Jump to content

Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

RfC: Ownership Issues & NPOV on Gibraltar

There are some very clear ownership issues on this article. Any attempt to improve the article, to expand coverage to deal with some obvious NPOV issues, or introduce relevant material is resisted by several editors. Arguments are inconsistently applied, material that is tangential on one subject must be included but other material that is relevant is reverted with the claim it is tangential. Talk page discussion is fruitless as there is no attempt to achieve a consensus, rather discussions on consensus are a stalling tactic to deter editors from attempting to improve the article. Outside opinion is discouraged by flooding the talk page with tendentious arguments and there is some serious misrepresentation of sources. Tag team edit warring has been used to impose content that clearly did not have consensus, there is also a very unhealthy attitude where consensus is decided by straw poll among a group of editors who always agree with one another. Justin talk 12:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin has so far failed to convince anyone, apart from himself, to support the changes in the previous section. New opinions would indeed be welcome, perhaps in the previous section where the proposed changes are laid out. My comments in the previous section are about as brief as I can manage, but I suppose we could always reiterate a few of the main points with references. The issues are discussed at some length on this page, but related argument fills most of the previous 18 archived talk pages.
Additionally it might be appropriate to review Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar in relation to the recent activity on this page, starting at Parallels above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes I was topic banned for uncivil conduct, I have returned and done my level best to edit in a civil manner. I also apologised to everyone involved unreservedly. I served my topic ban. There was also a great deal of taunting and uncivil behaviour that arbcom chose to ignore, there were also mitigating circumstances which Richard chose not to mention. The purpose in raising the arbcom case is not to help anyone considering to offer a comment but rather to deter it. Continually referring to past conduct, when I have done nothing to repeat past mistakes is of itself uncivil. Please note I have been labelled "prejudiced" already in discussion, each and every edit I have done has been reverted, even where an editor claimed he agreed with it. Justin talk 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:WQA#Richard Keatinge, wikiquette alert filed regarding the above comment by Richard. Justin talk 20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you really think this is helpful Richard? Yes, Justin was topic-banned. But given as he is not repeating the conduct that led to the topic ban, this is not an issue. Whether you like them or not, Justin is entitled to his views and is entitled to express them. He is not the problem here: right now appear he is being dismissed based on the fact that it's him making the argument, not on the merit of his arguments - and his arguments do have merit.
We've got to the absurd point where it is demonstrated that a user is misrepresenting his sources to an alarming degree and you don't seem to care. But Justin is subjected to personal attacks and his views are dismissed for the sole reason that he is Justin. Nobody was entirely innocent in the Arbcom. Just because they topic banned Justin and not you and Imal, it doesn't mean that you two were perfection personified. Time for everyone to move on from the Arbcom and discuss this in a constructive manner. Pfainuk talk 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, who is misrepresenting their sources? I see Justin doing it - the "fear of revenge attacks" for example seems to be pure synthesis - and he is also producing walls of ill-constructed text of limited relevance to his edits. His incivility has been muted, it's true. But his arguments do not appear to be any more useful than they ever have been, indeed they have changed very little. To the extent that I can understand what his proposals are, I have extracted them from his bold recent edits and arranged them above. I would be extremely happy to see some reasoned comment upon them, or indeed any further comprehensible proposals. Maybe the RfC will help? Failing that I can only think that Justin's suggestion of arbitration enforcement may be the best way of moving on. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Except once again I made no such claim, more to the point I have clarified my comments already above to ensure there is no misundertanding. Yet the same misinformation is being repeated and anything I proposed vetoed. My "incivility" has been non-existent, Richard, non-existent. Justin talk 23:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Have you not read the above then? According to Imalbornoz this calls refers to as Gibraltar "British colony, Europe". It doesn't. A search for those words on that page does not come up with anything at all. The word "colony" is only used in reference to the situation in 1830. Imalbornoz's representation of the source is totally inaccurate. And there are others - practically that entire table is at best selectively quoted in order to give an impression that accords with Imalbornoz's POV. We can't have consensus unless everyone is prepared to assume that everyone else is here to improve the encyclopædia, and this is impossible if editors are selectively quoting sources in order to try and push a position.
But regardless of that, you're trying to drag up old dirt. If you've seen the arguments before, then that does not mean that the topic ban is relevant. The topic ban was put in place because for behavioural reasons, reasons that do not exist right now. Trying to discredit his arguments based on a topic ban that has nothing to do with them is a case of commenting on the editor, not the argument - and is distinctly unhelpful.
I note, finally, that I cannot find where the words "fear of revenge attacks" features in the above, and thus would suggest that Justin is being misquoted. Pfainuk talk 07:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(His words were "fear of revenge following the murders") Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, if you look at the History of the article in the Britannica (in the upper left corner) you will see that the term "colony" was changed to "BOT" (not "self-governing BOT", mind you) on December 8, 2009. As I said (and Justin and you must know, as we were involved in a very heated discussion about the "self-governing" expression), I created and posted this table for the first time in August 2009.[2] I'm sorry I didn't check since then.
In any case, to accuse me of "misrepresenting" sounds a bit overreacting. You can check that for many sources I've written the term "British Overseas Territory" in the table, so it would not be consistent for me to just "misrepresent" the Britannica. In fact, I'm not proposing to call it a colony, but a "British Overseas Territory" (without "self-governing"), so the current version of Britannica would only support my proposal.
Overall, I hope that you've been able to check that NO SOURCE WHATSOEVER CALLS GIBRALTAR "A SELF-GOVERNING BOT" without exceptions or qualifiers.
Finally, about "the fear of revenge" theory, it was you in fact who first proposed it one year ago, saying that it was fully sourced.[3] Poor Justin seems to have just trusted you as a source. Talk about "misrepresentation"... You[4] and Justin [5]have kept proposing this theory in this same page again and again. It's pretty weird that you can't find those words and suggest that Justin is misquoted. Cheers. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Dragging up the past again? Perhaps you could get your facts straight. You may note that my comment of 5 September 2009, for example, was nothing more than reiterating the final proposal at the inconclusive end of a very long and pointless discussion in May-June 2008. You may note that, far from proposing it, I was perfectly willing to leave that point out. You will also note that the words "the fear of revenge" and "fear of revenge attacks" do not occur in either of my comments. Justin uses the words "the fear of revenge" once on this page, it's true - but Richard quoted him as saying "fear of revenge attacks", which he did not say. Richard misquoted Justin, and you have just misquoted me and misrepresented the history of this page quite significantly.
On self-governing, you've misrepresented Justin's argument on this so many times that one wonders whether you have actually read it. Justin is not arguing that we should just say "self-governing". I think we should, because I think it's a useful point, but it's not his argument. He's arguing that we should say that Gibraltar is self-governing except for defence and foreign relations - a rather different point. You go to Encyclopædia Britannica and say it backs up your position. It's clear that it backs up Justin's position as well. Your point?
On December 8 2009, I had not edited this page in three months. I was not involved in any such discussion here at that time and so it seems odd for you to assume that I have detailed knowledge of what was discussed when. I do not.
We cannot move forward if you will continue to insist on pretending people's positions are things that they are not. This works only to undermine others' assumption of your good faith, and the assumption of good faith really is necessary for consensus to be achieved. Pfainuk talk 11:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Incompetence

If we do this properly with diffs, I really hope that something useful will come out of it. I summarize by saying that Justin's main problem at present is not the incivility, which he has toned down to mildly irritating asides. It is incompetence; in the first place, dragging up old issues, but more importantly, failing to organize the discussion stage of WP:BRD.

1. He began by introducing the long-contested term "self-governing" in the lede. After a very long discussion (see above under POV tag, Self-governing in the lede) Justin complains: "ADDENDUM Again the proposed edit is self-governing with the qualifier except defence and foreign relations. I emphasise this as once again Imalbornoz has chosen to misrepresent the proposed edit as the basis to criticise it. I note my proposal earlier made this explicitly clear. Justin talk 21:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC") I cannot find - correct me if I'm wrong - any comment from Justin that made this new wording clear. As far as I can see, the discussion to that point had been specifically about the term "self-governing".

2. Next, he introduced a long section entitled "Parallels with Spanish territories": "The strategic position of the Strait of Gibraltar has left a legacy of a number of sovereignty disputes. Spain maintains sovereignty over Ceuta, Melilla, Penon de Velez de la Gomera, Alhucemas and the Chafarinas Islands (captured following the christian reconquest of Spain) based upon historical grounds, security reasons and on the basis of the UN principle of territorial integrity. Spain also maintains that the majority of residents are Spanish. Morocco claims these territories on the basis of the UN principles of decolonisation, territorial integrity and that Spanish arguments for the recovery of Gibraltar substantiate Morocco’s claim.[1]

Olivenza (Spanish) or Olivença (Portuguese) is a town and seat of a municipality, on a disputed section of the border between Portugal and Spain, which is claimed de jure by both countries and administered de facto as part of the Spanish autonomous community of Extremadura. The population is 80% ethnic portuguese and 30% of portuguese language. Olivenza had been under continuous Portuguese sovereignty since 1297 when it was occupied by the Spanish in 1801 and formally ceded by Portugal later that year by the Treaty of Badajoz. Spain claims the de jure sovereignty over Olivenza on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz still stands and has never been revoked. Thus, the border between the two countries in the region of Olivenza should be as demarcated by that treaty. Portugal claims the de jure sovereignty over Olivenza on the grounds that the Treaty of Badajoz was revoked by its own terms (the breach of any of its articles would lead to its cancellation) when Spain invaded Portugal in the Peninsular War of 1807.

Portugal further bases its case on Article 105 of the Treaty of Vienna of 1815, which Spain signed in 1817, that states that the winning countries are to "endeavour with the mightiest conciliatory effort to return Olivenza to Portuguese authority". Thus, the border between the two countries in the region of Olivenza should be as demarcated by the Treaty of Alcanizes of 1297. Spain interprets Article 105 as not being mandatory on demanding Spain to return Olivenza to Portugal, thus not revoking the Treaty of Badajoz. Portugal has never made a formal claim to the territory after the Treaty of Vienna, but has equally never directly acknowledged the Spanish sovereignty over Olivenza.

Spanish public opinion is not generally aware of the Portuguese claim on Olivenza (in contrast to the Spanish claim on Gibraltar or the Moroccan claims on Ceuta, Melilla and the Plazas de soberanía). On the other hand, awareness in Portugal has been increasing under the efforts of pressure groups to have the question raised and debated in public."


Red Hat reverted it, commenting (as others agreed) that it would be better under the dispute article or Foreign policy of Spain. After a significant discussion on this text in Parallels above, Justin then writes "May I request that you strike through the text above, because that isn't actually what I propose. That is text I plan to put elsewhere, when I have the time. The proposal is actually a brief resume of the analogy of Ceuta/Melila and its relevance to the politics of Sovereignty and that is all. Thank you. Justin talk 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)" It seems that he had changed his mind in accordance with Red Hat's comments, but hadn't bothered to tell anyone else, instead indulging in a long wrangle about whether his two casual quotations support notability in the Gibraltar context. My jaw dropped and I shook my head, but, for the sake of being obliging, I struck the text through as he requested. Above, at the end of the Parallels section, I asked:

"OK, could we have your revised proposal then?"

to which Justin replied:

"Indeed, patience grasshopper. I didn't see the point in writing anything if it was just going to be rejected."

As I mentioned above, not actual incivility, just a mildly irritating aside. The point is the incompetence in discussion and the waste of time.

3. Then Justin removed "San Roque" from the History section. As a one-off bold edit, this might be acceptable, though given the long previous arguments about it and the multiple references which firmly establish its notability, it would have been tactful to introduce the possibility on the talk page first. But I am left astonished that he should think that the comment "to be consistent with the argument in Parallels" is adequate. He may think that the multiply-referenced main destination of most of the previous population of Gibraltar is as trivial as a perceived inconsistency in Spanish policy, but other editors are unlikely to agree. His change was reverted.

4. Justin then removed San Roque again and also the sentence: "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings." His edit summary was again entirely inadequate: "slimming down the text relevant to an overview, the detail can go in the history article, rm material that is peripheral as per current discussion". His repeated removal after a revert came with the summary "rv per discussion in talk, with a request that accusations of disruptive editing and other PA cease and a plea to focus on content". Again, nowhere near adequate, and an editor without longstanding involvement reverted to the last stable version.

5. Justin then inserted a considerable expansion of the account of the British takeover, referenced and well-written but probably far too long for an overview article: "After a heavy naval bombardment on 2 August, the marines launched a pincer attack on the town, advancing south from the isthmus and north from Europa Point. Gibraltar's defenders were well stocked with food and ammunition but were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The Spanish position was clearly untenable and on the morning of 4 November, the governor, Diego de Salinas, agreed to surrender. Rooke remembered the looting at Cádiz but could not prevent a repetition at Gibraltar. Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline but lost control in the days following the capture, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances (Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar), the perpetrators of crimes against the population were severely punished, order was restored but by 7 August the majority population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and opted to leave. They initially settled around the hermitage of San Roque later dispersing into nearby areas of Spain. The temporary resting place around the hermitage ultimately became the modern town of San Roque founded in 1706. The Allied conduct aroused anger in Spain against the 'heretics, and the chance of winning over Andalusians to the Imperial cause was lost. Several counter attacks by sea and land followed but all were repelled by the English and Dutch marines and Spaniards loyal to Charles."

6. Justin then returned to the Parallels to insert a brief (and possibly defensible) comment: "In turn, Spain's position is criticised as anomalous, whilst it maintain the enclaves of Ceuta and Melila in Moroccan territory." I reverted almost all of these edits anyway to await consensus. Discussion in the Overview section above was getting lost in Justin's complaints (as opposed to relevant comments) about how the present text was achieved: "In actual fact, there was no consensus for including this material - you and others chose to tag team edit war that material into the article. And again you drag up the past and use the threat of admin action to impose content rather than discussing. There is also a major inconsistency in your approach. Above you insist we shouldn't include material on the grounds you assert it is relevant to Spain but tangential to Gibraltar; an argument that isn't sustainable given the prominence in sources. Yet something that is tangential to Gibraltar but relevant to Spain you insist must be included and edit war to impose it. I am prepared to discuss it but if you insist on personaling this discussion as a dispute and make personal attacks and accusations as you've done at ANI I will be going to arbitration enforcement. I have given you plenty of warnings. Justin talk 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)"

7. In the hope of getting discussion back on track I started the section above "Request for one-line comments on proposed changes". As will be clear from the diffs here, the proposals listed were direct quotations (some trivially amended) from Justin's edits. Justin then complained about ownership of the article, and wrote (above): "The comment above is not the proposal, reflecting a continued theme of anything I suggest being misrepresented. I have clearly made the contents of my proposal plain above. Please also note that sources support my suggestion and that the content of sources has been grossly misrepresented."

Summary and proposed action

Even from Justin, this seemed remarkable. It appears impossible to engage Justin in a meaningful discussion at all. If he disclaims his own edits and refuses to write any other proposals, I really cannot understand how anybody is supposed to guess what his proposals actually are. At this point, and considering Justin's immense past history of argumentation, I came to the conclusion that as long as Justin continues to edit in this fashion, this article will remain bogged in futile wrangles. I should add that I do not merely assume good faith, I judge that he is editing in good faith, but without displaying sufficient competence to conduct a constructive discussion. I will remind him that the arbitration remedies included specifically "Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution...", and that advice on dispute resolution includes "Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages.". Making highly contentious edits and following them with semi-relevant wrangles, accusations, and disclaimers does not help us to build a better encyclopedia and it is a behaviour pattern which might reasonably attract enforcement action under the terms of the existing arbitration decision.

I do have a suggestion which I hope will allow Justin's knowledge and interest to be used constructively. If we all wish to put suggested edits on the talk page, with references, and then to engage in clear, relevant, and specific discussion in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, this would be welcome and useful. I really hope that he does so. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't read this because it's over 14,000 bytes and fills my entire monitor. I wouldn't expect a point-by-point rebuttal (indeed, I'd ask editors not to provide one) for exactly the same reason. When people talk about "walls of text" putting people off, this is the sort of thing they mean. In the future, could I ask all editors to try and write more concisely please?
That said, I would suggest that, however politely it's put (and I don't know because I haven't read it), posting a nearly-2000-word essay entitled "incompetence" on a talk page about another user would look like a personal attack even if there was no Arbcom case and no dispute. Now, it could be that there's no violation of WP:NPA in there - but it doesn't look good. Could I ask that this be sorted please? Pfainuk talk 13:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the volume, but documenting some long-winded argumentation seems the only way of making a convincing point about remediation. Backing up the call for no point-by-point rebuttals, I repeat my summary request for all editors to put suggested edits on the talk page, with references, and then to engage in clear, relevant, and specific discussion in accordance with Wikipedia's principles. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps that would start with you, then? What compromises are you willing to make in order to gain consensus on the points raised? What are your proposals that you believe could resolve the dispute to you and Justin's mutual satisfaction? Pfainuk talk 20:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we could continue our civilized discussion process above? If we cannot reach consensus on the present proposals no doubt we can generate some more. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
What's needed here is compromise on all sides. Justin has been trying to compromise, but you've opposed every one of his attempts. It's not reasonable to expect people to stumble around in the dark hoping we hit upon something that you're willing to accept. So I would like to invite you again to put your suggestions. What compromises are you willing to make in order to resolve this dispute? Pfainuk talk 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Suggestions can be divided into those that unequivocally help a better encyclopedia, those that unequivocally don't, and the group in the middle. I'm happy to compromise on the middle group. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This comment notably fails to assume good faith in that it implies that those who disagree with you are "unequivocally" out to damage the encyclopædia. If you want to have a civilised discussion, then you're going to have to accept that people who disagree with you are not doing so out of bad faith. Neither I nor Justin is out to damage the encyclopædia, as you imply. — Pfainuk , — (continues after insertion below.)
(I don't say anything of the sort, and I assure you that I don't imply or mean it either. I have mentioned already that I don't find poor faith to be the problem. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC))
Well, you do imply it. You say that you'll support anything unless it "unequivocally" doesn't improve the encyclopædia, and you oppose to others' proposals. The only way these make sense together is if you believe that others are out to damage Wikipedia. So, perhaps you would like to clarify your comment above? Pfainuk talk 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
On the substance of your point, you are currently opposing suggestions that would clearly improve the encyclopædia in my view. I don't say "unequivocally" because I recognise that people may in good faith disagree with me. Fact is, because I have no idea what you consider would "unequivocally help a better encyclopedia" and what you feel "unequivocally" wouldn't, your post tells me nothing whatsoever. — Pfainuk , — (continues after insertion below.)
Instead of general argumentation, which has kept this page bogged down for years, perhaps we could talk about specific proposals? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It has been done before, believe me. Though I note that you haven't provided any specific proposals on most of the issues of contention, so any that I make are still blundering around in the dark. Pfainuk talk 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You've suggested a compromise on one point. I appreciate this, but your proposal is so vague that it's impossible for me to come to a reasonable conclusion on it. Do I support it? Well, right now there is no "it", so I couldn't tell you. You're asking for suggested edits, but your sole proposal isn't a suggested edit. And I notice you remain silent on the other points, meaning that we still have no idea what you might be willing to accept on those points. Pfainuk talk 22:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I could have been clearer. Would you like to suggest a specific phrase for the lede? Or alternative edits to those presently failing to achieve any consensus one way or the other? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Will discuss the proposal above. Pfainuk talk 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Richard alleges that it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion alleging I'm somehow unclear, that I cannot be understood.

  1. [6] OK please tell me how I could have made my proposal plainer? Two other editors seemed to realise straight away.
  2. [7] I express my comments on the reasons for the exodus:

I add the emphasis to make plain a personal opinion on one of the reasons for the exodus. Which you will note I amplified in the following sentence and that I acknowledge as a personal opinion, with the additional point that personal opion is not the basis. All have been previously advanced as reasons for the exodus. The argument I present is supported by the source: Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. :

I would hope there would be agreement that the sources supports the expectation of a counter attack. So I do not understand why you are demanding I provide a sources for a comment that is not my principal argument. Perhaps you could elaborate for the reason for doing so. Equally perhaps you could explain why Pfainuk is attacked for suggesting that my comments have merit, alleging he is responsible for introducing this throw away line.

  1. On San Roque, I am prepared to compromise provided it is explained properly. Again my point is that saying they went to a town founded 2 YEARS later is not the basis for a well written encyclopedia.
  2. On Ceuta and Melila, I have pointed out the legal and political justification for including a sentence. I have compromised following your suggestion of including my original proposal and wikilinking to another article with a very brief mention in this article. I don't see the justification for a revert here.
  3. I have followed the WP:BRD, every edit that I have produced that has been reverted I have attempted to discuss.
  4. Your comment on one line proposals. Well noting my comments above, particularly where I explicity defined my proposal ie [8], my proposals were not accurately explained. There were also two editors who have demonstrated a reluctance to address my arguments who both voted against ideas that were not my own. Perhaps you might like to consider it from my perspective but to me it looks like two editors who only wish to bring up the past, ganging up against me and owning the article. Perhaps that is a bad faith presumption but it is not an entirely unjustifiable one.
  5. If I am incompetent Richard, perhaps you could explain to me, what is the benefit of dragging up remarks I made whilst extremely upset and whilst I was in a bad way mentally. Because from my perspective it simply appears as flinging them back in my face and an attempt to belittle and humiliate me. I have apologised unreservedly on more than one occasion so I really don't feel it is helpful.
  6. Finally, I have done nothing but ask to focus on content not editors. I don't feel the need to attack your competence with a 2000 word diatribe. And yet again we have a wall of angry text deterring outside comment. Is it not possible to put the past behind us? Justin talk 21:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It's difficult to answer this one for several reasons. First, I don't want to fatten this already-overfed page, but would prefer to move on. To explain the further misunderstandings in your last comment above would require yet another couple of screensful. Second, I don't want to belittle you nor to stop you from contributing in an area where you have information and interest, and I guess that answering all your points, if I were to do so to your intellectual satisfaction, would do nothing for your self-esteem. Third, given your angry comments about me in the past, I'm not sure you'd read what I write in the constructive way that I intend it. I'm not therefore keen on answering your last set of questions, and if you were to persuade me to do it I'd prefer to do it on a user subpage. I do want to get on with the business of improving this encyclopedia. Perhaps you could solicit an un-involved editor - Atama comes to mind if he/she has the time - to assist you in the technique of doing so?
However, I hope that we may bypass this wretched business by the process in the section above. That is, by making clear proposals and brief pertinent comments, either achieving consensus or moving on to alternative proposals. User subpages may also be a useful mechanism for honing our longer contributions, perhaps with help from our friends, until they express with brevity and clarity a really well-thought-through point. Or we could draft our remarks thoughtfully, then wait a day or two to allow us to make them clearer and more relevant before we post them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, if you didn't want to have to have this kind of discussion, you shouldn't have posted a 2000-word essay on how incompetent Justin was. That was a very bad idea, and was never ever going to have a good outcome. Given the personal attacks contained in this message, veiled and open, you are baiting Justin here, Richard. If you want a civilised discussion, you are going exactly the wrong way about it.
The topic ban is finished. Justin has apologised over and over and over again for his past comments. Let's move on. Pfainuk talk 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for one-line comments on proposed changes

Opinions please


I'd like to ask for opinions on whether to remove the present sentence: "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings." Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - the circumstances described are notable and have ongoing relevance, but may be a bit too much for an overview article Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the events are very notable and have much relevance as the main cause for the exodus of the inhabitants of Gibraltar, leaving room for the new in-comers (with all the impact in culture, ethnicity, language,...) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this proposal needs to be made clearer. The proposal is that the words:

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.

be changed to:

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.

both with appropriate references. I support this. It retains mention of the violence that occurred without going into detail. The detail is a problem because it is a POV minefield: violence occurred on both sides and we cannot provide neutrality without going into the sort of detail provided below. Imalbornoz's point does not make sense: yes, the fact that there was violence is relevant - nobody's arguing that it isn't. But the detail of the individual acts of violence on each side would seem too much detail. It would seem difficult to argue that, had the rape and desecration occurred without the pillage, the townspeople would have remained - but that appears to be the suggestion. Our readers can perfectly well imagine the disorder created by an invading army, given as we say that there was three days of disorder and that the townspeople felt that the town was too dangerous to remain. Pfainuk talk 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Pfainuk accurately delineates my proposal above, certainly more accurately than the comment above. Further if we are to include such details, we should include more details to balance the POV. The incidents were a hindrance to the Anglo-Dutch forces and their Spanish allies as it alienated the population, the perpetrators were severely punished. As it is currently written in addition to implying the evil British drove out the population reneging on promises made. It is simply untrue and not sustainable by the sources. Justin talk 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Or alternatively, per a recent bold edit, to expand the paragraph to: " After a heavy naval bombardment on 2 August, the marines launched a pincer attack on the town, advancing south from the isthmus and north from Europa Point.[2] Gibraltar's defenders were well stocked with food and ammunition but were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The Spanish position was clearly untenable and on the morning of 4 November, the governor, Diego de Salinas, agreed to surrender.[3] Rooke remembered the looting at Cádiz but could not prevent a repetition at Gibraltar. Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline but lost control in the days following the capture, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings[4][5][6][7]. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances (Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar), the perpetrators of crimes against the population were severely punished[8], order was restored but by 7 August the majority population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and opted to leave.[5] They initially settled around the hermitage of San Roque later dispersing into nearby areas of Spain. The temporary resting place around the hermitage ultimately became the modern town of San Roque founded in 1706. The Allied conduct aroused anger in Spain against the 'heretics, and the chance of winning over Andalusians to the Imperial cause was lost. Several counter attacks by sea and land followed but all were repelled by the English and Dutch marines and Spaniards loyal to Charles." Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And, on whether to remove the mention of San Roque as the main destination: Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - as documented many times over, San Roque was the main destination, mentioned as such by many reliable sources ahead of facts which are uncontentiously in the article, and the circumstances of San Roque's foundation have ongoing relevance for anyone who wants to understand the ongoing problems. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Details relevant to SR only would include exactly when SR became a town as opposed to a hermitage with a hamlet, and when that town got its charter. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - agree with Richard Keatinge. Even books talking about Gibraltarian culture and ethnicity mention the exodus of previous inhabitants (and San Roque) as a pivotal event for present day Gibraltar.[9]-- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. No particular understanding of Gibraltar or the dispute is gained by mentioning San Roque in particular. Understanding of San Roque, yes, but this is not an article about San Roque. Worth mentioning also that the sentence is anachronistic. They didn't go to San Roque because there was no San Roque at the time. Better to say they went to the "surrounding countryside". Pfainuk talk 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Pfainuk delineates my proposal perfectly, though I acknowledge as I have always done the arguments are finely balanced. IF we must mention it, there needs to be a better explanation. Justin talk 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And, whether to insert the sentence: "In turn, Spain's position is criticised as anomalous, whilst it maintain the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla in Moroccan territory." Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And,whether to include in the lede the comment "self-governing"? At present this is omitted, leaving the issue for the main body of the article, which presently reads "Under its current Constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal democratic self-government through an elected parliament. The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor of Gibraltar. Defence, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the Governor; judicial and other appointments are also made on behalf of the Queen in consultation with the head of the elected government.". Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - the bare comment "self-governing" is oversimplified, and the main body of the article describes the situation well. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - it is distinctly useful to distinguish self-governing BOTs from those under direct rule. Pfainuk talk 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the term "self-governing" is ambiguous and controversial (some sources say PARTLY self-governing, other say NON self-governing; it looks like someone could choose this expression to make a point against the UN, Spain or other countries in the C24). Other expressions like "devolved government" are accepted by all sources and still make the distinction vis a vis other BOTs without governing bodies. Anyway, I think this issue is better in the body of the article and not the lede. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I believe from Apcbg who writes above: "In my opinion, it's perfectly adequate to have "self-governing" in the lede, with further clarification someplace below. Apcbg (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)" Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Richard. Apcbg (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The comment above is not the proposal, reflecting a continued theme of anything I suggest being misrepresented. I have clearly made the contents of my proposal plain above. Please also note that sources support my suggestion and that the content of sources has been grossly misrepresented. Justin talk 20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I have done my very best to extract some meaning from your comments. If the above wasn't what you were proposing would you please be clearer? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Really? Justin talk 21:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support [10] If someone could tell me how to make my proposal plainer I will be happy to listen. The proposal is misrepresented here. The proposal is to add a qualifier - again a compromise that I feel is not necessary. IT is supported by all sources including the Spanish Government source. Per Apcbg the lede can be qualified in the text. Secondly per Pfainuk, the BOT are both populated where the British Government devolves Government, and those that are not, where other than a transient military or scientific there is no Government. Self-Government is an important qualifier for a BOT. Thirdly the use of the UN C24 is misleading as it defines self-government per UN resolution 1541 [11], which defines self-government on the basis of statehood (free association with an independent State, integration into an independent State, or independence). All other sources support this edit proposal. Justin talk 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's try a qualified mention of self-government. Should we include in the lede a comment of "largely self-governing", "mostly self-governing", "self-governing with some reserved powers", or some other closely similar formulation, the detail to be decided later?

In response to Pfainuk's call below for greater specificity, I ask: should we include in the lede the phrase "self-governing with some reserved powers". I would support this or any other accurate comment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Overly vague in my view. I'd oppose "largely" and "mostly" as being inaccurate in implication (as I believe they underplay the level of self-government that Gibraltar actually holds). I'd support Justin's "defence and foreign affairs" line (though the sentence would need rewording somewhat). Pfainuk talk 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to support Pfainuk's and Justin's comments, please feel free to work out some wording. I do believe that we may achieve consensus here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
First of all, it should be noted that many editors have said many times that it is not necessary to explain in the lede the kind of governance/government of an obviously populated BOT (myself, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Ecemaml, Cremallera, JCRB, external editors like Blueboar[12][13], Peregrine Fisher [14],...) But then, if we want to have a consensus, I am ready to reach some common ground if what Pfainuk and Justin want is the lede to clarify that Gibraltar belongs to the group of BOTs that democratically elect a government with a very important amount of competences, and therefore their main goal is not to mend the position of the UN, Spanish Government and several other sources (who say that Gibraltar is "non self-governing" -I don't say that they are right or wrong, I just say that this is their verifiable POV). That's what I understood that you wanted to do, isn't that so? In that case, I am ready to accept some changes in the lede. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC) BTW, it is not clear at all that all sources agree about the perimeter of government: many talk about defence, foreign affairs, and internal security; others add the public service to that list. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Even the Spanish source acknowledges self-government in Gibraltar, p51:
Translates as:
And whatever terms it chooses to use for its own purposes it recognises the legal status of Gibraltar. P.7
Translates as:
Can we also please stop attempting to confuse the situation by confusing governance with Government. GoG has certain matters excluded by the constitution, however the remaining functions of the judiciary and policing are undertaken by independent Gibraltarian bodies. These are not undertaken by the UK. This isn't helpful and has been explained before.
Equally the situation with the UN is not comparable, nor do UN statements undermine the proposed lede. This has been explained more times than enough. In include a link to UN resolution 1541, the UN definition does not recognise governance but statehood. The article should explain this but it does not exclude the inclusion in the lede.
Given sources support it, and the UN does not contradict, I propose, supported by the BBC cite:
Thank you. Justin talk 23:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
With thanks for everyone's positive contributions, I'd support that text. It's as close to absolute accuracy as we can get in the appropriate amount of space. Richard Keatinge (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I am ready to reach an agreement, like I said. On the other hand, I don't find that Justin's proposal is accurate, for the following reasons:
1. WP:NPOV: Many sources do not support the part of the text that says "with the UK retaining responsibility for foreign relations and defence". For example:
  • The Chief Minister says "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security."[15] (page 4).
  • The CIA says "the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability."[16]
  • PriceWaterhouseCoopers says: "the United Kingdom being responsible for defence, foreign affairs, financial stability and internal security."
2. WP:SYN: BBC does not say "Gibraltar is a self-governing BO Territory with the UK retaining defense and foreign affairs", it says "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas EXCEPT defence and foreign policy."
3. WP:UNDUE: NO SOURCE talks about the government or governance in the first sentence or even the first paragraph. Many of them do talk about it later on. Even Justin's source (BBC's Gibraltar profile) only talks about self-government in the third paragraph. Can anybody show any source that gives as much prominence to Gibraltar's type of government as Justin's proposal?
Therefore, I do not support Justin's proposal. But I'm ready to compromise and accept a comment about Gibraltar's type of government in the lede. I just won't support a text that only reflects only ONE version of the details of government of the several different ones that different sources support. And I won't a accept undue prominence of the type of self-government in the lede.
I would not have this in the lede, but for the sake of consensus I propose a text that has no contradiction with any source or with Justin's and Pfainuk's goal of explaining in the lede that Gib is the type of BOT with own government:
(in the third paragraph)
Comments? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
That may be even mnore accurate. I'd support that one too. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

unindent

I'm sorry but I cannot accept that as a proposal, since it does not reflect what the majority of sources say. Going forward I feel it is necessary to establish a few ground rules.

  1. Claims that proposals violate wP:SYN. The semantic argument that any prose must follow exactly the same words in the source is not sustainable under wikipedian policies.
  2. NPOV does not require that we represent each and every way different sources find to say the same thing. Where there are explainable errors in what the sources say, editors can use the consensus building process to agree on suitable representation.
  3. Misrepresentation of sources must stop now. For instance [18] actually states: "The new Constitution is now in place and in operation. It maximises our self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers. All other matters are the competence of the Gibraltar Government, the Gibraltar Parliament or other Gibraltar legal institutions." It is also states quite explicitly ""The old power of United Kingdom Ministers to disallow legislation passed by the Gibraltar Parliament has been abolished. The so-called “Administering Power”, the UK, administers absolutely nothing in Gibraltar."" Selectively quoting from the source to claim it denies the proposal when it in fact supports in must stop. It is unhelpful and it undermines the good faith of any discussion.
  4. In the literature, there is an overwhelming number of sources to support the proposed text. Where there are differences, it is easily explained by the difference between the powers given to the Government of Gibraltar and those vested in independent Gibraltar bodies such as the judicial system and the policy authority. We should be looking to move forward, rather than endlessly discussing the same text. I have lost count of the number of times I have taken the time to patiently explain this, if there is something in the explanation that Imalbornoz does not understand he should ask for it to be amplified rather than repeatedly returning to make the same point over and over again. Because if after having taken the time to explain it, he makes the same point again, then clearly he has not listened or considered the points made. I note that once again yesterday I took the trouble to make this point again , yet again we see the same position stated. I really don't see how discussions can move forward on this basis.
  5. The position of the UN is dictated by UN resolution 1541 [19], which defines self-government on the basis of statehood (free association with an independent State, integration into an independent State, or independence). We should recognise that the UN definition is archaic and not one that would be recognisable by most people and explain the apparent contradiction to our readers.

Establishing some ground rules would help frame the discussions and cease the endless arguments over points that have been explained more times than I care to count. Justin talk 13:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The UN definition is not archaic, but it isn't the same as all other definitions. On the one hand, some powers are reserved. That's one real definition of "lacking full self-government". On the other hand, Government decisions in Gibraltar are practically all taken through a local democratic - hence really self-governing - process. Arguing about which definition is the "real" one, as in effect we have been doing for some time, strikes me as amazingly futile, a recipe for endless quarrels. And we - or at any rate I - hope to come up with an article that will be acceptable not just to us, but to future readers and editors including those who have strong opinions either way and good information to back them. I hope we're nearly there.

I suggest that acceptable solutions would include:

  • No mention in the lede - but several editors think the point is important enough and really should be in the lede. We are unlikely to achieve any consensus soon on this idea.
  • "self-governing with some reserved powers", or "largely self-governing", or "almost complete internal self-government" or other similar form of words. Vague enough, and precise enough taking into account Justin's point about self-governance, to be entirely accurate, hence defensible against almost any reasonable comment. This would be my preferred solution though I'm not hung up on any one form.
  • "self-governing except for (a list of reserved powers). I suppose I could live with this for the sake of consensus, but if the list of reserved powers is long enough to be entirely accurate and thus challenge-proof, it's going to be too long for the lede. Very much a second choice, and in addition getting precision will lead us squarely into the arena of conflict between definitions of self-government. On quite a lot of points, the local politicians make the actual decision but the Governor signs it. Do you want to argue definitions of self-government through every one? I'd prefer to pull my own teeth out. Let's avoid that particular self-inflicted torment, shall we?

Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Just had a brief look at the above.
One thing that stands out is Imalbornoz's argument:
WP:SYN: BBC does not say "Gibraltar is a self-governing BO Territory with the UK retaining defense and foreign affairs", it says "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas EXCEPT defence and foreign policy."
That's not original synthesis. When I say that, it's not any particular judgement call or borderline case. If this is original synthesis, then practically the entire encyclopædia is original synthesis. We are not just not required to replicate the wording in the source - we are not allowed to replicate the wording in our sources because that would be copyright violation.
He also argues WP:UNDUE, again based on this notion that we must follow sources exactly. So, the point is worth making again. We aren't here simply to regurgitate our sources. We're here to write an encyclopædia. I actually think that there is a far better way of getting around this, without resorting to this much detail - but Imalbornoz and Richard don't agree to it. Because compromise is required, I am willing to compromise to this extent.
Justin argues that there is still some misrepresentation of sources going on. And it does appear that some are being selectively quoted. I'd call on all editors to make sure that when they quote sources, they quote them with all relevant sections - including those that they may think undermines their viewpoint. Remember that we're trying to reach a mutually agreeable outcome: there are no "winners" or "losers" here. That bit that you think undermines your point might actually hold the key to agreement.
Finally, on the UN. East Anglia has no government of its own. There is no separate East Anglian legislature, no separate East Anglian ministers, no East Anglian governmental institutions of any kind. All government of East Anglia is done either at a higher (UK-wide) level or a lower (municipal) level. There is nothing in between.
By contrast, American Samoa is governed under its own constitution as a multiparty democracy, complete with bicameral legislature (the American Samoa Fono), effectively equivalent to that of the United States.
Which is "self-governing" according to the UN definition? The region with no government of its own or the territory with a functioning democracy that does in fact govern itself? It's the region without a government to itself that is "self-governing" and the territory that governs itself that is "non-self-governing". Why? Because even in theory the UN definition of "self-government" has nothing to do with the actual degree of self-government and everything to do with the status that the territory happens to have (in practice, of course, this is itself secondary to the C24 governments' politics). By putting a territory on the C24 list, the UN is not claiming that the territory is not self-governing, only that it does not have one of the three statuses outlined in UNGA resolution 1514 - an entirely different kettle of fish. Pfainuk talk 16:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
To which I'd add my proposal is supported by sources. The text that Richard proposes isn't and what Imalbornoz proposes underplays what the sources actually say. The policy is WP:V, it is verifiable and all bar one editor has agreed that it could be the basis of a concensus. The arguments produced against it don't withstand the scrutiny of our policies. I feel we are better explaining the apparent contradiction under the politics sections. I am not attracted to a fudge using vague terms, we should respect the sources - that is of itself defensible. As Richard pointed out on another article, there are some for whom the mere existence of Gibraltarians is offensive. Well anticipating their objection to text that accurately describes how Gibraltar is run and compromising the text as a results is simply appeasement. As I said all bar one editor agreed with the proposal, his objections are not sustainable on policy grounds. Effectively if he cannot produce a sustainable argument against it, we do have a consensus. Justin talk 18:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, could we all agree on "self-governing except for reserved powers including defence and foreign relations"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes I could agree to that. Though "for reserved powers" appears redundant. Justin talk 20:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, the phrase "for reserved powers including " may allow us to answer Imalbornoz's objections, and those of possible future editors, and so may allow a consensus. If so it's well worth a little redundancy. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I have commented on Justin's proposal and made another proposal trying to find some common ground, in line with Justin's and Pfainuk's desire to make sure that the lede indicates that Gibraltar is part of the group of BOTs with a large degree of self-government. Richard has given his (positive) opinion about it. Please, Justin and Pfainuk, could you explain what's your view about it? Do you find it acceptable? Do you find anything wrong about it? My proposal was:


Thank you very much for your time and interest! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that one too. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Well I've already indicated that I wouldn't be happy with it and stating why - asking again won't change my opinion seeing as you've advanced nothing new. And Imalbornoz your comments on the other proposal are not sustainable under wikipedian policies. This is not helpful behaviour ignoring comments and arguments put to you to simply restate a position. We have a proposal that has substantive support - you are the sole objector. Justin talk 09:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Justin, I see that your objection is that "almost complete internal self-government" is not what the majority of sources say. Please, even though we have had strong differences, I kindly ask you to analyse again what they say, to see if we can reach an agreement. I can assure you that I have made a strong effort with the proposal to make it acceptable to all editors in this discussion (even though myself and most of the editors have declared at some point or another that it would be better left out of the lede altogether...) Please let's analyse the proposal again:
  • It sets Gibraltar in the group of BOTs with the highest degree of self-government, using the words of the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee itself (who is not suspect at all of understating the self-government of Gibraltar, and is supposed to be technically competent as well).
  • On the other hand, all the sources say that self-government is not complete but they disagree in some details.
  • All of them say that external affairs is in the hands of the UK (thus, self-government is internal at the most, not external).
  • All of them say that defence is out of the perimeter (thus, internal self-government is not complete either) and many (at least half of them -right or wrong) also exclude other internal affairs.
I have tried to find the greatest common divisor but without explicitly mentioning specific areas that might be contradicted by some sources. At the same time, please bear in mind that "almost complete internal self-government" is the expression that the UK HoC FAC has used to define the group of BOTs with highest self-government and to include Gibraltar in it (which is your goal and Pfainuk's, if I'm not wrong). I hope I have explained myself better this time so that you are able to review the proposal again. Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be squeezing closer and closer to actual agreement. We now have: Under its new constitution, Gibraltar: either - has almost complete internal self-government or - is self-governing except for reserved powers including defence and foreign relations

Or possibly both, because I have just re-read the rest of this page and I really don't see any important difference, either semantic or relating to Wikipedia policies, between them. I have to say that if I was trying to emphasize the degree of self-government, I'd slightly prefer Imalbornoz's version, and it's also shorter. But both are correct, encyclopedic, acceptable. Who else is prepared to accept either? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Imalbornoz: I find your arguments are singularly unconvincing. For one thing, your declaration that the fact that the UK is responsible for defence means that "internal self-government is not complete". Who do you think the military would be defending Gibraltar from? Barbary Apes?
I note that you have not followed my request to ensure that you quote all relevant portions of a given source, which is disappointing. WP:AGF is all very well, but in articles like this, it is a good idea to demonstrate your good faith. This helps to lower temperature and reduces the likelihood of a battleground mentality coming forward. I note also that your proposed edit is insufficiently referenced. You cannot expect readers to trawl through a 172-page document to try and find the single sentence the edit is supposed to be referenced from.
I note also that your statement that "almost complete internal self-government" is the expression that the UK HoC FAC has used to define the group of BOTs with highest self-government does not appear to be accurate, based on what I assume is your source. In particular, I find that your use of the word "define" gives a very strongly misleading impression of the source.
Richard: your suggestion that Justin and I are here to try "to emphasize the degree of self-government", as opposed to trying to improve the encyclopædia by including pertinent information on the subject of Gibraltar, reads as yet another violation of WP:AGF. If you want me and others to believe that you're assuming good faith here, Richard, you really need to be far more careful about your choice of words. Because, frankly, it doesn't look like you are from here.
The proposed qualifiers are unnecessary extra words with no particular benefit. They add no information whatsoever to the text. Fact is, that the GoG governs everything in Gibraltar, apart from defence and foreign relations - which are handled based on the wishes of the GoG. Gibraltar is not governed by the UK, it governs itself. If we have to include unnecessary qualifiers of "self-governing", better that they at least carry some information. Pfainuk talk 18:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, Pfainuk, here is the complete quote from the source (House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Overseas Territories, Seventh Report of Session 2007–08, page 16):
I suppose that we can all agree that it classifies groups of BOTs according to their degree of self-government, explains that one of them has the highest level of self-government, defines it as "almost complete self-government", and sets Gibraltar in it.
Your argument for including the reference to self-government in the lede is: "Support - it is distinctly useful to distinguish self-governing BOTs from those under direct rule. Pfainuk talk 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)"
I hope that you will agree that the quote that has been proposed fully meets your criteria. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK It boils down to this. Do we go with text that the majority of the sources reflect per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, as per the text I suggest, fully in line with wikipedia's policy of WP:V. This is a proposal that all bar 1 editor finds acceptable. The alternative which was not supported by 3 editors relies on a single source. If there is not a substantive policy based objection to the proposal that has majority support then I propose we insert it within one week. I am disappointed that once again, as Pfainuk note, accusations of partisanship have crept in, equally disappointing is that positions are being repeatedly stated, counter arguments ignored and those accursed accusations substituted instead. Justin talk 10:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point it may help to reiterate exactly what is being proposed. Proposals have included "almost complete internal self-government", "is self-governing except for reserved powers including defence and foreign relations", and possibly other variants that I've missed. Again, I don't see any important difference between these two, and both seem accurate and unexceptionable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
There is an important difference "is self-governing except for reserved powers including defence and foreign relations" is supported by the sources apart from the text "except for reserved powers", whereas the alternative is supported by only one. Per WP:DUE the proposal supported by the majority of sources is the preferred option suggested by wikipedia's policies. Justin talk 19:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually:
  • the expression "has almost complete internal government" is not contradicted by any source, and is sourced by a technically competent source like the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. I am sure that the HoC producing an official paper has taken extreme care that this wording is completely accurate. I don't know who in their right mind would find that this wourding is not right or "understates" Gibraltar's self-government.
  • the wording "is self-governing except for reserved powers including defense and foreign relations" runs the risk of not being accurate (I personally I don't understand it too well). And the source is... Justin A Kuntz himself making a synthesis of several sources. No one else uses this wording.
Currently, the consensus is (and has been for at least seven years, except for a period of a few months) to leave this complicated issue for the body of the article. I (and many other users) personally prefer it that way (IMHO it is too much prominence for the type of government). I (and many other users) was ready to talk about self-government in the lede if the UN POV was mentioned there as well, for the sake of consensus. Then, I accepted to exclude the UN POV and proposed the wording of a technically competent source. It seems this is not enough for Justin: he will only accept his very own personal wording.
I propose that if he is not able to reach a wide consensus, we leave the most stable version: type of government described in the body of the article. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you feel that the words "and fled to San Roque" are original synthesis as well? That precise wording does not appear to be used by any source other than Wikipedia and its mirrors. By your standards, it's clear original synthesis.
We can go further. Perhaps you would like to go to WP:VPP and request that every article in the encyclopædia be deleted because it's impossible to write them? After all, by your standards, anything that does not violate WP:COPYVIO is original synthesis and must be removed on those grounds. Pfainuk talk 08:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually this isn't an easy issue and none of us is a constitutionalist or a political theorist. It's just that -at Justin's request and against many editors' preferred option- we have accepted to include this issue in the lede, then we accepted to exclude the UN POV, then we find a technical and comprehensive source to explain what you and Justin proposed... And now it seems that the HoC summary is not enough for Justin; he has to put it in his very own words.
Well, I'm getting tired of this and I'm starting to feel tempted to just leave the version that has proved to be most stable and uncontroversial for years: not to include any summary in the lede and explain all the details in the corresponding section. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
This would be my preferred solution also. However, for the sake of consensus I am prepared to accept a variety of compromises, so long as they're accurate/NPOV and within reasonable length. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, the entire point of writing the encyclopædia is that we do so in our "very own words". Your entire argument against Justin's wording is that it isn't a direct quote of a source. Fact is, in cases where this is relevant, it works the other way around: a direct quote of a source is rather less likely to be acceptable than a paraphrasing thanks to Wikipedia's policies on copyrighted material. When your only argument against a proposal is this bad, don't be surprised when other people don't accept it. Pfainuk talk 11:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
May I just point out that the current proposal is a compromise from several editors and is not my preferred option. I feel it is important to bring that to everyone's attention, since it seems that yet once again matters are becoming personalised and I am being blamed. This I do not find acceptable.
Furthermore, this is not just my request it reflects what the majority of the sources have to say about Gibraltar and makes an important distinction for the populated BOT. There is no controversy about this proposal except perhaps it may be offensive to people holding extreme nationalist opinions, for whom the mere existence of Gibraltar is an affront; those opinions are not relevant to writing wikipedia.
May I also point out that consensus is not a veto or requiring unanimity and where a proposal conforms to wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V, stamping your foot and saying WP:IDONTLIKE is not acceptable or amenable to building consensus. I don't find the latest proposal acceptable as it seems an attempt to derail consensus than to move the discussion forward.
May I finally note the request was for comments on the proposal to be strictly limited to policy based objection rather than personal opinions, further posts attacking individual editors are not acceptable and I would expect all editors to move forward on that basis. Talk page discussions should not be about filibustering to stall proposals that individuals don't like. Justin talk 15:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Coming back to the phrase "is self-governing except for reserved powers including defence and foreign relations". I'm quite happy with it, but Imalbornoz, whose English is excellent, says that he doesn't understand it too well. Perhaps it could be clearer while preserving the meaning? What about "is self-governing except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations"? Does that make the comment clearer? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections, though to be honest it seems needlessly verbose. We should also remember that en.wikipedia is intended for those whose first language is English and write accordingly. Justin talk 19:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
That sentence is much more understandable (at least the "reserved powers" part). What would the global proposal for the lede be? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's one possible version:

Gibraltar (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈbrɔːltɚ/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula at the entrance of the Mediterranean, overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. The territory itself is a peninsula of 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) whose isthmus connects to the north with Spain. The Rock of Gibraltar is the major landmark of the region and gives its name to the densely populated area with city status, it is home to almost 30,000 Gibraltarians.

An Anglo-Dutch force captured Gibraltar in 1704 during the War of the Spanish Succession. The territory was subsequently ceded to Britain by Spain under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. It became an important base for the British Royal Navy, which drove the local economy and provided employment for a large portion of the local population. Today its economy is based largely on tourism, financial services and shipping. It is self-governing except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations.

The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return.[4] Gibraltarians resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referenda held in 1967 and 2002.

I'd be happy to put that in, or quite a few other variants. Indeed I propose to insert it within the next couple of days, unless anybody really objects. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather go with the majority who preferred to leave any mention of government to the corresponding section (WP:DUE). Also, I'd rather use the wording of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee which is technically accurate and doesn't go into the details of which powers are reserved and which are not (WP:SYN, NPOV and WP:DUE)...
BUT, for the sake of consensus, I could accept this text in general. I'd only suggest:
  • to include the word "Gibraltar" (otherwise, it's not clear at the beginning who is self-governing; e.g. the economy?)
  • to include the word "some" before "powers": "except for some powers reserved to the UK Government" (otherwise, it looks like the only reserved powers are foreign affairs and defence).
  • also, for style and continuity, I'd include a transition between the previous sentence (which talks about Gibraltar's past and present economy) and the sentence in question. Maybe something like "In 2006, a new constitution was approved maximising the self-government of Gibraltar, except for some powers reserved to the UK Government."
  • Finally, again, I wouldn't mention any specific reserved power, IMO "some" is enough (in order to avoid controversy). But if you want, you can use your sentence: ", including defence and foreign relations."
Thank you, Richard. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I will make a couple of observations:
  1. Repeatedly stating the same point, when there is a consensus and a stated reason for adding this material is unhelpful
  2. Alleging WP:SYN etc when that has already been COMPREHENSIVELY rebutted is unhelpful.
  3. Insisting on your preferred wording, rather than wording achieved as a consensus contribution is unhelpful.
  4. Insisting on using a single source, rather than reflecting the majority view in the literature is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE and also unhelpful.
  5. There is a consensus to add the text, seeking to pick at the text to change it to your preferred text, ignoring the previous comments is unhelpful.
As previously stated, we should reflect the majority of sources per WP:V and WP:DUE. We should be moving forward on the basis of the prose that has majority support, not seeking to obstruct moving forward by not moving in position.
May I suggest a slightly modified version of Richard's text, moving things to the first paragraph and trimming a few words that are superfluous.
Thanks, Justin talk 20:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Editors have insisted that this get longer and longer and longer, until we get to the point where a distinction that could perfectly easily be expressed in a single word is now a sixteen-word sentence. No, we need to come up with something quite a lot shorter than this. As I pointed out on Imalbornoz's proposal, there's no point in adding loads of words that don't add any meaning or clarification - which is what is being done here.
Let's remember that we have a link to British Overseas Territory here, which editors can go to if they want to know what a BOT is. It doesn't imply that Gib is a self-governing BOT as opposed to a BOT under direct rule, but it does imply just about everything else that's being discussed here. Let's remember that exacting detail can be included later in the article, allowing us to summarise the situation in the lede. Let's remember that we are allowed - nay, required - to summarise our sources and thus let's see an end the absurd claims that anything that isn't a direct quote from a source is original synthesis. And let's try and get a way of distinguishing self-governing BOTs from those under direct rule without resorting to adding words that do not add meaning. Pfainuk talk 22:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh I agree totally "self-governing BOT" is more than adequate but I have tried to compromise to meet the concerns as expressed. "self-governing BOT except for defence and foreign relations" is also acceptable. The latter is supported by the sources. including the Spanish Government paper. I'm leaning to the view that we have compromised more than enough yet have seen nothing in return. Justin talk 23:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
As we've done to death, the trouble with "self-governing" tout court is that it isn't quite accurate. If we have it in the lede we need it qualified for accuracy and comprehensibility. I do like Justin's trimmed suggestion:

Alternatively we could have the shorter formulation: "Gibraltar is self-governing except for some powers reserved to the UK Government." Can we settle for one or the other? I'm happy with both. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is accurate Richard, self-governing as a term reflects internal matters, so the caveat is actually quite superfluous. We used to have a wikilink to self-governing that reflected that but that article was altered to remove the reference to internal matters. I am nontheless prepared to compromise and caveat the term if it allows the article to be improved. My preference is for the former, rather than the latter, as it does reflect what the majority of sources say. So please can we not have a return to previously stated positions and move forward. Justin talk 09:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Moving on, and taking Justin's point about other minor improvements to the lede, how about this one?

Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable to me, lets move on. Justin talk 10:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
First of all, Justin and Pfainuk: the current consensus is NOT to mention the type of government in the lede. Myself, Richard (tell me if I am wrong) and many other editors would rather have it ONLY in the body of the article. The only reason to include it is to include YOU (Justin and Pfainuk) in the consensus. I hope that you guys are able to recognise that compromise from the MAJORITY.
That being said, I think that you guys should accept some things, otherwise it will look like you don't just want to explain to which group of BOTs Gibraltar belongs, but that you want to make a point (which is not the purpose of wikipedia) by including the term "self-governing" in the first paragraph of the article no matter what. My comments about the proposal:
  • the proposal does give WP:UNDUE prominence to this issue: as Richard first proposed, it is better in the second paragraph. The first paragraph is about "what is Gibraltar", not how it functions. The vast majority of sources (Britannica, CIA, PWC, UN, BBC, ...) do not talk about the system of government in the first paragraph.
  • it does not reflect what the vast majority of sources say. In order to include the vast majority of them (including the Gibraltarian Chief Minister, the UK House of Commons, the UN) the following sentence is better: "In 2006, a new constitution was approved maximising the self-government of Gibraltar, except for some powers reserved to the UK Government." If you want, you can add ", which include defence and foreign relations." (although it makes it longer).
This sentence has the merit of explaining to which group of BOTs Gibraltar belongs (your ONLY stated reason for including this issue in the lede), it does not contradict ANY source, and it does not use the controversial terms "self-governing" or "non-self governing".
If you really want to move on, then let's put this text in the article. (Otherwise, tell me what's wrong with this proposal, according to encyclopaedian criteria). Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Your views about majorities are basically irrelevant, I'm afraid. Consensus is not, and never has been, about majorities. The point of this is to find the widest possible consensus, including as many people as possible. In other words, we're trying to find a formulation that we can all agree to.
I do not consider it to be undue prominence to distinguish between different kinds of British Overseas Territory in the lede. This is a matter of "what is Gibraltar", as you put it. Such distinction does not require us to divert entire paragraphs into long-winded explanations on the exact amount of self-government that Gibraltar has - indeed, IMO the words "self-governing British Overseas Territory", with the link included, are entirely sufficient to do this. The initial proposal along these lines was only marginally longer than that. If there is undue prominence in the proposals currently being made, it is due to the large amounts of detail that you have insisted on adding.
Your suggestion that the point made is not backed up by the sources is plain wrong. It is backed up by the sources. It isn't a direct quotation of the sources, but that's no bad thing.
But you announce that anyone who doesn't accept your positions is acting in bad faith. This is a very unhelpful position to be taking and is liable to make it rather more difficult for consensus to be achieved, and I strongly suggest that you withdraw that remark. The fact that people disagree with you is not evidence of bad faith.
Now, compromise is needed and I think I'd better declare my position here. I'm willing - reluctantly - to accept Richard's current proposal. As I've said, I find it altogether too long, but the impression I'm getting is that it's the most likely compromise here. On your proposal, Imalbornoz, I find it awkwardly worded and open to serious misinterpretation. It appears, for example, that the "except" clause is modifying the word "approved" - implying that elements of the constitution concerning reserved powers were not approved. Pfainuk talk 19:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


OK, try this, three well-organized and slightly shortened paragraphs, the first on what's there, the second on history, the third on political argument:

I do hope we don't need to argue about exactly where things go in the lede; I'd suggest that good organization takes precedence over any such issue. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't propose to provide any rebuttal to Imalbornoz's comments, I've previously indicated my reasons so I don't see the point in reiterating them. Similarly, I'm not going to indulge in a disucssion of editors other than to remind him to comment on content NOT editors. Richard's proposal is acceptable to me. Justin talk 10:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
My view for this one is the same as the previous proposal. I'm not keen because I think we'd be better off with something shorter, but am willing to accept it as a means of getting consensus. Pfainuk talk 21:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I must say that I am a bit frustrated because I think that I've proposed several very reasonable alternatives and, somehow, they have not even been taken into consideration.
Myself, I think that I have been quite open in order to reach consensus with Pfainuk and Justin (accepting the mention of type of government in the lede -in spite of the opinion of the majority of inside and outside editors-, accepting not to mention the UN's and Spain's position about Gibraltar's self-government -that it is a "non self-governing territory"-, accepting the mention of just TWO exceptions to self-government...).
I suppose it's only reasonable to ask that they should do the same (so far, they've only accepted to mention that there are exceptions to self-government -something that is mentioned in ALL sources-, and to include the mention of self-government a bit later than the FOURTH word of the article -like ALL sources do).
I will accept the text that Richard proposes except for a minor change of wording. It includes the less controversial expression "self-government" (used by half of the sources or more):
I can't imagine any possible encyclopaedic objections from Pfainuk and Justin to this text, so I hope they go along with this spirit of consensus and we can finish this discussion that started more than 15 months ago. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have rewritten the lede in accordance with the above. I really hope that finishes this particular episode; I'd like to get on with a lot of things including going through the useful suggestions in the Good Article review and trying for GA status again. On balance, and although the four of us seem to have frightened everyone else away, I feel pleased that we have managed to reach a consensus text, one which probably does improve the article. I'd like to thank you all for your help and I hope that you all feel a similar satisfaction. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Steady on here. I, for one, have an objection to this text. I object because it's badly written. We should, at least, have a wording that flows. This one doesn't.
Let me explain: in the verb phrase proposed by Richard, "except" modifies "self-governing". Thus "except" introduces limitations to self-government. In the noun phrase proposed by Imalbornoz, "except" modifies "has". This is a rather more binary distinction: instead of introducing standing limitations to self-government, it would introduce situations in which self-government is removed altogether.
For example, one might say that Gibraltar has self-government except during wartime, or that it has self-government except at the airport. It does not really work with reserved powers, which are a standing situation that do not remove Gibraltar's self-government in other areas. These aren't the sort of limitations that are introduced by Imalbornoz's phrase. The wording makes a binary self-government-or-no-self-government distinction and then tries to pull out of it and ends up sounding weird. That's aside the awkward repetition of the word "government".
Imalbornoz has provided no good reason whatsoever why such awkward phrasing should be preferred over a more natural phrasing. He's provided reasons, but none of them are relevant. So I see no reason to use it over Richard's proposal.
As a side issue, I'm not particularly happy with the removal of the section at the entrance of the Mediterranean, overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar - which I hadn't noticed before. Gibraltar's strategic position is absolutely crucial to the understanding of many aspects of Gibraltar's history, and its cultural significance. Pfainuk talk 10:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. I have returned the text to the previous consensus as per BRD until we all find a new one. Regarding Pfainuk's argument, I think it is a very interesting one, but not really accurate (in my humble opinion). The text does not say that UK's reserve powers affect the whole of Gib's self-government. Plus, anyone can understand what is meant, especially with the examples that are given about foreign relations and defense. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
If we met in a Madrid and I said to you ¿Metro dónde?, I'm sure you'd understand what I meant - but I'm equally sure you would recognise that this is not a well-constructed sentence in Spanish.
You say that "the text does not say that UK's reserve powers affect the whole of Gib's self-government". Well, no. I never said it did. My point is that the construction is unnatural because it starts by implying something that affects the whole of Gibraltar's self-government and then refers to something that doesn't.
I actually fail to understand any reason why you are not willing to accept Richard's original proposal. You say that "self-government" is preferred by most sources - but words in Wikipedia are not chosen by popular vote of sources, so that's totally irrelevant. Good thing too: if it was, we'd never be able to put together a coherent sentence. You imply that "self-governing" is controversial - well, if "self-governing" is controversial then "self-government" is surely equally controversial. I see little to choose between them in that regard - this is certainly no good reason to choose a less natural-sounding sentence over a more natural-sounding sentence. Pfainuk talk 11:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear. Oh well. I find myself agreeing with both of you. Imalbornoz's proposal doesn't, as far as I can see, either say or imply that the reserve powers remove self-government. However, it is slightly (and we are talking about slight differences here) clumsier than the alternative text; the problem as Pfainuk says is the repetition of the word "government", and while we must use our sources we don't have to choose exactly the same word.
I also agree that we should continue to include a phrase describing the strategic location of Gibraltar. I shall go for a paddle in the less-controversial waters that lap Anglesey and check your thoughts again this evening after sunset. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Can we just cut the crap please, Richard's proposed text was perfectly acceptable and good english. What Imalbornoz proposed was badly written with bad grammar and poor use of English. It seems to be vacillating and filibustering to frustrate consensus. Can we please just go with what Richard wrote and get on with it. There is no material difference except one is written well and the other isn't. Justin talk 13:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I've restored Richard's edit, supported by Pfainuk's amendment. There is clearly a consensus to add this. If Imalbornoz wishes to propose an improvement he can do so here. I hope we won't see edit warring to remove it.

Now moving on, this [21] and this [22] should have been an uncontroversial edit. Per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV they're clearly relevant and provide due coverage of the issue. Justin talk 13:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Before I zip up the wetsuit, what about "Under its current constitution Gibraltar has self-government except for powers reserved to the UK, which include defence and foreign relations." Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for implanting an image I really didn't need. I have a preference for the previous prose as it reads better, it has already grown beyond the two words necessary and I'm concerned for the squandering of yet more innocent electrons in filibustering. Won't you please think of the sub-atomic particles. Justin talk 14:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the image :-}
I'm not about to revert again, but I do thnk that we should wait for Imalbornoz's comments. In the meantime I've made what I hope will turn out to be an uncontroversial edit to the first paragraph. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with including the reference to the entrance of the Mediterranean, it surely is relevant.
I just restored Richard's edit, but eliminating the repetition of the word "government" (which seemed to be the thing that made it clumsier). If we are going to include a reference to self-government in the lede and, at the same time, not mention the UN's and Spain's position, we should try to avoid the expression used by the UN and Spain ("self-governing" vs. "non self-governing"). I hope that the current text is acceptable by everybody. The goal should be to reach a consensus at least as stable as the previous one (only mentioning self-government in the body of the article). PS: isn't it a bit cold to go paddling around up there ;)? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Richard's edit was fine by me but Imalbornoz's destruction of basic English grammar wasn't. I've restored Richard's original prose, I would have hoped that someone whose first language isn't English might have listend in good faith when people tried to explain that what they're proposing was grammatically incorrect. I would also hope they might realise that even the Spanish Government recognises the self-governing nature of Gibraltar seeing as that is what the official Spanish Government source actually says. The current prose should be acceptable given that it is supported by numerous sources - including an official Spanish Government paper. This has been done enough can we move on please to improving the article for GA status.
Again, moving on. This [23] and this [24] should have been an uncontroversial edit. Per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV they're clearly relevant and provide due coverage of the issue. I'll take it if there is no response there is no objection and we can move on further. Justin talk 22:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Justin, please take a look at Richard's edit here. Maybe you have made a mistake when restoring it (please notice how I assume good faith)? I have restored it correctly now and eliminated the repetition of the word "government" like Richard proposed. If you now suddenly feel that Richard's edit is not fine by you any more, then maybe we'll have to return to the previous (and stable for years) consensus. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
My previous point still stands. A sentence starting Under its current constitution Gibraltar has self-government except... would still be expected to go on to give circumstances in which self-government is removed - and it still doesn't read well when it doesn't actually go on to do that. The wording, regardless of this modification to your proposal, is still needlessly awkward.
And the fact is, you still haven't given any good reason why Richard's original text was such a problem to you. Sure, "self-governing" is used by the UN to denote status rather than level of self-government. But "self-government" is as well, so this does not distinguish the two wordings. As Justin says, the Spanish government source actually supports that edit.
I would finally note that I do find what can only be described as the ultimatum at the end of your message inappropriate. The point of this is to try and find a consensus that all editors can agree on. We're not working to a deadline here - there's plenty of time. Let's get this right. Pfainuk talk 23:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't find any reason why the sentence "has self-government except for powers reserved to the UK, which include defence and foreign relations" should be awkward. Pfainuk seems to imply that I don't get it because I am not a native English speaker. He's right about the latter (English not being my mother tongue), but I'm not too sure about it really being awkward. Actually, Richard seemed to accept it without any problems. Please Richard, could you give your opinion about the sentence?
Regarding Pfainuk's second comment, I have already explained that the UN and Spain say that "Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory". So, if we have an option to BOTH 1) attain Pfainuk's and Justin's goal of explaining that Gibraltar is one of the BOTs with a large degree of self-government and 2) avoid saying "Gibraltar is self-governing", I think we should use it to make the text less controversial.
Finally, Pfainuk, I have not delivered an ultimatum. I have only proposed to follow your own policy of keeping the previous stable consensus until we reach a new one[25][26][27][28]... I was hoping you would oblige and be consistent also when it is yourself who wants to change something in an article. Could you or someone else return the text to the previous consensus while we discuss this? I hope we can do it calmly and without edit wars (remember ArbCom's recommendations). Thanks!! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never said or intended to imply that it was awkward because you are not a native speaker. I am an English native speaker and I certainly write awkward sentences sometimes, particularly when I try to change bits of already-written sentences. No, I rather figured you didn't get it because I hadn't explained it clearly enough.

Second, you claim to be trying to restore a stable consensus - but at the same time were reverting to a position that had never had and does not have consensus. If you're trying to return the text to the previous consensus position, why on earth are you edit warring to maintain a position that apparently does not have consensus and never has had consensus? While majorities do not define a consensus, let us note that Richard's text (of 21:03, 3 November) has the largest level of support that we've had since this whole thing started.

Third, I've just checked the Spanish government document. Sorry for the length, here are the sections I see that reference the word "autogobierno" ("self-governing"):

En el citado Comunicado Conjunto se añadía que el objetivo compartido de España y el Reino Unido era el de lograr un futuro en el que Gibraltar disfrutase de un mayor autogobierno y de la oportunidad de aprovechar plenamente los beneficios derivados de una convivencia normal con la región circunvecina.

In the cited joint communiqué [the British and Spanish governments] added that the shared objective of Spain and the United Kingdom was to achieve a future in which Gibraltar enjoys greater self-government and opportunity to fully exploit the benefits of normal coexistence with the surrounding region.

Su objetivo común era superar todas sus diferencias sobre Gibraltar y garantizar un futuro seguro para ese territorio, en el que Gibraltar conservase su modo de vida y sus tradiciones, gozase de un mayor autogobierno interno, aumentase su prosperidad de forma sostenible y recibiese todos los beneficios correspondientes a una cooperación armoniosa y mutuamente beneficiosa, en todos los terrenos, entre Gibraltar y el Campo de Gibraltar.

[The British and Spanish foreign ministers'] joint goal was to overcome all of their differences over Gibraltar and to guarantee a secure future for this territory, in which Gibraltar conserves her way of life and her traditions, enjoys greater internal self-government, increases her prosperity in a sustainable manner and receives all the benefits corresponding to a harmonious and mutually beneficial cooporation between Gibraltar and the Campo de Gibraltar in all fields.

Los gibraltareños serían consultados, en un referéndum, sobre el acuerdo una vez ultimado. Los gibraltareños tendrían más autogobierno, de acuerdo con el texto del acuerdo, y podrían preservar sus costumbres y cultura. La idea de que la soberanía compartida fuese una fórmula transitoria no era, según Peter Hain, aceptable para el Gobierno británico.

The Gibraltarians would be consulted, in a referendum, on [the joint sovereignty proposals of 2002] once they had been finalised. The Gibraltarians would have more self-government, in accordance with the text of the agreement, and would preserve their customs and culture. The idea that joint sovereignty would be a transitory formula was not, according to Peter Hain, acceptable to the British government.

Los gibraltareños debían entender que el acuerdo era en su mejor interés ya que tendrían un amplio autogobierno y mejores relaciones económicas con España. Si no aprovechaban esta oportunidad, España seguiría insistiendo para que Gibraltar siguiera estando excluido de los acuerdos de la UE.

[According to José María Aznar in an interview with the Guardian,] [t]he Gibraltarians should understand that [the joint sovereignty proposals of 2002] was in their best interests as they would get broad self-government and improve economic relations with Spain. If they didn't take this opportunity, Spain would continue to insist that Gibraltar be excluded from EU agreements.

La reforma del decreto constitucional no modifica el estatus internacional de Gibraltar y, aunque desarrolla su autogobierno, no altera la soberanía británica sobre el Peñón, el cual sigue siendo un territorio dependiente del Reino Unido, de cuyas relaciones exteriores y defensa sigue siendo responsable.

The reform of the constitutional decree does not modify the international status of Gibraltar and, though self-government develops, does not alter British sovereignty over the peninsula, which remains a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, which is still responsible for external relations and defence.

Thus I can find no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim that Spain says that Gibraltar is not self-governing. I note in passing that they do use the Spanish equivalent of the UN term, "territorio no autónomo" (non-autonomous territory), several times - and primarily in two contexts. It's used when describing Gibraltar's status in international law, and when describing Gibraltar's relationship with the UN. It does not use it to make any judgement as to Gibraltar's level of self-government.

We can move on to the UN. Resolution 1541 uses both the terms "self-governing" and "self-government" to refer to status. Not level of self-government, but political status. As such I see no reason to assume that one form of the word is any more controversial than the other, and thus no reason not to go for better English. Pfainuk talk 11:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to apologize for having declared a solution prematurely. However, we are very close. The remaining difference is between "Gibraltar is self-governing except..." and "Gibraltar has self-government except..." I cannot see any semantic difference between the two sentences, and to support my intuition I've just spent time on a Google search for both terms.
On the term "self-governing" - it's a verb, and the phrase therefore tells us directly what Gibraltar does. However, that phrase is specifically contradicted by the UN and so forth, using an absolute and essentialist definition of the term requiring it to be equivalent to full independent nationhood; on those grounds it would be, slightly, preferable to avoid it. If we do use it, we can look forward to repeated, referenced, good-faith attempts to remove it. As if we haven't had enough good-faith nitpicking already.
On the term "self-government", it's a noun, a thing, a reification of a process, and is therefore an abstraction which requires parsing before its meaning becomes as clear as the alternative. But it may be, very slightly, less controversial.
If we can't agree on this one, I'd suggest we get someone else to comment. Or flip a coin. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
See United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 for UN use of the word "self-government".
The UN, incidentally, does not consider "self-governing" equivalent to "full independent nationhood". A "self-governing" entity by the UN standard does not even need to have its own government. Pfainuk talk 12:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Can we stop claiming that we're contradicting what the UN says, because we're not and as has been demonstrated repeatedly the UN status is nothing to do with Government. We would do better explaining what the UN actually means by that statement and the appropriate place to do so is in the politics section not the lede.
I also don't think its helpful Richard that you let Imalbornoz's ultimatum pass without comment. He is clearing laying down the law that we either accept his strangled sentence or eliminate it from the lede. This is filibustering to frustrate consensus and that should be recognised by you.
Come on people, we are supposedly in the business of writing a quality encyclopedia, if the choice is between a poorly written English sentence and a well written one, the choice should be a no-brainer. I really don't understand why anyone would edit war to impose a bastardised statement in the article. I also don't find your suggestion that the term would be subject to nit-picking criticism, it in no way implies statehood or otherwise - particularly as the article makes plain the UK retains sovereignty. We need to explain the status with the UN and the apparent contradiction - that should put an end to it. Justin talk 13:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is not with any old set of words, but with the title of the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. It actually might give trouble and it's worth getting it right. What about an even more direct phrasing "Gibraltar governs itself..."? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
No the problem is not the UN list, it would be better to explain UN 1541, then there is no room to abuse UN resolutions to push a fiction. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be about educating our readers? Justin talk 19:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk, I think I didn't explain myself: I thought that we had consensus for the edit I made. When I talked about the previous (and longest standing consensus) I talked about the last one we had. To summarise the history of the term "self-governing" (or similar ones) in the lede:
  • No mention at all since 22 October 2002[29] (the first time there was a lede) until 5 April 2009
  • The term is introduced for the first time on 5 April 2009[30], six and a half years later
  • I try to revert and discuss the inclusion of the term in the lede (when I got to understand BRD -I was a newbie) on 3 August 2009[31], only 4 months after it was included for the first time. Justin (and a couple other editors) put the term back.
  • We discuss the inclusion of the term for maaaaany months, until Richard Keatinge takes out "self-governing" and the term "almost complete internal self-government" is included on 20 February 2010[32], while we keep discussing (there seems to be a consensus that, in case self government is mentioned in the lede, it should be qualified with the exceptions)
  • The mention of self-government is taken out of the lede on 15 May 2010[33], and remains without any controversy in the talk page for five months
  • Then, Justin returns from his topic ban, and on 9 October -FIVE MONTHS later- 2010[34] he puts "self-governing" back, without any qualifiers -as if no discussion had ever taken place. We start all over again the discussion.
The last consensus lede does not mention self-government (until 9 October, when it was included, reverted and this discussion started). The longest standing consensus lede (SIX YEARS AND A HALF) does not mention self-government in the lede. Self-government has been mentioned in the lede without any controversy for only FOUR MONTHS.
Following Pfainuk's criteria, I am returning to the last consensus text while we discuss this. I hope we don't enter into an edit war and are able to discuss this peacefully and reasonably. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This is not true, there is clearly a consensus to include this, you have not provided a valid grounds based on wikipedia's policies and are now simply filibustering to frustrate consensus. We focus on content not editors, you seem determined to reduce discussion to slandering other editors. You will not be indulged anymore. Stop the edit warring now, you're simply being disruptive. Justin talk 11:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Justin, you were topic banned because your continuous assumption of bad faith. Can you please refrain? --Ecemaml (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Justin, I'm sorry that you do not agree with the points made by those who disagree with you, and even think them to be filibustering and slander. To reiterate, it seems unwise to assert a phrase that an important source specifically denies. They may not be defining their words in the same way as we are, and the source may be out of date, but we should find another way of expressing the actual situation. I have just tried a bold edit, with the sentence "Under its 2006 constitution Gibraltar governs itself except for powers reserved to the UK Government, which include defence and foreign relations." I hope that this will be more constructive than expressing irritation and making edits before consensus. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
So we're back to the situation where bad tempered and bad faith attacks can be aimed in my direction and there is nothing said but complaining about filibustering, which is accurate, and two of you pile in immediately complaining about my comments.
Again Richard the proposal is to explain why the UN says something different and that should put an end to the matter. Why can't we try and do that instead, we don't contradict what the UN says and we can explain why. Mmm? Would educating our readers be a much better situation so that the rabid nationalists for whom the mere existence of a Gibraltar is an affront cannot use the UN list as an excuse to deny the easily verifiable fact that Gibraltar is self-governing. Would that not be a much better situation than trying to play with wording that they're not going to accept under any terms. Justin talk 12:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
And another thing, no one was entirely innocent in that arbcom case, just because you escaped sanction by arbcom doesn't mean any of your hands are clean. And the sanctions that result from that case apply to you as much as they do to me. I would much rather be creating content for our readers, remember them, the readers that is, because that is what wikipedia is supposed to be about. Instead we apparently have to spend months debating to include the most basic facts, I have been trying to bring this article up to GA status for 2 years and every single attempt to do so has been frustrated by POV pushing nationalists who wish to use the use the article to push a nationalist irredentist agenda. When I returned to this article it hadn't been touched for 3 months but as soon as I start to improve it, there are people coming out of the woodwork to try and stop it. Justin talk 12:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
See [35] for an example of what we could do. Justin talk 13:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

unindent ...Returning to constructive discourse, we have come very close to a consensus. What about the phrase "Gibraltar governs itself except..."? Alternatively "Under its 2006 constitution Gibraltar elects its own government; some powers including defence and foreign relations are reserved to the UK."? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have copied the seedling discussion of Ceuta and Melilla to a new section below. Until we have consensus to insert it here, rather than under Foreign relations of Spain, this comment needs to be removed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Frankly this is getting ridiculous, I asked twice already if there were any objections to my edit. There were no responses, I edit and now apparently we have to have a discussion as whether I'm allowed to edit the article or not. You don't WP:OWN this article, anyone can edit, except me it seems. How come it is only my edits that have to have this scrutiny by a self-appointed scrutineer? Justin talk 13:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I think Richard's edit gives satisfaction to all parts in this discussion. The second alternative sounds better in my ear, but I can agree with both of them.
Regarding Ceuta and Melilla, the previous consensus was not to mention them. There was a vote (at the end of the page) that clearly does not show consensus to include that mention. If anybody wishes to further discuss, we can do it in that section. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Consensus isn't a vote, its about strength of argument. You don't get to suppress material or censor material by voting. Justin talk 13:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A few comments on the above.

Ecemaml, there are few things more likely to be disruptive to progress on this page than editors dragging up the past. The four of us who have been in this discussion have avoided it for the last few days and we've managed to make some good headway on the matters in hand - progress that could not have been made had editors been focussed on the past rather than the future. I would strongly suggest that you do not jeopardise this progress by making any more such unhelpful comments.

Imalbornoz, consensus is not, and never has been, a matter of voting. The substance of the arguments made do matter as well. Just like here, we need to come to a position that all can accept. I will put my position in detail below, but we're going to need compromise there as well as here.

Richard, it still sounds a touch awkward to my ear, but am willing to accept something on the lines you propose. It may be a case of varying mileage, but I will make an edit to try and get something that sounds better to me. Pfainuk talk 18:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The result looks good to me, better than my attempt. Thanks. We could perhaps still remove the final word, thus just "UK" instead of "UK government"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks good to me too. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes of course it looks good to Imalbornoz, the two words "self-governing" aren't included. The two words he doesn't like and will demand are removed whenever they appear. The fact that the majority of sources use those two words, well hey we must ignore those sources when its an issue that Imalbornoz doesn't like. Otherwise we have to repeat the source verbatim or otherwise he'll claim WP:SYN. Two obviously contradictory positions but there is never any conduct about his disruptive behaviour but hey get comment on his filibustering to frustrate consensus building and that gets immediately condemned as a PA, whilst his PA on other editors, raking up of the past, misrepresenting of sources, misrepresentation of discussion passes without comment. Nothing much changes around here. Justin talk 11:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

there is no contradiction with the UN position but we don't explain the UN position so you can expect some POV troll to drop by in future and further disrupt the article.

Redistrubution of the worlds areas

As long as the UN allow the state of Israel to exist, I think there is no point in discussing other areas. Should there be a time limit (year), how the area was gained, what the inhabitants want, or what should decide who owns what? Why haven't the UN thrown Turkey out of Cyprus? This is a much more resent and devastating dispute than Gibraltar. An why do the Spaniards still occupy Moroccos cities? And what about the west Indies? When I see a Jamaican, Holland is of course the first thing on my mind. So please shut up! If it hadn't been for piracy and warfare, there would not have been any Britain nor Spain. Why shouldn't Denmark-Norway be given back southern Sweden? It belonged to them for centuries longer than it has been under Swedish reign. Why don't we start a new war right now? The winner takes it all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.99.225 (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


Whether to mention the position of Ceuta and Melilla in this article

The proposal was to insert: "In turn, Spain's position is criticised as anomalous, whilst it maintain the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla in Moroccan territory." Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - this is a point of no legal or practical relevance and should not be mentioned in an overview article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't find any relevance for this article: no person from Gibraltar has had any impact on Ceuta and Melilla or vicecersa. On the other hand they indeed have lots of relevance (together with Gibraltar, Olivenza and Western Sahara) in the section about international disputes in the article about Foreign relations of Spain.-- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support if San Roque remains. They are each as tangential as the other. Insist on excluding one, and the other should be excluded. Insist on including one, and the other should be included. Pfainuk talk 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I disagree with Richard on the legal and practical relevance as it is a common comment on the Spanish position. A single sentence, supported by sources and a wikilink to the article on Spanish territorial disputes seems to be due coverage. Justin talk 21:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Otherwise, we'd have to include mentions to the Falkland Islands or to the Hong Kong situations, for instance. The proper place to do it is the article on the dispute. It's a typical case of WP:CHERRY in order to POVize the article. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Pah, I'd withdrawn the proposal 1 1/2 hrs before your comment. So illuminating, to note you registered oppose without even reading the arguments. Per WP:Cherry why do we have a mention of San Roque or atrocity tennis? Answer you change the argument to fit whatever content you desire or to censor and suppress other content. No matter your positions on other matters are contradictory. Justin talk 16:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Justin, I guess that sooner or later we'll have to collect all your personal attacks and ask again for administrative review of your actions. It's very sad to verify your inability at avoiding personal attacks. Was it that difficult to say "Pah, I'd withdrawn the proposal 1 1/2 hrs before your comment. So illuminating, to note you registered oppose without even reading the arguments. Per WP:Cherry why do we have a mention of San Roque or atrocity tennis? Answer you change the argument to fit whatever content you desire or to censor and suppress other content. No matter your positions on other matters are contradictory". --Ecemaml (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I see, well allow me to respond that WP:BAIT is also an instructive essay to read. I have tried to focus solely on content but the responders have instead chosen to attack me, rake up the past and refer to past comments for which I have apologised more times than enough. I am sure there is a sincere desire to avoid further arbcom intervention but I might not entertain doubts about your sincerity if you had perhaps commented upon and condemned the 2000 word diatribe directed toward me entitled "incompetence". Let me also look at your comment, my suggestion is based upon the compelling analogue between Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar and I actually welcomed your correction of a POV error I made in my original edit. You now accuse me of cherry picking facts to POVise the article, your comments on my proposal are entirely based on a bad faith presumption on my motives. You allege I'm making personal attacks, yet I find myself defending myself against your own. If you feel the need to gather comments I make in response to baiting, then may I also suggest WP:PETARD. I have tried hard to focus on content, it seems that attacking, belittling and baiting me is more productive for some. My personal preference is to be generating content, not talk page discussion. All I ask is for my content proposals to be considered on their merits, not rejected out of hand because of who makes them. Content should be discussed not editors, yet again despite my plea in that direction you're discussing my conduct, finding reasons to ignore my proposals, reasons I have to say are not rooted in wikipedia's policies and I find myself defending myself and frustrated at the interminable discussion the simplest proposal I make takes. Regards. Justin talk 17:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Ecemaml, I find this exchange extraordinary. In other cases, I've mentioned AGF based on inference and subtext. In this case, your violation of WP:AGF was blatant. And yet barely an hour after you broke this key behavioural guideline - one that we all have to follow if we are to get consensus on the issues here - you're complaining about Justin's behaviour!
We need to assume good faith in each other because people here genuinely have different views about what the best position of this article is. To get end the disputes, we need to get as many people as possible on board - and this can't happen if you're assuming that people who don't hold your position are acting in bad faith. Particularly on an article with the history that this one does, everyone is going to have to work, and work hard, to avoid inflaming the situation. Regardless of your intentions, your comments here, Ecemaml, have only served to inflame the situation and have been deeply unhelpful.
AGF and other behavioural guidelines are here for a reason. We need everyone on this page to do their best not to say anything that might be taken as an assumption of bad faith, a personal attack, or any other violation. Step back and think before you press the save button. Wait a few hours before responding to an edit, particularly if it annoyed you. And remember that the point of this is to get the widest possible consensus on all the points that are at issue here. Pfainuk talk 18:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And once again, this isn't the edit, I corrected a POV error in my proposal already. Since when did we have scrutiny of well-written sourced and relevant material? Which policy change did I miss? Justin talk 13:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to include several POVs and common criticisms of those POVs, we should include also the ones that support the UN's position that Gibraltar is not a self-governing territory. To only include criticism of Spain's position is -clearly- not WP:NPOV. In fact, I think any of us can come up quite quickly with several very common and noteworthy criticisms of Britains' and Gibraltar's POV.
If those issues also include Ceuta and Melilla, this could very easily be expanded: including the POVs criticising Spain's position in Ceuta and Melilla and not including the relevant POVs defending its position is clearly not WP:NPOV.
An alternative would be to redirect to the article about the sovereignty dispute (that would be shorter and less controversial in this article). Which would you prefer?
BTW, I am returning the text to the previous consensus while we discuss this, following Pfainuk's[36][37][38][39] criteria. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Two votes in support, one in opposition, one weak oppose. By anyone's arithmetic that is a majority in favour. This is well-written, sourced and relevant material giving due coverage to an issue. The allegation it fails NPOV is not sustainable by any wikipedian policy, this is not a content discussion it is suppression and censorship using the consensus process to filibuster any content discussion to frustrate the achievement of a consensus text. We allow readers to make up their own minds but how can they do that when any material perceived to be somehow critical of Spain is suppressed and censored. There is no sustainable objection to my edit on any grounds relevant to wikipedia. The wikilinks above have no relevance here. Justin talk 14:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh and for the unitiated I didn't just do this, I asked twice if there were any objections, there being none I then proceeded to add the edit. All of sudden then we have to discuss the edit, this is not WP:BRD its Discuss, Ignore, Discuss, Ignore, Edit, Revert, Filibuster. Justin talk 15:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN#Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar Please allow outside comment without flooding the page with walls of text. Justin talk 20:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see the plea to allow outside comment was ignored. Richard you commented earlier that outside opinion would be helpful, I doubt we'll get it with the walls of text above and every time it is sought you and Imalbornoz pile in to deter it, saying it isn't needed. What was that about, Imalbornoz poisons the well claiming it isn't neutral and misrepresenting discussion, then you pile in saying we don't need outside comment and its better discussed here. Then you don't discuss it, you have your little vote, don't listen to the argument and claim there is no consensus. Again we see the discussion misrepresented by Imalbornoz, just as he has misrepresented what sources say and you say nothing about that Richard, nothing.
I asked for comment before putting this edit, twice, and there was none. From my perspective this is an ownership issue where reasonable, due and relevant coverage of any issue is censored and suppressed if it is seen as "critical" of Spain. My conduct may have been uncivil in the past, your conduct is becoming a problem now. The article was neutrally written before, now it has serious POV issues and talk page discussions are not being used to correct that but to frustrate any change. Justin talk 11:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Article tagged to encourage outside discussion of the issues raised. Justin talk 11:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Justin. So, if I haven't got your proposal right, what exactly is it? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The diff is here [40], I made a POV error in my original proposal that I was happy to correct. Justin talk 22:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So just to check, your proposal is:

Is that right? Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Justin talk 23:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. I oppose its introduction here, because it's of no legal or practical importance to Gibraltar; the arguments about sovereignty would be entirely unaffected if Ceuta and Melilla were now part of Morocco or were to sink tomorrow. I'd support its mention in articles about the foreign policy of Spain, where it is a perceived anomaly. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Right just so I understand you, you oppose it because you say it's of no legal or practical importance to Gibraltar but you absolutely insist we must mention San Roque that really is of no legal or practical importance to Gibraltar. The two positions are obviously contradictory yet you post a 2000 word personal attack contrary to WP:NPA labelling me incompetent. Well, at least I can construct an argument that stands up to logical scrutiny.
You asssert there is no legal or practical importance. Two references support the edit. 1. Is a publication in a legal document, which establishes legal relevance 2. Is a speech by the Chief Executive of Gibraltar at the UN, in relation to the UN C24. To claim it is of no importance is not a sustainable argument. You arguments on legal or practical importance do not stand up to scrutiny. They are not sustainable by any of wikipedias policies.
What I propose gives WP:DUE coverage of an issue per WP:NPOV, is it sourced from reliable sources per WP:RS, it is verifiable per WP:V. You have not advanced an argument based on wikipedia's policies, rather your own personal opinion and an opinion that have to say does not withstand logical scrutiny.
What is clear is it is not the edit that is the issue but the editor who has proposed it. Any proposal that this editor makes is reverted or opposed, on grounds that have no relevance whatsoever to wikipedia. This is censorship and suppression of relevant material, simply because you personally dislike the editor who made it. Justin talk 09:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
As I've mentioned before, you quote the Chief Executive and a lawyer mentioning, in passing, a populist comment. This does very little to establish notability. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
A publication in a legal journal, that mentions it, that you seem keen to dismiss and it has to be said not on the basis of grounds that are relevant to wikipedia - that he mentions it "in passing". The author thought it relevant enough to include it. The Chief Executive mentioning it in a speech to the United Nations. But you simply airily dismiss an important UN speech as a "populist" comment, again this isn't grounds relevant to deciding wikipedia's content. This isn't a policy based argument, its your personal opinion and it isn't rooted grounds for opposing content on wikipedia. You appear to have decided by reflex to oppose a change simply because of who made it and are clearly not listening to the argument. See also [41] on the legal implications, all of which are signficant. There is a clear policy based argument for inclusion, there are no policy grounds for censoring this information. Justin talk 11:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh and before introducing this, I asked twice in the area you created whether there were any objections. If you'd objections why didn't you raise them then? As soon as I actually create content, there is a demand I remove it, its reverted. Every time I try to introduce content, even when you acknowledge its well written and sourced per wikipedia's policies you or one of your cabal reverts it. Justin talk 11:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Your new reference does indeed provide a more substantial argument for inclusion: "For stability and development in the Strait area, any lasting resolution of the Spanish and UK sovereignty dispute must also take cognisance of the Spanish and Moroccan territorial dispute on the southern shore of the Strait. Both states claim sovereignty over Ceuta, Melilla, Penon de Velez de la Gomera, Alhucemas and the Chafarinas Islands.4 Spain claims the five African Sovereign Territories (Plazas) on historical grounds, for security reasons and UN territorial integrity of the state principles. Spain stresses that the majority of residents there are Spanish. Morocco argues that the UN principles of decolonisation must be applied; that Spanish bases there threaten Moroccan security; and that the UN territorial integrity principles apply. Morocco insists that Spanish arguments for the recovery of Gibraltar substantiate Morocco’s to the Plazas.5" It is still weak - "taking cognizance of" doesn't mean any strong legal argument - and it strikes me as undue weight for an overview article though perfectly well-placed in Foreign relations of Spain. I wonder what other editors think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that I now have a "cabal". So far I have generally been ignoring any comments that don't seem offer any contribution to improving the article. But if you want to discuss matters of this sort, perhaps your talk page or mine would be the best place? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You are most definitely not welcome to post on my talk page and as for ignoring comments that don't seem to offer any contribution to improving the article I was not the one compelled to write a 2000 word personal attack right here. None of you had not touched this article for 3 months till I made a few changes and then its revert, revert, revert - you don't create content you just destroy it. No I have a preference for keeping everything in public and in the one place for that every reason. As to gettting other editor's comments, tell me what other editor, seeing as any attempt to bring in outside opinion is discouraged by you and Imalbornoz with the wall of text approach. You then oppose any change and claim there is no consensus but don't offer grounds compatible with wikipedia's policies for doing so. You airily dismiss reliable sources, you belittle a major speech at the UN as "populist" and really as we're talking a few words here how you can claim WP:UNDUE as grounds is beyond me. No there is more to this, its the classic example of WP:OWN and excluding editors who don't belong to your little club. I have tried to discuss this reasonably but you're not advancing grounds relevant to wikipedia that this material should not be included and unless you do so I will go ahead an include it. If you and Imalbornoz choose to edit war it out, then all you're doing is censoring and suppressing information that is relevant to the topic of this article not writing a quality encyclopedia, which is supposedly our aim. Justin talk 13:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring? I would really prefer to stick to concise, relevant arguments about the actual edits proposed, until consensus can be achieved. We have just managed to do that in one case by mutual compromise and by avoiding "hot button" wording. But if you want to complain about me any further, I invite you to start a section on my personal talk page. This may at least keep the complaints out of this talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no desire to discuss matters on your talk page, I prefer a public forum for the reasons already identified. You're not provided concise or relevant arguments about the actual edits proposed. That is the issue, you simply say no, the reasons offered don't stand up to logical scrutiny, they're not policy based and they're inconsistent. Justin talk 13:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing the proposal for now based on the feedback I got from the NPOV noticeboard. I would have been much, much happier with that feedback if certain parties had not poisoned the well before any outside comment was received. WP:OWN is nontheless a big problem here right now. Justin talk 14:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Politics section

Having looked through the article while reviewing the previous point, I noticed with surprise that no significant discussion of the dispute is included in the Politics section of this article. Whereas detailed discussion of the dispute properly belongs on the (sadly dreadful) dispute article, and there is clearly more to Gibraltar politics than the relationship with Spain, this is nonetheless an important part of Gibraltar politics and should properly be discussed.

I thus suggest that the following, or something like it, be included underneath that section, and that the third paragraph (on the UN) be removed as redundant.

--

Relations with Spain

Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control, arguing that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity.<Spanish government document discussed above> In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the Treaty of Utrecht, which gives Spain "first refusal" if the British decide to leave.<this FCO doc, page 5, marked as page 58> The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination.<this Times article>

Two referendums on the subject have been held, in 1967 (on a handover to Spain) and 2002 (on the principle of joint sovereignty). In each case, more than 98% of voters rejected the outlined change. Both referenda were opposed by the Spanish government.<Sources from the articles on the referendums>

Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht. On this basis, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters, for example.<the same Spanish gov't document> The UK and Gibraltar governments do not accept any such limitations on British sovereignty,<this Gibraltar Chronicle article> and claim the isthmus based on longstanding occupation.<same FCO doc>

Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. While the British and Gibraltar governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised, Spain opposes such attempts, and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.<Same references as now>

--

References are provided in <angle brackets>. Thoughts? Pfainuk talk 21:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support that proposal with the suggestion that it is slightly expanded to discuss UN 1541 to identify the basis on which the UN describes what is/is not self-governing. The lack of such a description continues to permit the UN position to be used to misrepresent the state of Government in Gibraltar and is a major failing in the current article. Justin talk 23:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Good stuff in general, support something of the sort. Did the Spanish government oppose the 1967 referendum? The 2002 one is described as "'ilegal' y contrario 'a todas las resoluciones" of the UN - that certainly counts as opposition - but opposition to the referendum itself in 1967 isn't clear to me from the references in that article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes they did, they shut the border in response to it. Sorry but anyone who has knowledge of Gibraltar would be very familiar with that, so familiar they probably wouldn't think to reference it. Justin talk 23:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
So a reference would be good? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The redaction seems fine but requires enhancements. Phrase "which gives Spain "first refusal" if the British decide to leave" is not fully supported by the source. In fact, the source says "Gibraltar could become independent only with Spanish consent" (I mean, the UK gov is quite explicit on its interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht consequences; it was reiterated in the dispatch accompanying the 2006 constitution). On the other hand, I wonder if talking about the isthmus in a generic fashion is OK. I mean, the isthmus links the Rock of Gibraltar with mainland. The dispute is only about the South portion of said isthmus.
Additionally, it requires a longer mention to UN (not only to 1541, but, for instance to 2231 or 2353). It's not only being in the list, but also all the procedures involved (mainly in the sixties). For instance, it lacks a mention to the UN rejection of the 1967 referendum (that is, the 1967 referendum was not only rejected by Spain, but by a UN resolution, 2353). In that framework, a mention to the closure of the fence would be needed. It also lack mentions to the Brussels Process, the 1987 Airport Agreement and to the Tripartite Forum (including Cordoba agreement). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC) PS: I can provide references to possibly all the events, both in English and Spanish, so please, don't hesitate to ask for them.
It would be really useful if you could list the references. We do of course need to remember that this is an overview article, and not every detail is appropriate here. But if you can give us your references we can discuss what to actually write. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I was about to add a comment in the line of Ecemaml's: I think the proposal is overall OK, as long as it has some additional (if brief) information; a longer mention to the UN (who has a major voice in territorial conflicts in general and has had a major involvement in this particular dispute) would be very important. I'll look at references when I find some time (I hope today or this weekend) if someone does not before I do. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I fear scope creep here, only the major UN resolutions need cover, additional detail is appropriate for a different article. 1514 and 1541 are the main ones requiring coverage in an overview. Like so many items here this risks being turned into a War and Peace epic if you try and jam in any item. Seeing as someone mentioned WP:CHERRY yesterday, they might like to consider whether insisting that 2353 is mentioned falls into that category. Justin talk 12:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. So the question is: Is the UN General Assembly position about the dispute and some of its episodes (explained in three resolutions specifically dealing with Gibraltar) relevant enough to be mentioned or summarised in the text? Or should the text only explain the position of Gibraltar, UK and Spain about those episodes -and only the UN's general policy about colonies (resolutions 1514 and 1541)?
My opinion: Neither 1514 nor 1541 deal specifically with the Gibraltar territorial dispute (although they merit mention). On the other hand, we have three UN General Assembly resolutions that deal specifically with Gibraltar: UN General Assembly Resolution 2070, 2231 and 2353 (by the way, 2353 directly deals with the 1967 referendum). I am sure that any text about a territorial dispute with (not one but) three UN GA resolutions should mention them, don't you think so?
I also think that the British position should be explained fully: that is, that the UK agreed to reach joint sovereignty (this is what led to the 2002 referendum), but at the same time it has said that it will not accept anything that is not agreed by a majority of Gibraltarians (the current text only explains the second half...) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you provide me with a cite that confirms that that is the current British position please? I mean, self-determination has been British policy for decades, whereas you're referring to an agreement in 2002 made by the party that is now in opposition, full in the knowledge that the discussion was almost certainly academic (as the deal was conditional on a referendum in Gibraltar).
You say: I am sure that any text about a territorial dispute with (not one but) three UN GA resolutions should mention them, don't you think so? No, not necessarily. UNGA resolutions are non-binding and may be limited in their impact even at the time of adoption - these ones are a good example of that. And even if we were to accept that they were relevant enough at the time, this does not imply that they remain relevant in a short summary of the political situation over forty years after they were adopted. Pfainuk talk 18:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec with Imalbornoz, 18:47 11 Nov. 2010) Ecemaml, while your quote is accurate, your statement that my phrase is not fully supported by the source is not. If you check the first line under "Sovereignty", you will see the words: Under the Treaty of Utrecht, Spain has right of ‘first refusal’ should Britain decide to relinquish sovereignty over Gibraltar. This is a British government POV, so is couched in those terms in my proposal.

The other points you list would appear to me to be so far beyond the point of reasonable summary that it would be unacceptable to me. Better to have no change than to create a WP:COATRACK on the detail of the referenda, which would be the effect of your proposal.

The only reason the text mentions the referenda is to point out implications of the British and Gibraltar POV: that self-determination effectively means the status quo. If we're mentioning the referenda to make a point about current politics (as I propose), it seems fair to point out that these were not conducted with Spanish consent as might otherwise be inferred - that Spain did not implicitly accept self-determination through the referenda. What the UN had to say on a referendum in 1967 in its non-binding opinion is pretty irrelevant to the political situation as of 2010.

The point made about the UN is independently relevant - it would be relevant even if there were no dispute. I propose it go in this section only because it would be illogical to go into the British and Spanish positions on the C24 listing before mentioning why they might care. And I agree with Justin that a reference to GA resolution 1541 would not be inappropriate to give context to the C24 list - again, it would be relevant as of 2010 regardless of the dispute, unlike the UN resolutions noted.

As to Richard's point regarding referencing - the article on the 1967 referendum is surprisingly bare of references, so I've had a look online. This book (p33) was the first I found, and it makes the point well enough. Pfainuk talk 18:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, let me observe that I have repeatedly suggested that we include a comment on 1541, which sets out the criteria by which the UN "defines" non-self-governing. As so many people make so much of the UN list of non-self-governing territories to push the fiction that Gibraltar is not self-governing the need for such a section is self-evident. But strangely, no that musn't be mentioned as it is "unimportant". We also apparently have not to mention 1514, which highlights self-determination of non-self-governing peoples as being paramount. The two resolutions are after all the cornerstone of decolonisation, so to not mention them makes no logical sense whatsoever.
There is a desire to mention 2353. OK fine by me, but bear in mind this resolution calls for the democratic mandate of the people of Gibraltar to be ignored and for the UK to negotiate with the Fascist Dictator General Franco, ignoring the wishes of the people of Gibraltar as expressed in said referendum. Mmm, really do think about this though, the UN is basically reproaching the UK for asking the people of Gibraltar what they desired for their future, consulting the people on their own destiny. Please do mention it verbatim, its own words condemn it most eloquently. If nothing else it demonstrates clearly and conclusively the UN is far from neutral. So for my vote, please do mention it - verbatim.
Finally, if we're going to mention political development, perhaps we could also mention that the GoG has challenged the Spanish Government repeatedly to take its claims to the ICJ See [42] and so far the Spanish Government has declined. Just mention it and let the reader decide for themselves.

Inhabitants and Gibraltarians

I have moved the detail about the number of inhabitants who are local citizens from the lede to the Demography section, with its reference. I hope this is helpful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe perhaps we could discuss first, it seems somewhat inconsistent that any content suggestion I make is subject to scrutiny but not anyone else. I don't see the need for this change personally. This is why there is a wikilink after all. Justin talk 13:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh and before you issue a 3RR warning, I have no intention to make any further reverts. Justin talk 13:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Discussion would be good; we need to be accurate but we don't need to put excessive detail in the lede. This sort of demographic detail is not usual for a lede (it isn't even mentioned in Dubai, for instance, where over 80% of the population is foreign) and is of very limited help to anyone coming to an overview of Gibraltar. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree absolutely, it is completely unnecessary. Justin talk 14:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Justin, have you looked at the source? Have you looked at any source at all? Or is it just the usual disruptive edit warring just for the sake of it?
If the lede says "At its foot is the densely populated city area, home to almost 30,000 Gibraltarians", then IT IS WRONG (please check it out before you revert). It would be right to say that "it is populated by 29,000 people (24,000 of them Gibraltarians)" or "it is populated by 29,000 people", but what you have just referted for three times in a row (from 3 different users) is plain WRONG. I get that you prefer that Wikpedia's users get the wrong information (for I don't know what absurd reason). This behaviour is extremely disruptive. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of Justin's position on the text, your message is a serious violation of Wikipedia behavioural policy. As such, I would like to ask you to please withdraw the accusations of bad faith made against Justin here. Pfainuk talk 17:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I note that Richard has acknowledged my concern on lede fixation and excessive details, so no it isn't wrong. The only person edit warring to impose content is Imalbnornoz. You were invited to discuss concerns, you have chosen instead to edit war to impose content and a blatant bad faith attack. When I introduce well written, sourced, verifiable and relevant material it is reverted and subjected to interminable discussion and I'm not allowed to introduce it into the article. I ask for a brief discussion in talk about a long standing consensus text - one that none of you thought to consider before - and you refuse, instead tag team edit warring to impose the content. Double standards, ownership, edit warring, misrepresentation of sources, misrepresenting argument, bad faith attacks. The disruptive conduct is racking up but none of it is down to me. Justin talk 21:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Gibraltarian people#Nationality Just to point out to the person making the bad faith personal attack alleging disruptive behaviour, that as I pointed out earlier the wikilink text explained the demographics. This is a clear case of lede fixation. Justin talk 21:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Justin, you have just edit warred for the nth time. And, to make things clearer, this time you have reverted 3 times to a text that was obviously wrong according to a source that you have considered relevant many times (the Gvt of Gib). I don't want to assume bad faith, but there are only two alternative explanations: either 1) you checked the source and even so you reverted or 2) you reverted withou even checking the source. Honestly, Justin, you have to realise that either one is disruptive, and I have to warn you that it can get you banned again. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Unacceptable. Imalbornoz, if you are not willing to engage in discussion without making personal attacks or accusing others of bad faith, it is you who will be banned, not Justin. Justin has made cogent arguments as to why your edit was inappropriate. Justin is allowed to disagree with you, and you yourself said earlier this week that disputed edits should not be made until they have consensus. So I ask again: please withdraw your accusation of bad faith. Pfainuk talk 22:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Imalbornoz, you have edit warred to impose this content, ignoring a polite request to take this to talk. You're being disruptive here not me and you're returning to a pattern of behaviour of edit warring to impose content, whilst at the same time tying the talk page up in fruitless discussion where you are the only dissenting voice.
I gave a clear explanation and amplify it above, I also indicated I wasn't prepared to edit war. You have taken advantage of my good faith declaration to revert content back into the article, for which the consensus is far from clear at this point in time. You assert that disputed edits should not be allowed until there is a consensus, yet the moment your edits are disputed you edit war to impose them. There is of course, more than the two options, another being the one I have delineated above but yet again you assert there are only, both of which designed to infer bad faith on my part; of itself an attempt to use the Unclean Hands defence.
From my perspective your posts this evening are little short of WP:BAIT with the intention of eliciting an intemperate response. I would appreciate it if someone would consider reverting to the previous consensus. As I said I won't be reverting but I do tend to think that allowing the current situation to persist is rewarding disruptive behaviour such as edit warring and bad faith personal attacks. This is the last thing we need here. I would prefer a self-revert as a demonstration of good faith. Lets see what happens. Justin talk 22:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me check, please: do you really want the article to say that there are 30,000 Gibraltarians in Gib even when you positively know that sources say that there are a bit less than 24,000? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I have asked you to withdraw your accusation of bad faith twice now. You have twice declined to do so. I have thus raised the matter of your behaviour in this thread at WP:ANI. Pfainuk talk 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am restoring the previous text, which is the established consensus, and restoring the wikilink associated with it. Gibraltarian applies to both native born and residents. So the edit and lede fixation was unnecessary. The removal of the wikilink to an article that explains the demographics has left the article poorer. I trust we can have a mature level headed discussion about changing the consensus rather than further incivility. Justin talk 12:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that is more accurate now, but maybe the wording of "30,000 Gibraltarians and other nationalities." could be improved (while keeping the same meaning)? Of course, I am not a native English speaker so I am not too sure, but it doesn't sound very well in my ear... Opinions? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It is. What about "people"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


UNINDENT

I think that the reason why the current version does not sound fine in my ear is because it's like adding apples to pears:

  • Gibraltarians are individuals of Gibraltarian nationality (e.g. "there are 30 Gibraltarians in this room")
  • Nationalities are memberships to particular nations (e.g. "there are people of over 5 nationalities in this room")
  • So maybe I am a bit square-headed, but I can't make the addition: X individuals (or Gibraltarians) + Y memberships (or nationalities) = 30,000 unit?

Or maybe I am missing some subtlety of the English language? (e.g. that nationalities can also be colloquially used to mean individuals?)

If Justin wants to keep the link to Gibraltarian people (which is fine with me), what about:

  • "At its foot is the densely populated city area, home to almost 30,000 people of Gibraltarian and other nationalities"?
  • Or "At its foot is the densely populated city area, home to almost 30,000 people of which about 80% are Gibraltarians and 10% are UK British." (like in UAE[43])?

Does it sound any better, or does anybody have a better alternative? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense and no, you aren't missing any subtleties of the English language. I'd just say "people" and leave details out of the lede as practically every other analogous article does. Even in the UAE article, where the population mix is remarkable because residents include such a high proportion of non-natives, that detail isn't put in the lede. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
To be permanently resident in Gibraltar, you are required to have Gibraltarian status. Since the 30,000 figure refers to residents the statement there are 30,000 Gibraltarians was and is perfectly accurate. I have also included in the citation a DETAILED breakdown. Putting details of demographics in the lede is lede fixation and excessive detail. This is perfectly acceptable English usage and we are writing the English wikipedia after all.
I have in good faith edited to address your concerns despite, I might add, a needless outbreak of severe bad faith and personal attacks for which neither of you have yet had the good grace to make any attempt at apology or withdraw any of the remarks made. Justin talk 11:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

ARBCOM Warning

All users are reminded that this article is subject to sanctions under the ARBCOM rulings on Gibraltar. Please remember that we have specific policies for multiple reverts and for edit waring. Since there are no significant edits in the past day or so I have not issued blocks. I hope we do not come to that. All an encouraged to continue discussions on the talk page, respect all editors and avoid edit summaries and comments that may be deemed uncivil. Thanks JodyB talk 19:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am expanding the warning to include incivility on the part of all. Vigorous debate is encouraged but focus on the content and not the editors. Badgering, name calling and other forms of dispute are blockable offenses as under the ARBCOM ruling. JodyB talk 14:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Change proposal

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.

be changed to:

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left for nearby areas of Spain.

I have a number of problems with the sentence "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings." In the first instance, it is a classic example of WP:CHERRY, picking out facts to make a point not supported by the original texts. As written it implies the evil Anglo-Dutch forces were deliberately beastly to the population to force them to leave. There are number of key factors that are not included here that would be relevant if this text is to persist. First of all the Anglo-Dutch forces and their Spanish allies had the objective of seeking support for their cause from the people, so the activities of some of their forces was disastrous as it alienated the population. Secondly, the forces tried desperately to control their troops and severely punished the offenders; the rapists were hanged for example. Thirdly, another factor in the exodus was an expected Spanish counter attack in the near future. The population believed they would return shortly. Fourthly, to say they fled to San Roque is emotive language, they did not flee, they chose to leave and they left unmolested. If anything in the article is WP:SYN this phrasing is it. Finally, the use of English language is poor the sentence structure is appalling and it reads badly. Not the product of quality writing for a quality encyclopedia.

Secondly, mention of San Roque. I am aware that this is mentioned in historical texts as a destination. The point that it is sourced is not the issue here. There are many other destinations such as Algeciras and other towns founded nearby, which we do not think to mention. I believe this is another example of WP:CHERRY picking out a fact for inclusion, which is only tangentially related to Gibraltar. In addition, we risk WP:COATRACK due to the importance attached to San Roque by certain ardent nationalists, whereby the people of San Roque are claimed to be the "real Gibraltarians" and the only ones who can determine the future of Gibraltar. Now I do not claim that consideration of offending or otherwise a particular nationalist group should ever be a reason for suppressing content but we should not shirk from considering whether mention improves the article or merely sates a nationalist aspiration to provide a WP:COATRACK for expressing nationalist sentiment. How long before someone decides to put in the fact that the Spanish consider San Roque to be the "real Gibraltar". Finally, San Roque was in fact founded in 1706, some 2 years later. Yes, it was founded by the people who left Gibraltar but it didn't exist as a town in 1704. So basically the article says they went to a town that didn't exist at the time and I'm sorry but I really don't see that as an example of quality writing for a quality encyclopedia.

This is a overview article, rather than a full account of historical events, and it now seems to me that we would need to put in an excessive number of details to achieve consensus text that treats these events in a neutral manner. A NPOV blow-by-blow account of the whole thing, including the who did what to whom, who went where, towns that were founded in SPAIN not GIBRALTAR, and so on, just seems too much for an incident in a overview. Personally I'd go for slimming down the text as above, which no doubt will satisfy no one but treat the incident in a neutral manner. As I have pointed out many times, I do not feel the article benefits from a pre-occupation with what I refer to as "atrocity tennis". Justin talk 12:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to convey in text form my passionate desire for consensus on good encyclopedic text, but perhaps I could ask you to reconsider the possibility that I'm really doing my best...
I'd be unbothered by the change from "fled" (which may suggest a greater degree of haste than was in fact the case, they trudged rather than sprinted) to "left". And, we could omit unsourced speculation about the exact state of mind of the refugees at the time. The text would then read:
"On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population left for San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain."
You suggest removing the brief and factual comment about the various atrocities and revenge attacks. I think it's a point of ongoing importance. And I feel the same about the mention of San Roque - we have been through it all many times, but the fact that the original shrine and hamlet in the Campo de Gibraltar, now a town, still makes certain claims is still important (to some people) as part of the current dispute. That is part of what makes the fact still notable today for this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that discussion of what was done by each side is awkward. It is very difficult to summarise what happened neutrally - and to be honest I'm not convinced that the detail of what happened on those three days is of ongoing importance. We should mention the fact that there was violence - that the townspeople didn't just think it would be fun to go for a walk and never came back - but the detail is too much IMO.
On San Roque, I have two issues: first, the fact that many townspeople ended up in San Roque - as opposed to (say) Algeciras - does not affect the later history of Gibraltar at all. Inevitably, somewhere had to be on the border, and San Roque is quite convenient for Gibraltar, but that does not make the fact that people ended up there immediately relevant in a summary history of Gibraltar. To the dispute, maybe - and thus it could go into Disputed Status of Gibraltar. It could equally be worth a mention in the more detailed article, History of Gibraltar. But I think it's too much detail here. Second, that the text is currently anachronistic. They didn't go to San Roque because there was no San Roque. There was a hermitage-cum-chapel and not much else there.
That said, I consider San Roque a secondary issue here. I shall include it in my proposal in brackets, not because I support inclusion, but because I want to concentrate on the more important issue, which is the form of words used to describe the situation from 4-7 August:

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. Following three days of disorder, almost all of the townspeople (had?) left for nearby areas of Spain (including the hermitage of San Roque).

This makes the fact of disorder clearer than Justin's proposal, without going into "atrocity tennis". Another thing: was there a massed and organised departure on 7 August, or was it a more disorganised affair, with some leaving at some times and others at others? The massed departure we currently describe just seems a little tidy - it doesn't quite ring true to me.
By the way, is 4/7 August here Old Style or New Style? I'm sure it's been mentioned before but Wikipedia's being slow at the moment. (Has someone deleted the sandbox again?) Pfainuk talk 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Before I respond to Pfainuk I would like to make an observation. Text is not a good medium in which to convey humour, I am sure Richard intended his comments to be humorous. However, equally they can be interpreted as patronising and dismissive of my concerns. I would suggest in the current climate avoiding what are intended to be humorous comments to defuse tension, as they could be misinterpreted. Much as my earlier "Patience Grasshopper" was, it was intended to be jocular, Richard took exception to it.
In addition, yes we've been through this before but the discussion was bad tempered with any comment suggesting this was too much for an overview howled down in protests that we were suppressing and censoring information. I don't believe the atmosphere was conducive to writing neutral prose. I did make a content suggestion that covered all the relevant facts in a neutral manner see [44].
The above text illustrates my point in making this suggestion. To cover all relevant points to achieve a neutral text, requires including many details that are just too much for an overview. I would happily support Pfainuk's alternative text but I think I have demonstrated that the current text is non-neutral and is an example of WP:CHERRY. It picks facts selectively to make a point, it doesn't address the issue neutrally. I make no judgement whether that was the intention of the original editor, sometimes we don't recognise our own bias. As a result I don't think continuing with the current text is compatible with wikipedia's policies.
Please note that I'm not suggesting we don't need to mention the violence that occurred, in fact I've always suggested that it does need to be mentioned. However, the appropriate place for detailed text would be History of Gibraltar for example, where the more focused subject of the article allows us to consider such details. The text proposed simply didn't dwell on the details but conveyed the fact that the population felt the need to move because they were in fear. I believe this to be a neutral summary.
In answer to a question posed by Pfainuk, the exodus was an organised affair and is documented as a procession that proceeded to the ruins of the nearby hermitage of San Roque (from which the modern town takes its name); 4000 is the number given in numerous authoritive texts.
I support all the points he makes and I find the text he suggests acceptable. I tend to agree that it is better not to mention San Roque per brevity, his reason re-inforce the argument I set out above. I also find the current text inappropriate, they didn't go to the town of San Roque, the refugees founded San Roque there 2 years later. Justin talk 20:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Your long version is good stuff, far too long for this article as you say. I'm sorry to disagree entirely that we need so many words to make the result NPOV. The essential points are those that are still important enough for this overview (often those that are the basis of current grievance), the NPOV words are those that give an impartial account of the important points. And I'm fairly sure that the present version fulfils those criteria, rather well. The atrocities of the Anglo-Dutch force were and are very important - most of the inhabitants and their city charter might well have stayed otherwise, the war might have gone a lot better for Charles, history would have been different, and one source of ongoing mutual grievance would have been absent. I'm working hard to keep my mind open, and I'm not fixated on one exact wording, but I can't agree that we have seen any suggestions that would improve the present paragraph. And as for the town not being officially founded until 1706 - yes. But the hermitage of San Roque had been there for a long time, giving its name to what there was of the place, and we have wisely avoided specifying its exact municipal status. I hate to have to say it, but the present paragraph still strikes me as very well-crafted: "On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings.[10][11][12][13] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.[11]" Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I have set out clear and concise reasons for my issues with this text. It is not neutral and does not cover all crucial and essential points. I believe that has been comprehensively demonstrated - there are several equally compelling points to make. Its atrocity tennis pure and simple, focusing on misdeeds, cherry picking facts to make a point. You actually acknowledge some of those when you mention the war would have gone better for Charles if they hadn't happened.
It is also poorly written, its an abortion of English grammar, I cannot accept the suggestion that it is well-crafted. It simply isn't.
These issues were raised at the time it was crafted by Pfainuk. If you go back and review the talk page, his concerns were brushed aside and ignored and the comments directed toward him were uncivil. This content was imposed over and above his objections, the atmosphere at the time was distinctly unhealthy and not conducive to writing good prose.
On San Roque if you say the Hermitage had existed, well my longer version explains that. It did but it wasn't the modern town of San Roque, founded in 1706. San Roque was founded as a result of the exodus they didn't go to there. We currently claim they went to a town that didn't yet exist. This clearly is not part of a quality article.
I have raised several important areas of our policies and identified why they are relevant. I find it difficult to move forward in a contructive dialogue whilst these points are not being addressed. The arguments aren't being addressed but simply a preference for the current text stated - this isn't conducive to building a consensus text. Please address the issues raised and perhaps consider the proposal put forward by Pfainuk. Justin talk 22:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll repeat my position very respectfully. I honestly believe that the violence during the capture and the exile to San Roque is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article: 1) they are overwhelmingly mentioned by historians, by popular books and leaflets and even by diplomats (and hard-core Spanish nationalists too, which is no reason not to mention the episodes); 2) they deal with the destiny of almost all the population of Gibraltar (the topic of the article) of the time, and 3) those three days of August are a pivotal point in the history of Gibraltar: almost all of the previous population left and a new population arrived, with a dramatic effect in all the history of the Rock.
IMHO, the text should 1) be NPOV, and mention (with more or less detail) that 2) an Anglo-Dutch force captured the town during the War of Spanish Succession, 3) the invaders exerted violence on the villagers, although it was not ordered by their commanders, 5) the terms of surrender were peaceful, but 4) the villagers decided to leave for fear of the violence/danger, and 5) they went mostly to San Roque (notice that we're only mentioning the physical place called San Roque, whether it is officially only some houses with a hermitage, a refugees camp or a city -the place went through all those stages, but it was called "San Roque" all the time).
Regarding Pfainuk's and Justin's proposals, I have to say I am open to alternative wording (a bit longer or a bit shorter), so long as they comply with the points in the paragraph above. IMHO the current text has been carefully crafted to be NPOV and mention all relevant points, but...
  • If Justin feels that NPOV requires that the article briefly mentions the fact that villagers retaliated on some murdered soldiers, it's OK with me (although I don't think that the NPOV requires the text to mention other details such as the pincer attack from the isthmus and Point Europa, the heavy bombardment or the well provisioned but outnumbered Spanish forces, for example). As another minor comment, I believe there's one slight inaccuracy: according to his cite, the perpetrators of violence were not severely punished, only one was executed to give example (could you check it out, Justin, please?). I'm not too sure that one execution merits mention in this overview article...
  • If Pfainuk wants the text to be very brief, it's OK with me too, so long as it mentions the points that I have explained before. For example, instead of "disorders", I would say "atrocities", "acts of violence" or a similar synonym; I would mention that it was the largest part of the villagers that settled down in San Roque (and I would suppress the words "hermitage of" or "town of" - as per Richard's and my own comment); I would also mention that there was a connection between the violence and the exodus. I don't think my suggestions add much length to Pfain's very brief proposal.
My main worry is that the motivations and destiny of almost all the previous inhabitants of Gibraltar (who WERE Gibraltar just before the capture, who left room to current day Gibraltarians and whose exodus is mentioned by many sources) is sufficiently explained. I hope that we reach consensus (since August 2009, this talk page mentions rape 92 times and the name "San Roque" appears 739 times -I am sure that this must be some kind of record).
Only two more comments for Pfainuk: the capture was on 24 July 1704 Old Style, and 4 August 1704 New Style[45]; the exodus was more or less ordered and took place on 7 August 1704 (3 days after the capture), look here at George Hills' text, for example. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Responding to Imalbornoz's comments on content. I believe they illustrate a fundamental problem with his approach and this is illustrated by the word "atrocities". Per WP:WORDS, specifically WP:LABEL we should be avoiding such terms as this is one of those expression that introduce bias.
In addition, his assertion about mentioning "violence" is disingenuous. We do not propose that it isn't mentioned, we're proposing covering it in neutral language, coverage appropriate for an overview and not focused on individual acts. I don't desire that we have to mention the murders of British and Dutch troops. I wish to avoid this ludicrous trading of who did what to whom. It doesn't make for a well written article. It is sufficient in an overview to cover this with top level details - that convey there were acts of violence from both sides. We don't need to have a list of misdeeds on either side. Disorder would do that.
Additionally claiming that the violence was the sole reason for the exodus is WP:SYN and I have to say I believe a personal opinion of his. I don't shrink from the fact that sources mention it as a factor, equally the anticipated Spanish counter attack is mentioned as a factor. Your content proposal this violates WP:SYN and WP:CHERRY in cherry picking the facts to support this opinion. Again the top level coverage, that the people felt to stay was "too dangerous" or some other variation on that is sufficient for an overview - this covers both motivations mentioned in sources neutrally.
Can we also stop the practise of trying to obscure points by taking the discussion down rabbit holes. The source I used does mention a single execution. So what, it wasn't the sole punishment discussed in that article. It is a fact that the commanders of the Anglo-Dutch forces severely punished offenders. This isn't a factor I propose to include so why are you mentioing it anyway? It isn't helping to move to a consensus. If we stick with top level coverage this is one of those details we can lose but if you insist on listing every crime, then to balance that to achieve a NPOV it becomes appropriate to mention punishments, terms of surrender and the motives of the commanders and the article balloons. Focus of the point please and don't take discussions down rabbit holes. The insistence on minute details of every act of violence is the fundamental issue that causes other factors to need to be mentioned to achieve a neutral text and that is the point I'm making. Please address this and it is not appropriate to say its just a "few words", because you introduce the need to introduce other factors and a "few words" becomes an opus.
On San Roque, you wikilink to the entry for the modern town. Why do that unless you plan to indicate thats where they meant? If it wasn't mentioned, would the article be poorer, no it wouldn't. Does mentioning as is make for a poorer article? Yes it does, the details are misleading. Improving the understanding of the subject should be the benchmark and this doesn't fit that criteria. Its a tangential detail and the article wouldn't be any poorer for not mentioning it. Now that isn't to say we shouldn't mention it but if as indicated you're not prepared to qualify the statement in some way then clearly it shouldn't be included.
If we can discuss such details as appropriate for an article detailing an overview of the history we can move forward. Insisting on mentioning lower level details and the content will balloon. That is the issue. Justin talk 13:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

May I just point out something from my earlier comment Please note that I'm not suggesting we don't need to mention the violence that occurred. I couldn't make this any plainer. Imalbornoz responds I honestly believe that the violence during the capture and the exile to San Roque is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article. I make the point that starting a premise like this in response to my comments can all too easily be interpreted as not listening. Justin talk 13:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Would it be helpful...RFC

If you have come here to assist in the RFC we all thank you. There is considerable discussion about the nature of the lead. Please discuss this with us and offer your ideas and comments about the various points you will find below. Thank you so much! JodyB talk 11:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

All editors are reminded that we discuss edits, not editors. Personal attacks will not be allowed. Stick to the issues, do not raise falase arguments and focus on the question at hand. JodyB talk 11:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you think it helpful to retry an RFC on this point only? I know that a previous attempt did not really produce any outsiders. However we could go to some of the involved projects and ask for input. I'll be glad to arrange it and canvass for outside opinions. You have all done good work here and I sense you are trying to reach consensus but have reached a good faith stalemate. If you are interested let me know. Each should prepare the paragraph/sentence of his choosing. We will create the section, start the RFC and ask for help. JodyB talk 11:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject. An RFC has been tried before. I would be quite content to offer a content proposal and let the community decide the merits of individual content suggestions. But that wasn't what happened. Immediately an RFC was launched there was intense lobbying of anyone who responded with huge walls of text to sway opinion and this deterred outside comment. We can see an example above, where I tried to start an RFC on ownership. If ownership were not a problem the community would have told me to quit, instead we instantly had discussion closed down with a reference to the arbcom case and contrary to WP:CIVIL remarks made long ago, apologised for repeatedly brought to the fore. If an RFC is to be successful, it requires that certain editors modify their behaviour and have good faith in the community approach. You may consider this a lack of good faith but on past and present performance I'm not confident that certain parties can control themselves. Justin talk 12:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I feel that a well-advertised and well-managed RfC might offer a way forward. I'd appreciate JodyB canvassing for a variety of outside opinions, and, if he feels inclined to take the trouble, possibly managing the resulting debate. Almost all of the subjects of dispute are part of two or more competing national discourses, so wikipedians with an interest in history and without underlying allegiance to either British or Spanish entities may be particularly useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I also think that a RfC could be helpful. Also, maybe WP:MEDCOM could be useful. In any case, I understand Justin's worry that if some "inside" editors feel that their view is not well explained they may be tempted to participate in the discussion. And then other "inside" editors may also feel the need to participate explaining their opposing view... And in the end outside editors might only see a complicated battle for "insiders" and be deterred to express their opinion. In order to avoid this, maybe before we ask for RfC (or MEDCOM) we can agree on a brief but comprehensive summary of the dispute so that we don't feel the need to participate? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Good ideas all I think. Let's do this. Over the next 24 hours let each craft his desired sentence or paragraph. In addition, state clearly why you think yours is to be preferred. Make the best case you can. Then I will create an RFC section here with your materials and I will promote it widely. After a few days, at least through the weekend, we will close and go with the preferred choice. Should I need to "manage" the debate I will ask another administrator to close the discussion. If that is agreeable, please post here that you agree. Then by tomorrow evening have your materials posted here. I would suggest spending your time promoting your version rather than attacking that of another. Of course of there is an error you should point that out. Thanks for your level heads and your dedication to the project. JodyB talk 20:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be negative but I don't think I can agree to do this as you propose. If need to ask for justification, there are reams of it above. All we will see if editors supply a justification for their preferred text are walls of text justifying the mention of every act of violence in intimate detail, huge reams of text from detailed historical texts and that will deter outside opinion. This may sound negative but its borne of bitter experience of every attempt at eliciting outside opinion through RFC. I would be happy to simply lay out suggested text, stand back and let the community decide which conveys the historical events in a manner compatible with policy. If anyone attempts to lobby, then that should be an instant block without appeal till the end of the RFC. That might work, though sock puppetry will probably rear its head. Justin talk 21:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the consensus is to move toward and RFC. Notifying others may or may not be inappropropriate. That is why I offered do it. Since I am not involved in the editing of the page except in an administrative manner, it would be less likely I would be accused of canvassing inappropriately. Please reconsider and continue to work with us. JodyB talk 02:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say no but I'm not happy to proceed as you suggest, with editors allowed to add reams of justification. Sorry really bitter experience tells me it won't work. Justin talk 13:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, may I draw you attention to the note I highlighted above. Simply because it illustrates a certain tendency to proceed without listening. Therein lies the problem. Justin talk 13:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the RfC. Maybe we should agree on the number of words for presenting each option and then leave outside editors alone. What limit would you think OK: 250 words? 500 words? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I say make a content suggestion. Let the community decide, no supporting verbage to lobby for your version. I've faith in a community decision, supporting verbage will become a deterrent to truly get input. Justin talk 12:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I've commented below, one of the main reasons I have suggested that no supporting verbage is allowed, is instantly we have the accusation of nationalism clouding judgement by Richard here. Really this shouldn't be permitted as it was highlighted as a key problem by arbcom. Material shouldn't be vetoed or suppressed because it annoys certain nationalist groups - we already have one here where we're not allowed to mention that Gibraltar is self-governing. I don't find this is a relevant reason for deciding content on wikipedia. Justin talk 13:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Richard's suggestion

Only minimally changed from the current version:

Ecemaml has usefully supplied two pages with relevant references: User:Ecemaml/Nursery/Exodus of the Spanish population of Gibraltar in 1704 and User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar

We have three sentences. The first is uncontroversial, though I suppose we could add something to indicate that the date given is New Style. The second mentions the terms of surrender, the serious violence of the attacking force despite those terms, and the violence with which some of the townspeople responded. These are well-referenced; they are also an ongoing part of the Spanish discourse on the question of Gibraltar. I won't quote from certain offensive remarks made by a now-absent editor, but it seems that there is also a nationalist British discourse that prefers to see the previous inhabitants as morally inferior beings who committed crimes after surrender; the fact of illegitimate expulsion is seen as relevant to modern issues of legitimacy.

The third sentence mentions the main reason for the final exodus, namely fear, and specifies the main initial destination, San Roque. San Roque was a hamlet with a shrine, a few kilometres north of the Rock of Gibraltar, within the Campo, the townlands, of Gibraltar. It became a refugee camp and in due course a town, which remains proud of its continuity with Spanish Gibraltar. I copy from its English Wikipedia article: "San Roque's official motto is "Very Noble and Very Loyal city of San Roque, where Gibraltar lives on" (Spanish: Muy Noble y Muy Leal ciudad de San Roque, donde reside la de Gibraltar)." The fact of San Roque as a destination is also well-referenced - see Ecemaml's pages - and its ongoing self-image is again a major part of one modern nationalist discourse and very upsetting to the other. If necessary I could reference the archives to make this point.

Both the importance of certain facts to one discourse, and their heartfelt rejection by another, contribute to the importance of the facts in these two sentences. It is not possible to reduce them significantly without omitting points that were significant at the time and are still fundamental to the modern political discussion. It would be possible to argue for slight expansion, and no doubt the points could also be phrased better, but I feel that the version above is one of the best available and as good as anything I can think of.

I'm off to be educated in cardiology and will check this page again tomorrow. Thank you for reading this. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources also mention the expected Spanish counter attack as being a motivation for the exodus. Whatever the sources say, the motivation of the people to leave is the opinion of the author not a fact. You're reporting opinions as facts. Worse, you're attaching your personal opinion to one of the reasons, using the sources to back it up and ignoring others. This is cherry picking to support a particular opinion, not give due regard to others. This is unacceptable and not supported by wikipedia's policies and fundamentally violates a core policy of neutral point of view.
I also consider it unhelpful in the extreme to raise the issue of nationalism. But you did so lets get it out in the open. Spanish nationalists advance the idea that San Roque is the real Gibraltar. So basically you're creating a WP:COATRACK for the usual nationalist nonsense to disrupt the article. Its relationship to Gibraltar is tangential at best, so inclusion to sate the Spanish nationalist cause seems a poor justification to me. We don't say it became a refugee camp with your version, we say they went to the modern town of San Roque, which was founded 2 years later by the refugees. So to keep the content brief, we have text that misleads as to the historical timeline and narrative. The exodus preceeds the town but the article says the exodus went to the town - it simply is arse about face.
As an aside those references were supposed to be deleted after the previous RFC, they were too extensive and were considerd a copyright violation. Remember? Justin talk 12:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Here you can find more sources about the Capture of Gibraltar[46], about the exodus[47], and a summary of the notability of San Roque[48] in books about the history of Gibraltar.
If you look at the sources, you will see that they don't mention the expected Spanish counter attack as a motivation for the exodus. In fact, they don't mention any other motivation but the fear of violence from the invaders. In fact, the expected counter attack is mentioned as a reason to remain, because "The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary."
The sources do mention San Roque as the main destination. Whether or not this is used by any nationalists should not be taken into account; we should only look at reputed secondary sources dealing with the history of Gibraltar.
The proposed edit does not mention the "town" but a place called San Roque (whether it's a chapel surrounded by a few houses -such as the town major's-, a refugees camp or a town it was still called "San Roque" -previously the place was called Carteia with the Phoenicians and Romans). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.
Clearly it was expected the Spanish would counter attack and retake the town. Verified, established fact. Continuing to insist the violence in the days following the attack is the sole and only reason the people left is not a sustainable argument, it demonstrates tendentious editing and a POV fixation that is not conducive to writing a NPOV. Spinning it as a motive to stay is complete WP:OR and further demonstrates a POV fixations, its mentioned as a motive to go somewhere safe. Aside from being WP:OR it does not stand up to logical scrutiny. If you expect a couter attack to shortly liberate your town, do you a) stay in the town whilst it is bombarded and there is fighting or b) go somewhere safe till the coast clears? I've seen it time and time again in Bosnia, I know how it works, I've seen the way refugees act.
Detailed historical texts do mention San Roque and a number of other destinations. Overviews of Gibraltar do not. We are writing an overview. The edit links to the article on the modern town of San Roque, the place wasn't called San Roque, there was a hermitage there named after San Roque from which the modern town derives its name. If we're being accurate we would say they settled around the hermitage of San Roque and remove the wikilink. But that as an option has been rejected to repeatedly demand that the edit says they went to a town founded 2 years later - this makes no sense to me. So tell us why do we have to have a wikilink, linked to the modern town of San Roque (and btw the article there is a classic WP:COATRACK as it is virtually nothing but the capture of Gibraltar)? Please start by explaining why we don't explain the historical context and have a misleading wikilink. Justin talk 09:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

What? Where do you see in that text that it says that the population were afraid of a Spanish counter attack? Or is it a conclusion that you reach by yourself? On the other hand, the source clearly says that "English atrocities at Cádiz and elsewhere and the behaviour of the English sailors in the first days after the surrender suggested that if they stayed they might not live to see that day." and "By the time discipline was fully restored, few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain."

BTW, I am sure that Bosnia was a terrible experience, but you should know that "I've seen it time and time again in Bosnia, I know how it works, I've seen the way refugees act." is exactly what WP:OR is about... -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My statement was "it was expected the Spanish would counter attack and retake the town", this is a factor in the decision to leave. You assert this as a motive to stay, this is your opinion and your WP:OR. It is the opinion of those authors you quote that fear of violence was a factor, you report the author's opinion as fact and suppress the inclusion other factors of other factors based on your own WP:OR. No one knows what their motive was, no one asked them. When people point this out you label their objection as WP:OR utterly failing to comprehend that it is your original statements based on WP:OR that is the issue. At least that is the good faith presumption, the alternative is WP:TE. Justin talk 13:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
A further irritating habit is the avoidance of a question to explain why you demand things are done in a particular way: Please start by explaining why we don't explain the historical context and have a misleading wikilink. Justin talk 14:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
[49] And still no response. Justin talk 23:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
In general I have responded with silence to endless badgering and digressions. Mokusatsu seems especially appropriate to questions that have been answered already and those based on a false premise.
Your idea of the historical context seems to consist of detail appropriate only to a highly specialist article on the capture, and the wikilink is to San Roque, Cádiz, complete with its location, modern existence, and history, including the shrine and hamlet where the refugees from Gibraltar founded a town on 7 August 1704. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Mmm, so now discussing content and asking an editor a question is "badgering". Do you consider that a good faith presumption? Digression? Again a good faith presumption.
You state this historical context seems to consist of detail appropriate only to a highly specialist article on the capture No thats not what I'm saying at all. You are insisting on the inclusion of a detail, which is as you put it is appropriate only to a highly specialist article on the capture. The issue is tangentially relevant to Gibraltar but you absolute insist it must be covered and have been prepared to tag team edit war it into the article. The first thing you did after the arbcom case was to remove the compromise text suggested by a mediator and insert it back.
The way you choose to do so is inappropriate in my opinion as its misleading - the wikilink link to a modern town founded two years later. Your sources are all detailed texts focused solely on the history of Gibraltar and as such contain many details that would only be tangentially relevant to an overview. I suggest that this as a detail appropriate only to a highly specialist article on the capture shouldn't be appropriate for an overview. Do I take it you now agree with this point, or is it the case you still prefer to see this detail appropriate only to a highly specialist article on the capture included in a misleading manner. One is appropriate to deciding content on wikipedia the other is not. I await your reply with interest. Justin talk 14:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As an aside Richard, you have raised the spectre of nationalism again, which of course has led to comments about various nationalist groups' tendency to rewrite history to support modern claims. May I suggest you rewrite your justification to avoid mention of various nationalist apiration as they have no relevance to writing an encyclopedia. We should be writing for our readers based on a NPOV of the history and the only notice we should take of such sentiments is to be careful to avoid favouring one or the other. Justin talk 15:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk's bit

I agree to the above, and feel it useful to divide proposals with headings. My proposal would be:

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. Following three days of violence, almost all of the townspeople left for nearby areas of Spain (including the hermitage of San Roque).

I would argue that:

  • We ought to be reasonably succinct, to match the tone of the rest of the article.
  • We should either explicitly mention the violence on both sides, or not attribute it to either side. We shouldn't mention violence on one side and not the other. There is an assertion my some that the killing of British and Dutch servicemen is insignificant because their deaths were justified by the ongoing violence: this should not be accepted because it takes the Spanish POV in the dispute.
  • We should not use loaded words such as "atrocities", or words that imply that British officers approved of their sailors' and marines' actions, such as "sacked".
  • The argument that we should list in details acts committed by both sides appears to suggest that if there was pillaging and desecration without the raping, the modern situation would be totally different. I find this suggestion unsupported and illogical, and would contend that while the fact of violence is significant to future events, the detail isn't really, and is better left to more detailed articles.
  • We should not speculate, without source, as to the motivations of the townspeople in their departure. This includes references to fear of violence, or of reprisals, or of an expectation that defending forces would retake the town quickly.
  • We should be very careful not to imply either that the townspeople were driven out or expelled by the evil British - nor indeed that they left unprompted without violence: both represent the POV of one side of the dispute. The fact is that the townspeople were allowed to stay under the surrender terms, but chose to leave following three days of violent disorder.
  • I consider San Roque to be a secondary issue, and that the most important issue is the wording of the text. But I oppose inclusion.
  • The fact that many of the townspeople ended up in San Roque is of no relevance to the later history of Gibraltar, beyond the fact that somewhere had to be on the border. It may be of relevance to the later history of San Roque, but this is not an article about San Roque.
  • The existence of San Roque may also be significant in discussing of the history of the dispute, but again, this is not an article about the Gibraltar dispute - that's at Disputed status of Gibraltar - this is an article about Gibraltar and should not be made into a WP:COATRACK on the dispute.
  • We should not refer to the town of San Roque anachronistically (including by implication, using a Wikilink). The town was not founded until two years after the events described.
  • "Anglo-Dutch" is there for a reason: sources tend to refer to the "British" forces, but these events occurred in 1704, before the Union of 1707. The English Royal Navy at the time frequently made use of Scottish forces in pursuit of its wars - even when Scotland was neutral (as in this case). Thus it is not clear whether the Gibraltar capture was a purely English and Dutch affair or an English, Scottish and Dutch affair (or indeed a purely Scottish and Dutch affair - though this seems less likely). "Anglo-Dutch" is sourced and suitably ambiguous.

Note that I will be away for a few days as noted above, and may not respond in a very timely manner.

Pfainuk talk 09:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Anglo-Dutch force included their Spanish allies, another fact that often gets overlooked. Justin talk 12:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
On of my issues in all this hullabaloo is summed up by Imalbornoz stating that the violence was noteworthy - Was it? Was it surprising or so dissimilar from the norm that requires mentioning in general text? --Narson ~ Talk • 10:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
No it wasn't, it reflected the norms of the time. The obsession with minutiae over every "crime" reflects a POV bias and an inability to recognise personal bias. Justin talk 11:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes it was. What sources say is that it was notworthy even by the standards of the time: "The sack of Gibraltar was memorable through Andalusia for the peculiar fury of the invaders against the servants, houses and ornaments of the Catholic religion. (…) Every church in the city was desecrated save one." Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar pg. 32-33. -- (previously unsigned) Imalbornoz (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The norms of the time included offering terms and sticking to them. Violence in breach of terms was indeed common - still is - but it was well-recognized as reprehensible. Officers seldom hang their own men for no reason, to say no more. And this example of violence proved to be significant in the long term. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Not quite, it has become significant in the modern context because the voluntary departure of the population, after order was restored, after the perpetrators were punished and after promises made for religious freedom/safety is embarassing to Spain's sovereignty claim in International Law. In the modern context there is a claim that they were forced out to support a particular POV, which requires the sequence of events to be rewritten. All the more important in the modern context to ensure that all relevant details are described in a neutral fashion. Emphasis added to make the point.
Again the obession with the minutiae over every "crime" does reflects a POV bias, a NPOV does not require a list (in Imalbornoz's words) of "atrocitities" in violation of WP:LABEL. We still see that well reasoned, policy based arguments are being discounted to support inclusion of content that isn't justified by our policies. Justin talk 14:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please remind Imalbornoz of talk page etiquette as I have done, time and time again, that edits such as this [50] are unacceptable as they change the narrative of the discussion. He has been warned time and time again about this - please ask the admin user:Atama.

Aside from anything, this is the opinion of one author and opinions are not facts. As I anticipated, I doubt any RFC has a chance as he can't resist interfering and he has an utter inability to separate opinion from fact. Justin talk 23:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And again [51]. Justin talk 00:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for not signing my previous comment (I now have). (One more comment, on the side: You criticise the inability to resist interfering. Myself, I would recommend that you check who has been the first editor to comment in each proposal, and who has added most words in total to those proposals... Maybe some self-criticism would be healthy, Justin; I would make this comment in your talk page, but you say you won't allow it... so I apologise to editors not interested in our private comments...) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
That is not the issue and you know, you added a comment part way through a discussion to give the impression I replied to it. Its misleading and mendacious and its not the first time you've done it. You regularly breach talk page etiquette to create a misleading narrative.
I replied to Richard as the first thing he did with his "justification" was to cast aspersions on the content suggested by others by attacking their motives. And no you're not welcome on my talk page, seeing as neither you or Richard have the good graces to apologise for the needless personal attacks made concerning a trivial issue, that you then compounded by repeating them at AN/I and elsewhere. Of course none of this would be necessary if you could comment on content not editors, they would not them feel the need to defend themselves. Justin talk 14:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment on a throw away line. "Officers seldom hang their own men for no reason, to say no more." Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres. Sadly yes they do[52], especially if there is a politic imperative. Justin talk 00:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin's bit

I have two suggestions:

My second, more compact suggestion:


I don't propose to justify this, I have confidence in the community to select the best text that represents a neutral point of view, giving due coverage of key issues and avoiding words that label or cherry picking from sources or creating a coat rack for modern irredentist claims. Thank you. Justin talk 23:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As you don't propose to justify your suggestions then I won't comment them ;-). I will only recommend readers that they check the accuracy of the text with the sources provided (especially regarding the "running amok" and whether many "perpetrators" were "severely punished"), whether the text really follows correctly the timeline of events (especially the "terms of surrender" before/after the "disorders") and whether events are given enough explanation accordingly to their noteworthiness in relevant secondary sources (e.g. "heavy bombardment", "pincer attack" versus what the "running amok" was really about). Thanks! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The above is precisely why I suggested that we simply propose content and do not add "justification". Instantly we have Imalbornoz trying to rubbish content suggestions to favour his own. The sources speak for themselves. This is simply criticism by speculation, if you don't have the confidence in your own content suggestion to let it pass without "justification", clearly you have no confidence it conforms to policy. Personally I have faith in the community to do the right thing - when they're allowed to judge without being lobbied constantly or deterred by walls of text.
The above is why I don't think an RFC can work, the two editors exhibiting ownership behaviour deter outside comment using the tried and true technique of putting up walls of text. It deters all but the most hardened of editors from making any content suggestion, as they're subjected to months of filibustering so they just give up. And any change is reverted and must be discussed, so nothing happens without their approval. Justin talk 14:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And a third even more compact version without tangential information:


Thank you and goodnight. Justin talk 18:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We have three possible versions. All are referenceable and the first contains all of the details which longstanding consensus seems to require. Indeed, rather more, and it's too long for this overview article. The other two gloss over facts which are critical to one modern national discourse and which should be clear from any NPOV account. First, the "disorder" was begun by the invading forces, in breach of the surrender terms, and it consisted largely of their actions, which were serious and a reasonable cause of fear and resentment among the population. Second, the initial destination of the resulting refugee exodus was and is San Roque, Cádiz, with the now-antiquarian claim that that town still maintains. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Your criticisms are not appropriate and unsustainable by the policies used on wikipedia for deciding content. Firstly, you assert that facts are glossed over. They're not, details are available in the footnotes as appropriate. The point being details in the text are appropriate coverage for an overview. Secondly, you are making judgement and attaching blame, neither of which are appropriate reasons for deciding content on wikipedia. We report facts in a neutral manner. Thirdly, it is not the sole factor mentioned as motivating the exodus - other factors were in play including an expected Spanish counter attack. To focus on one, solely because in your opinion that is the reason is in contravention of the policy of NPOV in failing to give due coverage of pertinent issues. Finally, the town of San Roque was founded by the refugees in 1706, some 2 years later. The exodus resulted in the town being founded, whereas the text you demand asserts it was their destination. Its misleading and inaccurate but any attempt to appropriately qualify it has been vetoed and it has to be said on grounds not appropriate for wikipedia. As tangential information its relevance to Gibraltar is not necessarily appropriate and could easily by suborned to a footnote. Given its potential for being a WP:COATRACK for modern claims or for abuse for POV reasons it is better to do the latter. The previous state of the article on San Roque, Cadiz illustrates the latter point succinctly.
The longer text includes details appropriate per NPOV if we have to have content listing in detail what you term "atrocities"; incompatible with policy per WP:WORDS and WP:LABEL. It is wholly inappropriate to have the content you demand simply because as has been demonstrated repeatedly it fails WP:NPOV by giving undue coverage and cherry picking facts from sources to support a particular POV. The particular Spanish POV that the people were forced out to sustain a modern claim. The text is tailored to favour one side due to a modern sovereignty claim. This is wholly inappropriate and fundamentally fails WP:NPOV. Justin talk 13:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Just an outsider having a look at the dispute although being met with a wall of text doesnt help and is clearly confusing. The original RFC says There is considerable discussion about the nature of the lead but the discussion appears to be about the text in the History section, this needs to be clarified. I know very little about Gibraltar but get a sense of confusion from all the arguments so if you really need outside help we need a lot simpler explanation from both sides. I presume that the text in question should just be a summary of that in The War of the Spanish Succession section of History of Gibraltar but some of the suggested wording differs from that article. First impression is that the more it says the more POV and balance issues it raises so it really just needs to tell the story in as few words as necessary. I think you need to take the current wording sentence by sentence and just explain simply what the issue is with each, we dont need a war of references or walls of text just simple statements. MilborneOne (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You are correct, I misspoke. It is not the lead but the history section. Thanks for your comments. JodyB talk 13:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Didn't I say something about walls of text deterring outside comment? Not to be smug in any way but merely confirming bitter experience. This article used to have a number of regular contributors, all have been driven away by tendentious argument over the slightest change. We do need outside comment but you'll never get it whilst editors are allowed to "justify" their edits. Walls of text have proven an effective way of deterring any change, wear an editor down, get them to make an intemperate remark and then lobby to get them banned for being uncivil. Refactor the RFC inviting outside comment, with text suggestions and nothing more. Let the text stand on its own merits, without justification. I'm up for that, who else is? Justin talk 14:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: Noting that both Richard and Imalbornoz have declined to comment, both having posted several times since I made the suggestion, do we take it that they decline the suggestion to allow content suggestions stand on their own merits? Justin talk 23:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
For new editors, suggestions do need some background. JodyB, to avoid this RfC getting bogged down, would you think it worth refactoring the above to bring out what you think are the key arguments for and against, and also to make clear which bit of text we're discussing? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I think there we have an answer, editors are unable to decide the right content unless the right background is provided for them. Please note I have more faith in the community to consider text on its own merits and its supporting references. Tell me Richard, why don't you have faith in the community to make the right decision directed by policy? Justin talk 21:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1] Dr Gerry O’Reilly, GIBRALTAR: SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTES AND TERRITORIAL WATERS, IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, Spring 1999
  2. ^ Jackson, William G. F. (1986). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. ISBN 0838632378., p. 97
  3. ^ Jackson, p. 98
  4. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33:
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h Jackson, Sir William, Rock of the Gibraltarians, p100-101
  6. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33
  7. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  8. ^ George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4. "Byng's [English Rear-Admiral George Byng] chaplain Pocock [Rev. Thomas Pocock] went ashore on 6 August and walked 'all over the town'. 'Great disorders', he found, had been 'committed by the boats' crews that came on shore and marines; but the General Officers took great care to prevent them, by continually patrolling with their sergeants, and sending them on board their ships and punishing the marines; one of which was hanged"
  9. ^ Caruana, Peter (7 October 2010). "CHIEF MINISTER PETER CARUANA ADDRESS AT THE UNITED NATIONS FOURTH COMMITTEE". Gibraltar Chronicle. Retrieved 14 October 2010. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Of course, Spain argues this while happily sitting on a dozen separate enclaves on another continent, Africa, including two cities, in the territory of what would otherwise naturally be the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco. Spain passionately believes these to be Spanish by virtue of history, the passage of time (around 500 years) and the fact that the Kingdom of Morocco did not exist at that time in the same legal form as it exists now. With respect, those distinctions seem wholly insufficient to justify Spain holding and advocating diametrically opposed positions in the cases of Gibraltar and her own enclaves in North Africa just 15 kilometres away from Gibraltar across the Strait of Gibraltar.
  10. ^ Leathley, Christian (2007). "Gibraltar's Quest for Self-Determination: A Critique of Gibraltar's New Constitution" (PDF). Oregon Review of International Law, Vol.9. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) In this respect, the Spanish have a convincing argument that the British occupation of Gibraltar is anomalous given its location compared to Britain. However, such an argument is undermined by Spain’s similar occupation of Ceuta and Melilla in Northern Africa.
  11. ^ Jackson, William G. F. (1986). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. ISBN 0838632378., p. 97
  12. ^ Jackson, p. 98
  13. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33:
  14. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33
  15. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  16. ^ George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4. "Byng's [English Rear-Admiral George Byng] chaplain Pocock [Rev. Thomas Pocock] went ashore on 6 August and walked 'all over the town'. 'Great disorders', he found, had been 'committed by the boats' crews that came on shore and marines; but the General Officers took great care to prevent them, by continually patrolling with their sergeants, and sending them on board their ships and punishing the marines; one of which was hanged"
  17. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33:
  18. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33
  19. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  20. ^ Jackson, William G. F. (1986). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. ISBN 0838632378., p. 97
  21. ^ Jackson, p. 98
  22. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33:
  23. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33
  24. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  25. ^ George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4. "Byng's [English Rear-Admiral George Byng] chaplain Pocock [Rev. Thomas Pocock] went ashore on 6 August and walked 'all over the town'. 'Great disorders', he found, had been 'committed by the boats' crews that came on shore and marines; but the General Officers took great care to prevent them, by continually patrolling with their sergeants, and sending them on board their ships and punishing the marines; one of which was hanged"
  26. ^ Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives.
  27. ^ Jackson, William G. F. (1986). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. ISBN 0838632378., p. 97
  28. ^ George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4. "Byng's [English Rear-Admiral George Byng] chaplain Pocock [Rev. Thomas Pocock] went ashore on 6 August and walked 'all over the town'. 'Great disorders', he found, had been 'committed by the boats' crews that came on shore and marines; but the General Officers took great care to prevent them, by continually patrolling with their sergeants, and sending them on board their ships and punishing the marines; one of which was hanged"
  29. ^ Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives.
  30. ^ Jackson, William G. F. (1986). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. ISBN 0838632378., p. 97
  31. ^ George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4. "Byng's [English Rear-Admiral George Byng] chaplain Pocock [Rev. Thomas Pocock] went ashore on 6 August and walked 'all over the town'. 'Great disorders', he found, had been 'committed by the boats' crews that came on shore and marines; but the General Officers took great care to prevent them, by continually patrolling with their sergeants, and sending them on board their ships and punishing the marines; one of which was hanged"
  32. ^ Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar/Archive_20&oldid=1227696643"