dispute is a major issue in Gibraltar so we should not ignore that it exists. Mentioning it does not legitimize Spain's position while ignoring it will not make it go away. We should present the topic in the same way as in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

And it is mentioned, with due promininence. It's the 3rd paragraph in the lede for god's sake. WCM_email 08:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The lead says: The territory was ceded to Great Britain in perpetuity under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, and further down says: The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations because Spain asserts a claim to the territory. The first point is a blunt statement of POV fact that does not easily fit with the second broad non-specific point. Somebody reading the lead would conclude that Spain disputes the first statement in its entirety, which is only partly true. If the first point were changed to ...in 1714, the details/interpretation of which are disputed by Spain, and if the two points were placed together, not separated, then the lead would flow better, would be more accurate, and would more closely adhere to what quality references say. The additional mention of the dispute further down in the article would similarly need tweaking. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

There isn't a POV issue at all, they're simple statements of fact. Spain asserts a claim as if Gibraltar is ever "decolonised", it has first dibs according to the Treaty of Utrecht. I really don't see the issue you're raising here. WCM_email 08:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Article X says The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever The sentence in the lead says: The territory was ceded to Great Britain in perpetuity under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. They are not quite the same thing and that is what is disputed, namely what exactly was handed over. By the narrow, and at first reading the correct interpretation of Article X, much of what is now Gibraltar was not ceded to GB. Although there is more to it than that, the Spanish view does have some merit and cannot be dismissed so lightly. The sentence in the lead does just that when it says: The territory was ceded to Great Britain in perpetuity under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 when in fact what was ceded is what is specifically quoted above from Article X. That means that the current sentence in the lead is drawing a conclusion that the territory (current BOT) is the same as the forts, the castle, the town etc in 1713. Maybe they are the same, but without unambiguous reliable sources that claim that the current territory was ceded to GB in 1713 is only a POV. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Spain also claims that the UN charter requires the United Kingdom to cede its sovereignty over Gibraltar, which the UK has agreed to. In fact the UK ceded sovereignty over many territories it acquired through cession, such as Hong Kong, Jamaica, St. Lucia, and Grenada, in order to fulfill its obligations. TFD (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

On the basis that exceptional claims need exceptional sources, I think you need a pretty solid source for your claim that the British agreed to hand Gibraltar over to Spain when they signed the UN Charter. Kahastok talk 17:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of a primary source. WP:PSTS is clear that we can't do that.

Taking the words of Article X, the Spanish emphasise the words "the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging", as you do.

The British emphasise the words "to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever".

The limitations that Spain claims this places on British sovereignty are principally concepts that did not exist in 1713. Back then there were no territorial waters, no exclusive economic zone, no sovereign airspace. Spain argues that because they aren't listed, they aren't included. Britain argues that "all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever" cannot reasonably be taken to exclude rights normally associated with sovereignty - such as the right to territorial waters and airspace.

Plus there is also the isthmus, which is separately disputed: the Spanish argue that the isthmus wasn't included in the original cession, the British argue that they hold sovereignty applies based on prescription, and the Gibraltarians argue that the isthmus was included in the original cession.

All of which is far too much detail for this article, which is not an article on the dispute, but an article on Gibraltar. Kahastok talk 17:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I certainly did not say "the British agreed to hand Gibraltar over to Spain." Why are you misrepresenting me? TFD (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

"Spain also claims that the UN charter requires the United Kingdom to cede its sovereignty over Gibraltar, which the UK has agreed to." Probably because he didn't misrepresent you and you did. WCM_email 07:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem in reading comprehension. It would also be helpful if you were familiar with Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter and reliable sources that discuss it. Is there some sort of website I could go to that explains your understanding of the Charter. TFD (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I too thought "Spain also claims that the UN charter requires the United Kingdom to cede its sovereignty over Gibraltar, which the UK has agreed to." said that the UK agreed to hand Gibraltar over to Spain, but I can see two other possible parsings now, one of which might be how TFT is reading it: 1) Spain also claims that the UN charter, which the UK has agreed to, requires the United Kingdom to cede its sovereignty over Gibraltar; and 2) Spain also claims that the UN charter requires the United Kingdom to cede its sovereignty over Gibraltar and claims that the UK has agreed that it does. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I initially read it as the UK had agreed to hand over Gibraltar. I immediately re-read it because such a statement was so contrary to what I knew, and realised that alternative, and obviously intended, meaning. It took a moment and was put down to a very mild stylistic glitch, no different from a typo. Barely worthy of three seconds of my time. Can we move on? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The UK agrees to UN General Assembly Resolution (XV), the "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" (1960), which includes Gibraltar. That's all I was saying. The UK has never agreed to cede sovereignty to Spain and I have never said that it did. Sorry, I thought that was clear from what I had written. TFD (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware of any point at which the Spanish POV is actually missing from this page. The OP seems to be complaining about Spain's position being down in the 24th para, whilst Gibraltar's actual status (a British Overseas Territory) is mentioned in the first. This is for the very good reason that today, this is what Gibraltar is and is important for people to know about Gibraltar. Spain's continued claims to Gibraltar are mentioned in the 3rd para, which is basically the right place to put them. FOARP (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The main point is that the article says that the people of Gibraltar voted in two referenda to reject union with Spain, implying that the vote was uncontroversial. Then a number of editors seemed to think that mentioning the controversy was somehow endorsing the Spanish position. TFD (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

In what way does it imply that the referendums, which are necessarily a controversy between two options, were uncontroversial? It merely states what their outcome was - retaining the present status of Gibraltar. FOARP (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

That isn't anyone's position at all TFD. You have conjured up some inference that the article implies it was uncontroversial, when the text merely states the facts. The inference simply doesn't exist. Editors consider the suggestion that we need to address this inference of yours completely unnecessary. When the discussion dissolves into misrepresenting what people have said I believe it's come to a natural end, with simply no consensus to change. WCM_email 15:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The controversy related to whether the referendums could legitimately determine the status of Gibraltar. It you don't mention that then the implication is that they could. There was a similar controversy with the 2014 Crimean status referendum. If you were to say that the people of Crimea voted to join Russia, without mentioning that the vote was controversial, then the implication would be that the transfer of Crimea to Russia was legitimate. In other words, it would present a pro-Russian narrative. TFD (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

There's the small difference of Russia invading Crimea and rigging the vote whilst it's troops were still on the streets. Asides from that, yes, the cases are exactly the same .... FOARP (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

In other words you believe this article should imply the referendums were uncontroversial because Spain has no legitimate claim. TFD (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The final paragraph about sovereignty is not balanced. Omission of statements of fact can be just as powerful as inclusion of statements of fact. The view of the people there is an important part of one of the methods to determine sovereignty, but for another method it is not relevant. Both methods carry weight, with the UK preferring one and Spain the other. If the referenda are to be mentioned in the context of sovereignty then I think mention of the alternative view should also be made. The same applies to the comment in paragraph 2 about Utrecht. I think these should be put together in one paragraph at the end of the lead with a small addition of information to give balance. Alternatively, omit any reference to the sovereignty dispute in the lead and deal with it further down in the article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph is balanced, we mention the views of Gibraltarians as expressed through the referendum and we mention that Spain still maintains a claim. Point, counterbalance. That's expressing a NPOV distilled to the basic facts as appropriate for an overview. Now we have editors, for a reason I really can't fathom, arguing that we also have to mention that Spain rejected the referendum. Why? That isn't arguing for expressing a NPOV, it's arguing to give greater credence to the Spanish view and that is not a NPOV. The arguments are spurious for including the Spanish rejection and constantly changing, it doesn't presuppose the Spanish position is wrong, it doesn't state the Spanish claim is illegitimate, the article simply states the view expressed through two referenda and that Spain maintains a claim.

Where do we stop? Do we also mention Spanish hypocrisy over Ceuta, Melila and Olivenza? Do we also mention that since the 1960s the UK and Gibraltar have suggested the Spanish claim is examined and settled in the ICJ (including the dispute over the territory, the isthmus and territorial waters); on each occasion Spain has refused, which some argue is indicative of the lack of confidence in the legal basis for the Spanish claim. No the article is an overview, it should provide an overview and leave details for the article on the dispute. WCM_email 07:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Quite. This is an attempt to "win" the article's lede by scoring more "points" there, and nothing more. There are dozens of things that *could* be mentioned there from either side of the dispute, but this being the lede of the article about the territory, and not even the article about the territorial dispute over the territory, we should stick to the most basic facts - Gibraltar is British-governed, the Gibraltese people approved this status, Spain maintains its claim. Job's a good-'un. FOARP (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The UK's strongest point for maintaining the status quo is the Gibraltarians' right to self-determination argument, which is why the referenda are so important for the UK position. Spain's strongest point, and one that could be held by the UN too, is its interpretation of the territorial integrity argument, which is why the referenda are irrelevant to Spain. Both arguments carry weight. The lead is not balanced because it states what is the current position and gives a reason supporting that UK position and then states there is an alternative claim but does not state what that claim is or give a reason supporting that Spanish position. The Spanish exclaves and the interpretation of what was ceded under the terms of Utrecht are side issues even though, I agree, they are important. Another relevant problem with the lead as it currently reads is that equal importance is being implied to what the Gibraltarians want. They are not equal players and their opinion is only relevant to the UK position, because of the terms of Utrecht: put simply, if they are not part of the UK territory they are part of Spain. So, I think we should not imply that it is 2 v 1, as the lead currently does. Yes, this is the lead to an article about the territory, not the dispute, which is why I suggested earlier removing all reference to the dispute from the lead. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If you were going to put the Spanish claim based on it's interpretation of UNGA 1514's territorial integrity clause, then it would also have to be mentioned that the Spanish position is rejected by most non-Spanish experts in International Law. They would point out the language in clause 6 is written in the future tense, the debates in the UN when the resolution was framed referred to the breaking up of dependent territories (and it would be hard for Spain to argue it was a dependent territory of the UK) and so the position is that UNGA 1514 and the UN charter do not provide redress for historical territorial claims that precede the formation of the UN. Interesting discussion for anyone who has studied the sovereignty dispute but not a great deal of interest for the average wikipedia reader who wants to know generally about Gibraltar.

There are repeated claims of some form of inference you can discern from a plain statement of facts. We are not giving undue prominence to the view of the people of Gibraltar and to suggest their views are subordinate to either the Spanish or British view is not conducive to portraying a NPOV; in fact it's giving greater weight to the Spanish position. I really do not see the problem with the current lede and do not agree with the suggestion of removing it; particularly if this is done on the basis some parties consider the view of Gibraltarians to be subordinate. Wikipedia doesn't and shouldn't take a position on such a view as it is fundamentally at odds with core pillars. WCM_email 13:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger: After looking over (and cleaning up a bit) Status of Gibraltar I see that the Spanish position is actually a number of positions and they would be tough to distill down to a sentence or two. At this point I think I agree with removing references to the details of the disputes from the lead, or stating simply that the UK, residents of Gibraltar, and Spain do not agree about its status or disposition, and link to the full article on the topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger:@The Four Deuces:I agree that the current lede is unbalanced. The Gibraltarians' referendum is relevant to one of the sides of the dispute that asserts that the will of the residents of Gibraltar is the most relevant part. The other side of the dispute (Spain and the UN's Decolonization Committee) asserts that the residents of Gibraltar do not have self-determination (as per "territorial integrity"). Both POVs are very relevant. Therefore, in order to have a balanced lede, we should either (a) mention both the referendum and the fact that "Gibraltar is a 'non self-governing territory' according to the UN's Committee on Decolonization" or (b) just mention that there is a dispute and not mention any of the two facts (which should be explained properly in the body of the article). - Imalbornoz (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I see the "points scoring" mentality very clearly in this "2 v 1" construction, particularly the main ground above seems to be that we have to discount one of "points" simply because it means that one side "wins" (never mind that there are three "teams" under this construction). I would also be fine with not mentioning the territorial dispute at all in the lede if this would mollify other editors - but I very much doubt they would be satisfied with that since any lede will necessarily mention that Gibraltar is British overseas territory and it is ultimately this that they are dissatisfied with. Therefore the best formulation is the one we have. FOARP (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think removing the dispute from the lede is a sustainable position. If we remove it, it'll find its way back in a couple of months' time.

The reality in general is that there are actually three different positions on a lot of the issues in this. You can't act as though the Gibraltar position is the same as the British position, because on several key issues the British and Gibraltar arguments are quite different. By trying to force the Gibraltar position into the British position, you create a false balance that does a disservice to the reader.

In this case, I see little need or benefit in going into vast detail on the arguments around these point in the lede of what is supposed to be an article about all Gibraltar and not just the dispute. But the reality of Gibraltar public opinion is a vital part of the point here, without which the reader will entirely fail to understand the nature of the dispute.

Our current formulation is purely fact-based and does not give the opinions of the two sides. Other proposals get bogged down in irrelevant detail and unnecessary point-scoring. I agree that the best formulation - at least the best option I've seen here - is the one we have. Kahastok talk 21:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of referendums in article body

The lead is fine as it is, but perhaps the body of the article could be improved. I think the explanation of the 2002 referendum in particular is a little confusing. Based on the sources in that section, my understanding of what happened is something like this: Britain and Spain negotiated between themselves a proposal where they would share sovereignty over Gibraltar. Gibraltar held a referendum on the proposal, and the population overwhelmingly rejected it, preferring the status quo. Britain committed to following the wishes of the population of Gibraltar when it came to issues of sovereignty. Maybe that section could be rewritten like this:

In the early 2000s, Spain and Britain attempted to settle the issue with an agreement which would result in the two nations sharing sovereignty over Gibraltar. The government of Gibraltar organized a referendum on the plan, and 99% of the population voted to reject it. The British government committed to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes.

Additionally, the previous paragraph is a little unclear. In response, Spain completely closed the border with Gibraltar and severed all communication links. In response to what? I think we could do a better job of explaining why the Spanish government closed the borders. Something simple could help, like Seeing the referendum and constitution as an obstacle to its claim, Spain responded by completely closing the border with Gibraltar and severing all communications links. Or something along those lines. I don't think this is an issue of reporting each side's position, but rather just explaining the context surrounding these events a little more clearly. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, the sentence is a little stilted and had a grammar error, now corrected. However, your proposal is not quite correct, the agreement hadn't been finalised and according to Peter Hain the Spanish had gotten cold feet about the deal.[11]. Plus the Spanish had insisted on a timetable for a full transfer of sovereignty and would not countenance a referendum by the people of Gibraltar on the matter.

On the second issue you raise I am less convinced, The quoted text is:

“ Gibraltarians voted overwhelmingly to remain under British sovereignty in the 1967 Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, which led to the passing of the Gibraltar Constitution Order in 1969. In response, Spain completely closed the border with Gibraltar and severed all communication links.[38] ”

It seems clear to me that it accurately captures that the Spanish reprisal was a response to the 1967 referendum. WCM_email 18:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps then "In the early 2000s, Britain and Spain were in negotiations over a potential agreement that would see them sharing sovereignty over Gibraltar," or something like that? I do think the order matters. It'd be more clear if we put cause before effect. As for the other referendum, the part that comes right before "in response" is the bit about the passing of the Constitution Order. Either way, I just think it'd be good to briefly explain why the referendum and the constitution offended Spain to the extent that they closed the borders. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I could accept that suggestion. The border closure was a more a "fit of diplomatic pique" as Dodds puts it by Franco. [12] Melissa Jordine, an American lawyer, explains it rather well. Spanish attitudes have always been rather counter productive in respect of their goals. Closing the border being an obvious example, since it created a real barrier to the interaction with local Spain that had always occurred. WCM_email 10:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Arabic spelling of name

I have read the recent dispute in the revision history about including the Arabic spelling of the name Gibraltar in the lead sentence of the article, next to the English and Spanish pronunciation keys, involving User:Splashthewhale020202029, User:Wee Curry Monster, and User:Asqueladd.

While I think Arabic's not being an official language has no bearing on the discussion, I do believe this is not appropriate material for the lead sentence.

It is bad enough that the lead sentence is broken up by pronunciation keys, but that is customary, so I'll accept that. However, there is no custom for putting historical and etymological details there.

Many Wikipedia articles about places have a section devoted to the name of the place - origin, history, and alternatives. I think we should put the Arabic material now in the lead sentence in such a section. The section could go inside the History section, but then would probably have to be written by someone who can add actual history information, such as User:Wee Curry Monster gives in the revision history. I, on the other hand, would be willing to create an independent name section myself.

Thoughts?

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree, at least with the romanized spelling and literal meaning. If I were king, the cumbersome pronunciation keys in all article leads would be in a collapsed form, expandable via link, and maybe in most cases the other-language spellings as well. Eric ^talk 17:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

MOS:FORLANG is actually pretty clear that we shouldn't be including foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology. While I can see where WCM is coming from and I think it's legitimate to be sceptical of an editor whose recent editing history is near-exclusively devoted to removing Arabic names from articles, in this case policy does suggest that it shouldn't be there.

WikiProject Countries gives an outline as to how articles like this should be structured, and if there is an etymology section it goes as a separate section before the history section. Kahastok talk 17:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Eric. Ideally, all these issues are best addressed in a note/collapsed. As I wrote via edit summary, I don't have a strong opinion vis-à-vis keeping the Arabic name in the opening statement, but the edit pattern of Splashthewhale020202029 was clearly disruptive. It may be included (featuring the etymological sense) later in the lead if it were to be expanded with some historical briefing and/or simply as part of an independent 'etymology' section. However, the fact that Arabic is not an official language... I think that's unconsequential.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I was unaware of MOS:FORLANG and had I been I might not have reverted. Nevertheless I think it's important to explain the etymology of the name, if that were in a separate section I would have no objections. WCM_email 17:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Having the Arabic name in the lead depends on whether it has 'close association with' Gibraltar. IMO that is the only determinant. That in turn depends on consensus. Personally, I think foreign names are inserted far too often based on the flimsiest of connection to the place in question. In this case I do not think the connection is strong enough. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Ed Davis is no longer the Governor of Gibraltar.

Ed Davis is no longer the Governor of Gibraltar as he retired early this year.

Nick Pyle is currently the acting Governor until the arrival of Sir David Steel in June. - (124.197.55.28 (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC))

/* Armed Forces */ The reference regarding nuclear subs.

I reckon the reference (142) is both outdated and incorrect.

Neither the link to Hansard nor the link to the wayback machine work. Having found the document in question on the new hansard website, the date is also incorrect. The reference is dated as the 9th of November 1999, but the conversation actually took place on the same date in 1998. The link to the modern hansard is https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1998-11-09/debates/900fbca6-7085-4803-bbc5-ee2ec86698a8/Gibraltar

I don't have the required experience to edit this semi-protected article. I would appreciate someone reviewing and implementing my edit or whatever.

Many thanks, Peter --Ph1729 (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Climate Discrepancies and Poorly Sourced Data

The discussion of average daily temperature in the body of this section does not agree with the table presented directly below. The text states the average overnight low temperature for the month of January is 11 °C (52 °F); however, the table lists the average low for January as 10.8 °C (51.4 °F). The text also gives a daily high temperature of 25 °C (77 °F) and overnight low of 20 °C (68 °F) for the month of August; yet, the table indicates the average daily high and low temperatures for the same month are 28.4 °C (83.1 °F) and 20.8 °C (69.4 °F), respectively. The same source—which summarizes climate data for the period between 1981 to 2010—is cited for both the body text and table data, but agrees with the tabular data only.

However, the aforementioned source of climate data is, in my opinion, unreliable. It is the personal website of an individual with an interest in climate data, but no authority in the subject. She describes herself in the following way (translated from French):

Let me introduce myself, I am Solenn Nadal alias Fantomon, passionate about the weather for a long time (Already at 2 years old I scrutinized the 32 ° C announced in the Camargue in the summer of 1994 in general and I understood. I am also an artist, in particular I love painting in watercolor or still take pictures of landscapes, I have been a vegetarian since my childhood (At 3 years old I discovered what meat was). I was born on April 6, 1992 but I still consider myself as a child, I "love everything childish. I am sprinkling I specify and I have always loved the numbers. You can find quite a few temperatures going back a long time on my site and statistics for meteorology.

Moreover, this website is not the original source of the historic Gibraltar climate data, nor does the author cite the original source. For these reasons, the discussion of Gibraltar's climate should either be eliminated or more reliable data should be sourced. SparkleTaco (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Schengen

There has been some reverting taking place on Gibraltar in the Schengen Area. This was already discussed at Talk:Schengen Agreement, but maybe good to state it here. I think we need to make clear that this is an arrangement not yet in force (as is clear from the Gibraltar statement sourced now), and that we don't know if Gibraltar (or the UK on behalf of Gibraltar) will be a member of Schengen, or whether it is a matter of moving the inner border of Schengen to Gibraltar under Spanish control. We also have no ideas what terms like border fluidity mean. Feel free to discuss here what should be in, but please don't reinstate things here after you have been reverted. Bring it here and discuss. L.tak (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

In this edit, I object to the phrase On 31 January 2020, the UK left the European Union and as such, Gibraltar did also. (emphasis added) because it is ungrammatical.

I object to the phrase but both sides aim to maintain fluidity of movement at the border (emphasis added) because it is not clear what it means. If the intent is to quote an individual, then we should be explicit that we are quoting an individual. We shouldn't write text in Wikipedia's voice that we don't understand.

I would advise User:DealOrNo that the edits made by User:John Maynard Friedman today are not vandalism, and that edit summaries implying that they are (such as "rvv") are inappropriate. Kahastok talk 17:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• The Arms of The University of Gibraltar.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2021

Along side the mention of the Gibraltar Chronicle, the two main monthly print magazines should also be referenced: Gibraltar Insight and the Gibraltar Magazine. 2A02:C7E:FA1:CD00:11DC:6980:AF91:7BD4 (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Not done, neither have their own wikipedia article, so unable to judge on their notability. Gibraltar Chronicle enabled me to verify for this publication. WCM_email 11:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021

is a disputed territory, considered a British Overseas Territory by the United Kingdom and a Non-Self-Governing Territory in process of decolonization by Spain and United Nations.

Gibraltar is a British overseas territory .Josh13211111 (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The change proposed is effectively to reverse this, a change made today that is being pushed without consensus.

This is certainly a good idea. The edit in question takes the article's POV far beyond even what the Spanish government is willing to claim. Notably, for example, it falsely claims that Spain currently claims sovereignty over Gibraltar. The Spanish government source that the editor relies upon actually says that Gibraltar is a territory under British sovereignty whose foreign relations are conducted by the United Kingdom., and only makes a sovereignty claim over the isthmus, which is what we we describe. It also ascribes pro-Spanish positions to the UN that go far beyond what a neutral analysis would allow.

The same editor is attempting to make similar edits to Status of Gibraltar. Kahastok talk 22:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Spain claims the sovereignty of Gibraltar by considering it illegal, a colony. The UN considers Gibraltar a Non-self-governing territory in the process of decolonization. The sources are quite clear, and the dispute between Spain and the United Kingdom for Gibraltar is more than evident.

I understand that you are British and it is difficult for you not to be biased, but it is the reality. Gibraltar is one of the seventeen territories in the world that is considered a Non-self-governing territory by the UN. Venezia Friulano (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Gibraltar sovereignty

Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory 84.71.48.141 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I am a Gibraltarian we have a unique culture and love our land and it makes me sad to see people like you make us seem like we don’t have a land to call home Spain is in discussions with the UK and Gibraltar over a Brexit deal which Means Spain except Gibraltar‘s existence i’m sorry if you don’t understand it’s like where you come from being said it’s not a true place it would make you sad and I’m not being biased I’m just going off what my government says we’ve had two votes on it and voted to stay British 84.71.48.141 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon.

Lassa Oppenheim (30-03-1858 – 07-10-1919), an authority on international law

Edit war over British/Spanish points of view

This discussion is about how best to give WP:DUE recognition to Spain's interest. British sovereignty over Gibraltar de jure and de facto is taken as read and is not being debated.

I think it's time to stop the edit war and discussion via edit summary, so I am starting this section. It's not like we haven't been here before, but I guess every new challenge to the status quo deserves a hearing.

I'm also reverting the recent batch of changes emphasizing Spanish claim to Gibraltar and asserting a UN view on the matter because I believe the reliable sources, as understood by a consensus of editors, don't support them.

Ordinarily, I would try to preserve parts of the edit I think could be an improvement, but in this case I have a feeling that the time I spent editing would be lost in the middle of an edit war.

I don't believe there is any serious enough dispute over UK's sovereignty over Gibraltar to include it in the lead paragraph or short description.

I don't believe inclusion on the UN's list of non-self-governing territories means the UN believes Gibraltar is in the process of decolonization or that it should not be a British Overseas Territory, but if I missed that in the sources, someone please direct me to it.

I'd support some of the details about why Spain or the UN don't recognize the results of the sovereignty referenda in Disputed status of Gibraltar, but is too much detail for this article, and definitely too much for the lead. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

We need a neutral description of the status. Spain ceded Gibraltar to Great Britain. The UK listed Gibraltar as a non-self-govnerning territory that had self-determination and therefore should be part of the de-colonization process. However, Spain and the UK disagreed over who the population was. Spain saw the population as Spanish people who were expropriated by Britain while the UK saw it as the people living there. That's why referenda were disputed. No resolution on the matter has ever been made. There have been similar disputes over referenda in the Falklands, the Sudetenland, Crimea, Hawaii and Alasks. TFD (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The current status of the article almost completely ignores the status of Gibraltar for Spain and for the UN. Anyone reading the article will think that Gibraltar is a completely normal territory, when it is not. I am not Spanish, nor do I have any personal interest in Gibraltar, but the status of the article is not neutral or complete, it is completely the British view of Gibraltar. Venezia Friulano (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

And the UN defines Gibraltar as a "non-autonomous territory that must be subjected to a process of decolonization". The UN doesnt recognize these referendums, they have no international validity, and that is completely omitted here.

My proposal is:

>Add that for Spain and the UN it is considered a "non-autonomous territory that must be subjected to a process of decolonization"

>Spain claims the sovereignty of Gibraltar

>Neither Spain nor the United Nations recognize the legal validity of the referendums in Gibraltar. Venezia Friulano (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The Spanish government source that Venezia Friulano cited actually lays this out quite clearly. If you read it, you will find that it does not anywhere claim, suggest, imply or otherwise indicate that Spain currently disputes the existence of British sovereignty in Gibraltar. On the contrary, it actually says explicitly that Gibraltar is under British sovereignty.

This is not some private organisation trying to explain a difficult situation and being clumsy. This is the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, directly discussing the dispute. Bluntly, if Spain were ever to go to an international court and suggest that they had always claimed Gibraltar, the British would be able to point to this document and refute that claim. If Spain did in fact claim Gibraltar in its entirety, publishing such a document would be a catastrophic blunder - possibly even terminal to Spain's chances of getting any international tribunal to accept that view. All I suggest is that we should believe it and not trying to second guess it with, effectively, yeah but what they really meant was....

Venezia Friulano's interpretation of the modern UN position is also inaccurate. The UN does not actually back Spain as Venezia Friulano argues. Venezia Friulano's edit presents only a Spanish POV of what the UN says, which is not the NPOV. I would note in this context that the Special Committee does not speak for the United Nations as a whole, and that the only body with the right to make decisions that are binding on states is the United Nations Security Council. I would also add that the UN is not, as a rule, in the business of recognising referendums and so the fact that it didn't recognise a particular referendum does not mean anything in particular.

I would add that The Four Deuces is mistaken in saying Spain and the UK disagreed over who the population was. Spain argues that there is no population at all who has the right to determine the future of Gibraltar, because they argue that the principle of self-determination does not apply. Kahastok talk 17:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

A few points:

• The status quo article definitely says it's not a normal undisputed territory. The lead says, "The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations, as Spain asserts a claim to the territory." That's pretty clear.
• The reference to the referenda is not an argument, it's an answer to the burning question any reader will have: What do the people who live there think? Are they oppressed people? Are they occupiers? Since it comes right after a statement that Spain asserts a claim, no reader could think these referenda were accepted by all parties and settled the dispute. The referenda are also mentioned in the History section, but only as events that led to the events described next; there's no need to talk about their relevance to the sovereignty issue there.
• It looks to me like the bare fact that Gibraltar is on the UN decolonization list does belong in the lead. Some detail on that is in the Governance section.
• I think the Special Committee does speak for the UN on matters within its purview. That's what committees do. Nothing as formal as a resolution, of course, but still worthy of the wording, "The UN says ...". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Special Committee, then you're referring to the Special Committee, not the UN as a whole. The only ways the UN as a whole speaks are through the resolutions of the General Assembly or Security Council, and only the Security Council can make decisions that are binding on anyone other than the UN itself. By claiming Special Committee opinions as the authoritative voice of the UN you imply far greater significance than actually exists.

There are eleven British Overseas Territories that are on the NSGT list, and not a single one of them has that status listed in the lede of their Wikipedia article. This is not an article on the dispute. Status of Gibraltar does mention the NSGT list in its lede. But this is an article on Gibraltar, and NSGT status is no more significant to Gibraltar as a whole than it is to any of the other ten BOTs on the list. Kahastok talk 11:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Being under the sovereignty of the UK (or more specifically the sovereign), can mean that it is under its control which is not in question. The SNP for example does not claim that the UK government does not exercise control of Scotland, but that they should not do so.

The territorial dispute is a significant fact about Gibraltar but not about any other UK territory other than the Falklands. Hence the entry Encyclopedia Britannica says in the lead paragraph Gibraltar, "The sovereignty of the territory has remained a source of constant friction between the United Kingdom and Spain, though residents voted in 1967 to remain part of Britain. Spain lifted its border blockade in the mid-1980s. Formal talks that began between the governments of Britain, Spain, and Gibraltar in 2004 helped to further ease tensions."

Spain of course adheres to the principle of self-determination. Their argument is that Spain has self determination and should have control over all their territory including Gibraltar. They do not recognize Gibraltans as having self-determination, except as British citizens, who have the right to self-determination of the UK.

While i realize you dismiss the Spanish claim, it has a bearing on relations between Gibraltar and Spain.

TFD (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

And between the UK and Spain. Btw, you can add Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus to the list of disputed Crown Colonies.

I found TFD's argument quite convincing and, for me, it made clear that the dispute here is about semantics rather than a fundamental principle of international law: I don't believe anyone disputes that. So we need to find a different word than sovereignty to express what the dispute is about, and we need to do that before requesting an RFC. I admit to being stumped as all the other terms I've come across are a lot more belligerent than is the case here (or in Cyprus). Anyone else? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Would it help to split the #Governance section so as to introduce a subsection like Akrotiri and Dhekelia#Dispute and controversies? Because I really cannot see how we can find an alternative word than 'sovereignty' since that word itself appears to defy definition (xref the quote box above). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If someone can suggest a neutral wording for the lead that mentions the dispute then we can have an RfC that draws in uninvolved editors. TFD (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The NSGT listing was not triggered by the dispute and is not related to the dispute. There is no reason why the dispute should mean that it should be listed at the top of a general article on Gibraltar.

I quote the Spanish government source again: the principle of self-determination is not applicable but rather that of restitution of the Spanish territorial integrity. Spain explicitly, directly and unambiguously argues that the principle of self-determination does not apply in this case at all. It is not possible to reconcile this with your claim that "Spain of course adheres to the principle of self-determination". No, it doesn't.

Whether Spain is right or wrong to argue that self-determination does not apply is not for us to say. The fact is, they do argue that self-determination does not apply.

I note that you seem to fail to draw any distinction between the statements, Spain believes it should have sovereignty and Spain believes it already has sovereignty. Spain clearly does believe it should have sovereignty over Gibraltar. That is why Gibraltar sovereignty is a source of friction in Anglo-Spanish relations as per your Britannica quote. But it does not therefore follow that it believes it already has legal sovereignty.

And to be clear, the Spanish government source says this, directly, explicitly and unambiguously. If the Spanish government puts their position, we should not be in the business of turning around and saying, ah, but they really mean the opposite. Kahastok talk 15:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

unproductive off-topic diversionary discussion concluded
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I peaked at the infobox. It has Elizabeth II (i.e. British monarch) listed, not Philip VI (i.e. Spanish monarch) listed. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC) The article infobox reflects the fact that nobody anywhere [with any credibility] is disputing that the UK has de facto and de jure sovereignty over Gibraltar. What this debate is about is how best to express the Spanish position that this should not be the case. The Four Deuces (above) drew a very illuminating parallel with the SNP's position that Westminster should not have sovereignty over Scotland. It is not the reality that is being disputed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC) TBH, I don't think the Spanish position needs mentioning at all. As for the SNP? whether they like it or not, Scotland is still within the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC) Spain argues that the Gibraltans (i.e., people currently resident there) are are not the people of Gibraltar and hence have no right to self determination. The people of Gibraltar relocated to San Roque, Spain. It's not entirely accurate to say that they are arguing territorial integrity over self-determination. They also argue that since the UK is obligated to de-colonize Spain that under the original treaty it would revert to Spain. GoodDay, try not to go off on a tangent about the SNP. I used it as an example of the distinction between recognizing sovereignty and agreeing with sovereignty. The SNP recognizes UK sovereignty but disagrees with it. Your statement that whether or not they agree with it, the UK has currently has sovereignty is therefore trolling, since no one made that claim. You know that the editors here are likely to have strong feelings about Scottish independence and want to widen the argument beyond the scope of the article. TFD (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC) I wasn't trolling. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC) Why did you write, "As for the SNP? whether they like it or not, Scotland is still within the United Kingdom," [16:27, 4 December 2021] when no one questioned whether or not they were in the UK? Even if you are not intentionally trolling, such comments can drive the discussion off course. It must be obvious to you that editors who have strong feelings about whether Gibraltar should remain under British sovereignty would have strong feelings about whether Scotland should remain under British sovereignty. TFD (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC) Get back to the main topic, please. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC) Take a look in the mirror. The main topic is how best to reflect Spain's interest in a way that is accurate and wp:DUE. Your contributions to this discussion have been (a) to reassert British sovereignty, which was not in debate; (b) to attack a different perspective, a way of looking at the problem that I for one found very helpful, with another pointless assertion of sovereignty. You declare your opinion that the topic has nothing to do with Spain, that their interest is as irrelevant as, say, Vietnam's which is nonsense. [Try a thought experiment: suppose France had possession of the Pendennis peninsula and castle near Falmouth. Do you seriously consider that England would have no valid interests?]. You have been around here long enough to know that Wikipedia does not work on high-horse assertions like yours, aka trolling. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC) As I mentioned above, please get back to the topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I recommend that we give very little to no mention of Spain's claims on Gibraltar. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The dispute is about the basis of the Spanish claim, not sovereignty directly. Surely all we need to do is arrange the wording accordingly. That dispute is relevant enough, IMO, for a subsection on it and a sentence in the lead, but no more. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I suggested above something like Akrotiri and Dhekelia#Dispute and controversies, which reads about the right amount to me. The problem of course is to write a dispassionate account. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

IMHO we don't to do anything with the article as currently written as it already gives due recognition of Spanish claims to the territory. I would also respectfully suggest the title of this thread is rather incorrect. We aren't seeing an edit war over contrary points of view, we are seeing edit warring to dramatically tilt the POV toward an extreme nationalist viewpoint. The article is already neutral and complete and every time I see an edit warrior complaining loudly about censorship I am reminded of the editor Antandrus' observations on Wikipedia behavior. Kahastok is correct, Spain doesn't dispute who the rightful population for the purposes is, it simply claims they don't have the right to self-determination but notably has always refused the suggestion to test that claim in the International Court of Justice. So I would respectfully suggest leave well enough alone. WCM_email 12:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I sympathise broadly but right now the article has a bit of an 'elephant in the room that everyone pretends is not there' feel to it. The lead has The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations, as Spain asserts a claim to the territory. but there is no explicit matching body content other than a reference in the Contemporary history section. I suppose what I'm looking for is a succinct summary of Status of Gibraltar that someone could find quickly and easily should there be an International Incident. (Oh wait, there is a 'full and frank exchange of views' going on there as well. Sigh.)

Maybe it would be best just to kick this question into the long grass at least until the Schengen access 'arrangement' (whatever it is) gets resolved. Given the frosty state of relations between the UK and EU at present, that won't be this week or next. Personally, I don't see value in pursuing this debate further right now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I have written such a summary in the past, it was neutral, it was accurate but it's not in the article. It's not in the article because when it was added certain editors felt the need to ensure their own nationalist viewpoints were represented. And so the section grew out of all proportion to dominate the article. Nationalism in all it's forms is a pox on wikipedia. WCM_email 14:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2021

Gibraltar is also a swear word meaning bozzer. Eg You are a bozzer.{ 92.28.73.100 (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: not relevant to this page. --Hemanthah (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Capture: British or English

At the time (1704) of the capture, the Kingdom of Great Britain did not exist. Yet. The Acts of Union 1707 were three years later. So surely "English capture" is the correct term to use in the infobox? Which (erroneous ) RSs say "British"? Do any say "English"?

[In an edit note, Wee Curry Monster says that this point has previously been debated, see archives. Sorry but I can't find it? ] 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Gibraltar was not captured by the English. Gibraltar was captured by the forces of the Grand Alliance in the name of Archduke Charles of Austria (who was styling himself as Charles III of Spain). The intention was that Gibraltar would be a beachhead for a wider invasion of Andalusia, but events - including the conduct of the Allied forces during the capture - meant that the wider invasion did not materialise.

The shift from Alliance control to British control was a gradual one, and I'm not sure how meaningful it is to suggest that there was a period of English control.

The trouble is that sources on Gibraltar tend to gloss over all this because it's a touch complicated and not relevant to the point they want to make. Kahastok talk 18:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. So what is basis for the extraordinarily precise date for "British" capture? (I confess to not finding the lessons on the War of the Spanish Succession to have been the highlight of my school days so feel free to tell me like I'm five.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Surely the most relevant date for British control is the Treaty of Utrecht? (1715, so Kingdom of Great Britain.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

For background, the War of the Spanish Succession is so named because it was broadly over whether the King of Spain would be Philip (Bourbon) or Charles (Habsburg). Philip was in control in Madrid, backed by France. Charles was an Archduke of Austria, backed by the Alliance. The Alliance's objection to Philip was that he was also third in line to the French throne, and if he were to take both it would upset the balance of power. It ended with a compromise, with Philip as King of Spain, but renouncing his place in the French line of succession.

August 1704 is significant because it is the date of the military action that caused Gibraltar to be separated from the rest of Spain. Had the War of the Spanish Succession gone differently, maybe Charles would have ended up on the Spanish throne and Gibraltar would now be a Spanish town. But it didn't, he didn't, and it isn't.

As the war drew on after that, it became clear that it wasn't going to end with that kind of Alliance victory, and the governments on both sides started looking to negotiate an honourable resolution. But the Alliance still held this strategic peninsula, practically the only piece of the Spanish mainland they'd managed to keep hold of, and the British were keen to keep it. As time went on, the governance of Gibraltar increasingly fell to the British. For example, Queen Anne started appointing governors instead of Archduke Charles.

The Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 (which is the correct date) essentially formalised what had become the status quo. It's an important date in its own right. But so is the capture. Kahastok talk 20:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a topic that has come up before but having just done an archive search the precise phrase doesn't turn up. I guess I may be getting mixed up with the Capture of Gibraltar article. Kahastok has provided an excellent summary of the events and subsequent history. My own comment is that I've nearly been entirely happy with it, since Gibraltar wasn't captured by the "British" or "English" but a multinational force containing RN Marines, Dutch soldiers and Catalan supporters of the Hapsburg cause. However, this being wikipedia and sources do call it a "British" capture we've tended to go along with that. My personal preference would be to change it to something like Capture by the Grand Alliance. British isn't 100% accurate but supported by sources, English is less accurate. I'll await other suggestions for improvement. WCM_email 07:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with "British Capture" being given as a precise event when it was really a fuzzy transition. I know we have to report facts as the sources do, but we don't have to report approximations and summaries in the style of the sources, and there are of course plenty of sources that say the capture in 1704 was not British.

Here is an idea: The first two milestones in the history of this British entity are given as "Capture by British" and "Cession from Spain". To eliminate the accuracy problem, we could instead say, "Capture from Spain" and "Cession to Great Britain"

By the way, I found the phrase "before capture by the British" in the Flora and Fauna section too. No precise moment is needed there, and I would suggest "before British involvement". Or "control". 19:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I like that "capture from/cession to" formula. Flora/fauna: ditto "control". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC).

I'm cool with that suggestion, it seems a reasonable summary and avoids the issue. @Kahastok: what do you think? WCM_email 07:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If we were living in 1704, I'd suggest "Capture from Spain" would be POV because the Alliance claimed that they represented the true King of Spain, Charles III. But I don't see that as a huge problem in 2023, it's more accurate than "British capture", and I don't think the infobox is the place to go into masses of detail on early 18th century history. So I'd be happy to go with this. Kahastok talk 22:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Worker nationality statistics

I have just removed the following paragraph:

A majority of Gibraltar's workers are foreign: Private sector workers are mainly Spanish (37%), Gibraltarians (26%) and other British (21%); the public sector, on the other hand, employs mainly Gibraltarians (76%) and other British (14%). Nearly half (44%) of the total employment is covered by frontier workers (employees who are normally resident in Spain but are employed in Gibraltar).

First, it is not clear where these numbers come from. Which table is it? What caveats are needed? Each of these tables have important caveats. For example, it seems to be mostly counting "employee jobs" - does that mean that it doesn't count people who are self-employed? Also, they note 2,009 out of the 2,902 known employers completing the questionnaire in respect of their employees and 889 registering a nil return. There's nothing here to suggest that the filled-in returns are representative of the missing returns. And, if you add 2009 and 889, you don't get 2902 - there are four missing.

Second, looking at Table 1.1 of the source, my immediate conclusion is that the first claim is not clearly true. There were 30,403 employee jobs in Gibraltar, of which 11,240 were filled by "Gibraltarians" and 5,813 by "Other British". That's 56% of the workforce between these two groups. It is not clear that non-Gibraltarian British people should be considered "foreign" in this context. The document does not use the word "foreign" at all, and per as it is a primary source we should not interpret it per WP:PSTS.

The document also contains the footnote attached to the "Gibraltarians" and "Other British" categories:

This nationality split presents problems of accuracy. Some employers classify all their British employees, including Gibraltarians, under the Other British category and since no personal details are provided it is not possible to differentiate between the two categories. This would result in an understatement of the Gibraltarians in employment.

So even if we do count the "Other British" people as "foreign", it is not clear that Gibraltarians are not in the majority.

In brief, this paragraph is OR interpretation of a primary source per WP:PSTS and should not be included without a secondary source to back up the interpretation. Kahastok talk 17:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like your primary objection is to the conclusion from this data that a majority of workers are foreign, and a secondary objection is that the numbers are questionable because of the study methodology. But it looks like there's some good information here, even if it is not perfect. With respect to the selection bias problem: What suggests (but doesn't prove) that the respondents to the poll are representative of the non-respondents is common sense and the fact that nothing suggests a correlation between responding to the survey and hiring foreigners.

Would having these poll results in the article be acceptable if the introduction merely says "Many of Gibraltar's workers are not permanent residents of Gibraltar" and then explains the two reasons you noted to consider the numbers approximate? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Nationality is different from residency. There's no reason to assume that a person cannot be a Spanish or Other British resident of Gibraltar.

You say, With respect to the selection bias problem: What suggests (but doesn't prove) that the respondents to the poll are representative of the non-respondents is common sense and the fact that nothing suggests a correlation between responding to the survey and hiring foreigners., that's your interpretation, not backed up by any reliable source. We are not allowed to interpret primary sources like this.

Any conclusion we draw from this source - which means almost anything other than giving the numbers from the source or repeating the interpretations in the survey summary - needs to be backed by a secondary source. We can't take a number from one table and compare it to another number from a different table. We certainly can't impose our own definition of the word "foreign" or assume that "Gibraltarian" means "permanent residents of Gibraltar". We probably can't even accept the implications of the word "many".

I get that this looks like good information, but if reliable sources don't think it's useful enough to comment on then we can't use it. Kahastok talk 18:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

After taking a look at the notes in the initial table, I understand your doubts regarding the difference between Gibraltarian and Other British. On the other hand, it seems that this source is used all over the article, in most cases without any additional reference from secondary sources. This is standard when dealing with public statistics, even in big countries like the UK (who have wide coverage in secondary sources); it is even more understandable in the case of Gibraltar, whose economy is too small to be covered by many secondary sources.

The statistics of the government of Gibraltar on employment, nationality, etc. are considered trustworthy and used in many secondary sources, although not massively or in every possible detail (due to the size of the territory).

If you considered the source not enough for citations, in order to be consistent, you would have to delete all the information based on government statistics (not only the info about nationality of workers).

Therefore, I propose to use those stats as a source, although, as you say, being careful not to jump into conclusions or to use the data which the source says there have been some methodological problems. - Imalbornoz (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gibraltar Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2023

In the section International relations change

  Since BREXIT, it is not part of the European Union, but is a participant in the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. 

To

  Since Brexit, it is not part of the European Union, but is a participant in the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

Brexit shouldn't be stylized with majuscules. Tutature (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Charles III is not Gibraltar king

The title King of Gibraltar is on Spanish King Felipe VI 81.40.173.9 (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Effect of city status

There are some issues concerning the effect of the recent discovery that Gibraltar is a city on this article. There have been edits about this by User:Encyloedit, User:Anvib, User:Chrism, User:MaineCrab, User:Moondragon21, User:Asbtrl361442, and me.

Is the city considered contained by the British Overseas Territory, or is it a status accorded to the British Overseas Territory itself?

Has there been a town of Gibraltar recognized within the BOT before now?

Is the BOT now named City of Gibraltar?

I'm assuming that in any case, the BOT and city are coterminus (contain exactly the same territory). Otherwise, the issue is pretty trivial.

Judging from the published official list of cities, I would say City of Gibraltar is a city within a British Overseas Territory named Gibraltar. And that the BOT status of the region is more significant than the city status, making that the primary topic of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giraffedata (talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2023

Change Monarch of Gibraltar, Charles III was coronated as king of England, but the Title of King(Monarch) is on Spanish King Felipe VI on the Wikipedia page you can even see it. I request inmediate change due to Charles III not having the official title "King of Gibraltar" 81.40.173.9 (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The King of Spain is not the "King of Gibraltar" (there is no such title); Gibraltar is a territory of the UK (albeit disputed by Spain) whose head is King Charles III. The article explains this in more detail. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2023: Britain -> Great Britain

Change "Britain" to "Great Britain" 82.14.214.59 (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This request really should just have been rejected as incorrect. Editors are supposed to establish consensus before requesting an edit if the matter is controversial, but there's no controversy over the meaning of Great Britain, is there? This just looks like a mistake. Great Britain is an island and a former country, and the uses of "Britain" in this article are not references to either of those. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2023

editing required. 27.147.202.191 (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tollens (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Citizenship

The article doesn't say anything about citizenship? A note in the healthcare section refers to "local citizens and British citizens", that's it. Can Gibraltarians relocate and settle in the UK without question? Would someone rectify, please? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Added a new section, with no citations, copied from British passport (Gibraltar). Improve at will. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)