Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 19

WP:UNDUE in the second paragraph of the introduction
Hi all, I don't want to be deeply involved in the edition of this article, as we've just left a quite traumatic arbitration case.

However, I'd like to get your comments about the second paragraph of the article. It starts by extensively quoting a report by a private organization focused on defense, geopolitics, transport and police issues (see its web site). I personally think we're giving undue height to it by mentioning it in the second paragraph of the article. However, regardless of that, don't you think that the last sentence of such a paragraph ("Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service.") should be in fact the first one? I mean, a neutral description on the degree of self government of the territory must be given more prominence that a report by a private organization with unknown impact and relevance. That way, the second paragraph would be that way: "Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service. According to the Jane's Country Risk Ratings 2008, which measures the stability of 235 countries, territories and political entities in the world, Gibraltar is the 5th most stable territory worldwide, and the highest ranked British territory. The ratings are based on five fundamental categories: political, social, economic, external and military and security."

Opinions? --Ecemaml (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think your version is better. I think the reference to United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories should appear in this paragraph. Gibraltar has a internal self governing BUT UN think gibraltar should be decolonized. You are better with "diplomatic versions" and i think you could adapt this idea. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.9.249 (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not in the business of discussing where the mention to the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories must be. Although not topic banned, I'd been admonished by the Arbitration Committee on the grounds of tendentious editting and therefore I don't want to be in a position that might lead to a similar situation (even if I don't think my editions are biased). Sorry --Ecemaml (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC) PS: anyway, there is plenty of people in this talk page that might handle your suggestion


 * If i make this, in five minutes someone will undo this aclaration.If you are admonished, what is the neutral point of view? the point of view of elisabeth and caruana? lol. It´s imposible to found the word colony in the history of a crown colony,and it is imposible to add a reference about UN resolution or comitte Special Committee on Decolonization in the introducction of gibraltaron ( only 16 territories in all world´s are in the list). Thank for your attention.you are more neutral than the most of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.9.249 (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, either. Most of the people involved in this discussion are quite balanced and neutral guys. Please, don't forget WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL --Ecemaml (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC) It´s a way to express my disagree ,it´s not real, but i always crashed against the royal guards and knights of british empire. It´s a very pro british article and all things i try to improve, always appear someone and say "you are difunding spanish propaganda, troll etc". Gibraltar was a crow colony and this was silenciate. Gibraltar is in the UN list and no talk about this in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.9.249 (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, please, assume good faith and avoid uncivil comments (such as those of the like "royal guards and knights of british empire"). --Ecemaml (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ecemaml. I appreciate that feelings are still sore here. That makes it all the more important for all of us to assume good faith, and keep all discussions tightly focused on improving the article.

The suggested rearrangement makes sense to me. However, I also find the lead too long in general and I would suggest a second paragraph that reads: "Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service. According to Jane's Country Risk Ratings 2008, which estimates political, social, economic, external/military and security risks, Gibraltar is the 5th most stable territory worldwide, and the highest ranked British territory." Personally I'd be quite happy to have the first sentence only, I think that the second is lead bias though it may deserve mention later, but removing it from the lead may be a step too far for some editors.

I incline to think that the claim of ongoing colonial status should not be in the lead, although I realize that it is a notable claim (a truism to one group, a deep insult to another, but all the more notable for that) with many reliable sources that needs mention in the article. Perhaps we could have comments on the wording: "Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories and is still widely regarded as a colony by Spanish commentators.(refs here)" and then discuss where in the article the result should go? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Richard,I think this sentence in the lead finish with the polemic and improve so much the neutral point of view.85.136.157.123 (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also i think in the history of gibraltar should talk about the period "crown colony" (cremallera proposed this before)85.136.157.123 (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ecemaml, I promise you that i will use the good faith and polite language in the future85.136.157.123 (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with putting in statements about Spanish commentators' views that Gibraltar is a colony. State the facts of the matter - where Gib has self government, where it does not, state the UN list, state the governments' views, then let the reader make up their own mind. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, how about stating an official Spanish point of view that it's a colony? I've just been reading a Foreign Ministry document that says so. "Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories and is still regarded as a colony by the Spanish Government.(refs here)"


 * Richard; I was going to wrote exactly the same. It´s the official point of view, and politicians, mass media and normal spanish people usually refers to gibraltar "la colonia". This document it is a report (in spanish) of spanish foreign ministery and it talk about the colonial situation. []85.136.157.123 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no good reason whatsoever to go into vast amounts of detail about the different POVs on the dispute in the intro or indeed in this particular article. This is supposed to be an article about Gibraltar, not a coatrack article for the dispute. In this article, we should state the facts as neutrally as we can without descending into the epithets used by one side or the other. If in doubt, we should stick to official usage within the territory. The detail of the different positions on the dispute should go on Disputed status of Gibraltar, an article that could do with significant improvement.

There is, in my view, very little benefit in citing Jane's Country Risk in the lead. The lead is supposed to introduce the topic, but this information is not provided later on in the article. It is also not provided on equivalent articles on countries and territories. I would thus suggest we change the first two paragraphs to:

"Gibraltar is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. The territory covers 6.843 km2 and shares a land border with Spain to the north."

"Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service. The territory has historically been an important base for the British Armed Forces and is the site of a Royal Navy base."

Pfainuk talk 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pfainuk here. His proposed intro is good.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Pfainuk, the problem is that if you say "Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government....", you should say that UN say "gibraltar is a non self governing territory" and spain support the version UN. The other way you can induce an erroneous idea in an uninformed person.I think Richard´s idea is correct.85.136.157.123 (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see neither need nor benefit in going into large amounts of detail about the dispute in the lead, as you propose. Indeed, we shouldn't be going into large amounts of detail about the dispute in this article.  This article should be dealing with fact, not the arguments made on either side of the dispute: that's what Disputed status of Gibraltar is for. Pfainuk talk 18:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It´s only a short sentence. With this short sentence in the lead an uninformed person will look in disputed status of gibraltar. If you dont say this, the people dont know to exist problems."Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories and is still regarded as a colony by the Spanish Government.(refs here)"


 * It´s only the reason of the disputed status85.136.157.123 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't think that people are going to go on to read the very next paragraph, which notes the existence of the dispute? I'm afraid we have to work on the assumption that our readers are actually going to read the article.  Which means that there is no need to put every little detail of the dispute in the lead (and that would be the case, incidentally even if your suggestion wasn't strongly POV, which it is).  We have an article on the dispute.  This is an article on Gibraltar. Pfainuk talk 19:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A neutral point of view should talk about both points of view. If only talk about internal self governing, the people will not know that gibraltar is a colony in spain. I think the best polite and neutral way to express this,it is the richard´s sentence. In the history of gibraltar no appear the words "crown colony"" or in the lead only appear "self governing territory" when the united nations say that gibraltar is a "non self governing territory". I am writing this becouse i think this aclaration improve the encyclopedia.I don´t think that to say the spanish goverment consider gibraltar a colony and a reference about UN list is a personal view of point. A personal view of point is silence other points of view 85.136.157.123 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In the main article,the reference number 6, it´s a failled document "informe sobre la cuestion de gibraltar" of spanish foreign ministery. The correct direction is the pdf document that i said and appear with number 20 in this section.I dont sure the way to correct this. could someone to repare the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.157.123 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

To sum up
Well, I think that many things are being mixed. Thus, we'd better settle them down one by one.

With regard to the movement of the mention of the Jane Group report, there seems to be a consensus on its removal from the beginning of the second paragraph. Pfainuk even suggests that it should be removed from such a paragraph (I agree with him). Where should it be included?

With regard to the mention to the "colony", my personal opinion is that the status of Gibraltar as Crown colony should be mentioned either in the history or the politics section. With regard to the Spanish POV with regard to this, I don't consider it being necessary in the introduction at all (although Richard's suggestion seems sensible anyway). After all, such an issue belongs to the dispute on sovereignty and that is already mentioned in the introduction. If a description on how the Spanish media and government mention Gibraltar is wished, its place is Disputed status of Gibraltar.

Finally, with regard to the mention to the UN list, I didn't want to enter in this discussion, but after all... I think that a mention to its permanence in the list might be added after the description of the self-government. It may be complemented with the POV of the Gibraltar and UK governements (of the like "Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories. However, both the governments of Gibraltar and the United Kingdom has requested to the C24 that Gibraltar should be pulled out of the list"

My €0.02. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts:
 * Jane's list should just go, I think.
 * Gibraltar has not been a "Crown colony" since the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force in 1983, renaming all Crown colonies British Dependent Territories.
 * UN list is fine where it is in the politics section - no need to move to the intro.
 * Finally, this article could be improved in a multitude of ways instead of continually going on about the Spain v Britain thing. Its main problem is that its an assorted jumble of information and a chore to read from top to bottom (try it).  That climate section is about as enjoyable as eating cardboard.  How about we concentrate on improving the article as a whole?  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Red Hat. The lead section currently has a threefold structure. I'd just get rid of the second paragraph which deals both with the "almost complete internal self-government" status of Gibraltar, "the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" which is awkward and not-really-vital information to stay in the lede (moreover when the same wording can be found below in the 'politics section'); and the Jane's Country Risk Ratings, which just looks like fanservice to me. From my perspective, this wording is likely to be more encyclopaedic: Formerly a Crown Colony, the enclave has historically been an important base for the Royal Navy, although the budgetary weight of the military facilities has diminished significantly for the last decades in favor of an Offshore Financial Centre, tourism and service sector, and the supply of shipping fuel. The sovereignty of Gibraltar has been a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations. It was ceded by the Crown of Spain to the Crown of Great Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return.
 * Gibraltar (pronounced /dʒɨˈbrɔːltər/) 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 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) peninsula whose isthmus connects to the north with Spain. The Rock of Gibraltar constitutes the major landmark of the area and gives its name to the densely populated town, home to almost 30.000 Gibraltarians.

With WP:lede in mind (that is few paragraphs, not a teaser, defining the topic and context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarizing the most important points—including any notable controversies), this locates the place broadly, briefly explains the international situation, recent history and mentions relevant data (in my opinion) such as population, main economic activities, landmarks... What do you think? Cremallera (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts
 * About Jane´s list, the best is Pfainuk´s version
 * In the history of gibraltar should talk about the period "crown colony"
 * About the richard´s suggestion, i think should appear after "Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government, the Governor retaining responsibilities for external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service". This way permit to contrast in the diferents POV (British,UN and Spanish goverment) and will be more neutral.
 * Also, the Richard´s suggestion shows why the subject is interesting or notable,the context and it summarice one of the most important points—including any notable controversy.
 * The point of view of spanish politicians ( moratinos called colony to gibraltar [], Cospedal said "gibraltar is a colony that shouldn´t exist" [])and mass media, nationalist movements etc, should appear in disputed status of gibraltar

Best regards150.214.9.254 (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a user subpage at User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar, which contains my current draft of the lead, and then various chunks of text which have been removed from the lead or suggested for the rest of the article. Before I make any bold changes, I'll leave this up for comments for a day or two. If anyone else is feeling bolder than I am, go for it.
 * As Red Hat points out, there are several indefensible items in the article, for example the second paragraph on Climate. Repetitive and unreadable. I might abbreviate them today. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to your proposal. We don't go on about any other BOT being "[f]ormerly a Crown Colony" in the lede, and there seems no benefit in doing it here - particularly given how offensive Gibraltarians find the suggestion that they live in a colony.  Your source for "offshore financial centre" is ten years out of date and would not back up the point made (that offshore financial services make up a large and increasing sector of the Gibraltar economy) even if it were current.  You cite the Spanish government document arguing the Spanish case as though it were neutral and reliable.  You give the Spanish view of the Spanish claim, without giving corresponding views from Britain or Gibraltar.  In short, I find your text to be strongly POV and thus object to its inclusion in the article. Pfainuk talk 16:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pfainuk, the british POV is "self governing territory" but the point of view of spain and UN is that gibraltar is a colony.Spain say "la colonia" and UN "Non self governing territory" (It´s the same). If you want to be neutral you should show both points of view. You say that for gibraltarian to be a colony is offensive... Untill 1981 they were so happy with their "officially" colonial status (no tax and bussiness derivated, More patriotics than all england,for example). Also, you should understand for spaniards who read here is offensive to read the wonderful place is gibraltar and not found a word about the colonial situation. If you think is a self governing territory, ok, but spain, UN and the most of spaniard think that gibraltar is a colony. I support the Richard´s version.85.136.157.123 (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * BOTs being previously known as Crown Colonies is a fact for the BOT page. It has no virtue other than to further a POV here. On the old Self Governing vs Non-selfgoverning debate, it is worth noting both POVs, that the UK describes it as self governing but the spanish disagree pointing to its presence on the UN non-self governing lists. Though can we please stop describing the view of a subcommittee as the view of the UN as a whole? It is merely the view of those on that panel. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a point of interest, if you take a tour (like I did a couple of years ago) of the UN HQ in Manhattan, along one of the corridors leading to the halls where the various bodies like the SC and GA meet, your tour guide will pause at an enormous map showing the non-decolonized territories around the world (downloadable in PDF format from the UN website). It's not like this is an offshoot of the UN that has come up with this list which the rest of the UN does not endorse. This is a UN list. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the map I'm talking about.  It's an exact copy of the one on display in the UN building.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The UN and Spanish positions are not the same. The UN included Gibraltar as a colony during the post-war de-colonization process, which stated that colonies had self-determination and should become either independent or affiliated states or absorbed into the colonial country.  Spain however holds that Gibraltar is part of Spain that has been colonized and therefore should be absorbed into Spain based on the Treaty of Utrecht 1713.  They reject the right of self-determination (and even residence) for the citizens of Gibraltar, and would likely annex Gibraltar if they achieved independence.  TFD (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I´m not agree with you, The UN say the same that spain, Gibraltar should be de-colanizated and returns to Spain. The Comittee against colonization diferenciate between territories where there arent a claim of soveraignity and there is a claim. In this document [] pages 9-14, spanish foreign ministery talk about the UN resolutions and gibraltar. The final points of UN Points of view are:
 * Gibraltar is a colony
 * The colony of Gibraltar destroy national unity and territorial integrity Spain and is in contradiction with Resolution 1514 (XV), paragraph 6, 1960 decolonization in general. Gibraltar and the Falklands are the only cases in which the UN has not recognized the right to self-determination
 * The Gibraltar issue must be resolved through bilateral negotiations between Spain and the UK, recommended by UN continuously since 1964
 * In the negotiations must take into account the interests and aspirations the population of the colony.
 * The decolonization process is different in those cases where, as in Gibraltar, there is a sovereignty dispute. In the case of Gibraltar, the existence of a dispute over sovereignty is an exception to principle that, in the process of decolonization of the dependents, there is no alternative to self-determination.
 * Only the UN can decide when it has completed the process of decolonization of Gibraltar and to date, Gibraltar will be included in the United Nations list of dependent territories
 * I have used a automatic translator for the final points .Inside the document came the exactly the numbers of resolutions. It´s a spanish document and I´m sure that foreign office is not agree with some afirmations but the UN Special comitee support spain in the claim of gibraltar. Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.157.123 (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

To the anonymous editor, dos cosas: first of all, please register. It is helpful! Secondly: let's try to follow a structured discussion. The purpose of this talk page section is to discuss the lead section. In order to an analyse UN resolutions and/or the 'colonial status of Gibraltar', we should create another because they are different issues and deserve distinct attentions (or none at all).

To Pfainuk: I've been reading the Hong Kong article lately and it does mention the former colonial situation of the territories in the lead section. The information is not really groundbreaking, but of course that's just my perception of the issue and you are very entitled to think otherwise. Personally I do think that Gibraltar being a former Crown Colony is really notable data, the kind lead-ins are usually made of; however I have no strong opinion on whether this should be mentioned in the lead or in the part devoted to history.

Finally, concerning the Offshore Finance Centre: you are right. The source provided is not actualised, but its no secret that gibraltarian officials pursue "the development of Gibraltar as an offshore finance centre" and that this represents a significant portion of the BOT's economy. More references here (some of them fairly recent).

With all that said, I am perfectly content with the current draft in Richard's userpage.

Cheers! Cremallera (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cremallera, i have commented my thougs about the lead and history of gibraltar. I only was describing the position of UN and Spain becouse other editor say that the positions was differents.And i agree with you in other point... i´m going to have to register.85.136.157.123 (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I remind everyone strongly that we are here to document disagreements and not to join in. Pfainuk, I accept your comment about former colonial status not being something that would normally go in a lead, and I have removed it. Some mention will be appropriate later in the article. 85.136.157.123, both sides of the controversy are briefly documented in the body of the article, as they should be.
 * I remind everyone to avoid any inflammatory language - such as complaints that documented facts are offensive. They may be, but offensiveness is not a reason to exclude them here. Gibraltar is - with some slight reservations - self-governing, stable, and prosperous, and this should be mentioned. I rather liked using the official Spanish site for the sources of Gibraltar's prosperity in recent decades - not years by the way. Although their views are not mine, they do a good professional job and could give some Wikipedia editors lessons on WP:Writing for the enemy. More and better references would of course be welcome; thanks in advance. Narson, could you provide a really definitive reference for the status of the UN committee's pronouncements? Is it the official UN view, as I suppose at present, or just an official view? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,i´m the anonymous editor and i used the link of cremallera. It was easier than i though.Verboom (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the link provided, Spain considers that Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter, dealing with non-self-governing territories has been amended by United Nations General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV), 14 December 1960, 2353 (XXII) 19 December 1967 and 2429 (XXIII) 18 December 1968. First, UN resolutions, unlike the Charter, are non-binding (and may even contradict one another).  Second, the resolutions do not state that Gibraltar is part of Spain.  Third, you need to show that the Spanish interpretation of the status of Gibraltar is accepted in international law.  It may well be that Gibraltar is an indivisible part of Spain and must be returned, but that has not been adjudicated and there is no binding treaty.  TFD (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I´m not lawyer,but i think the resolutions are clear 1 gibraltar is a colony, 2 spain and great britain should finish colonial situation talking, 3 the national integrity cannot be destroyed by de-colonization proccess. Finally, if resolutions were accepted by all countries, the issue of gibraltar was finished in 60´s.Verboom (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding on UN members, and any state is free to ignore them. I'd also note that the Spanish government does actually accept British sovereignty over Gibraltar (per the PDF that's been cited several times now), based on the 1713 cession.  They dispute the border and the extent of British sovereignty, but they do not dispute the fact of British sovereignty. Pfainuk talk 20:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) General comments here:

To Verboom, if Spain says that the UN agrees with them, that does not mean that the UN shares that view. As per TFD above, the UN position is not, in fact, that Gibraltar should be handed over to Spain.

To Cremallera: your cite to a Gibraltar website does not back up the claim that offshore financial services form a large and increasing part of the Gibraltar economy. I haven't looked through all the IMF documents because they're quite long - but from their titles it seems unlikely that they will back it up either. I note in particular that they all predate the Financial Crisis, an event likely to have had a significant impact on the Gibraltar finance industry. A source from 2009 or 2010 would be far better IMO. If people want this, could they please give a recent and reliable source for it.

To Richard: I appreciate that offensiveness is not, in and of itself, a reason not to include things. But at the same time I do feel that we ought to be careful with potentially offensive language, only using it where it is actually necessary. Since it has been removed, it's no longer an issue. I do not have a strong issue with using the words "Crown Colony" in reference to Gibraltar pre-1981 in the article, beyond a general feeling that this article is already far too long and making it even more bloated would seem to be a bad idea.

Finally a general point. I agree with Red Hat in his post of 00:17, 14 May. There are plenty of ways this article could be improved without going over and over with the dispute. It may be a good idea to do that: following recent events I think it would be a good idea to build up some good faith by working together on other parts of this article. Pfainuk talk 20:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pfainuk, Don´t exist a resolution that say "gibraltar should return to spain". Exist a lot of resolutions that say "gibraltar is a colony who should be decolonizated with the agree of spain and UK and the self determination is not valid".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verboom (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough:
 * The Offshore Financial Centers (OFCs): IMF Staff Assessments page, updated last 23 October 2008, actually includes Gibraltar.
 * The Final report of the independent Review of British offshore financial centres for HM treasury, published October 2009, includes Gibraltar as well.
 * Both Investmentinternational and Hedgeweek describe Gibraltar as such. Cremallera (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the current version in Richard's subpage:
 * I agree that Jane's report should go. I have not seen one article in WP mentioning that report in the lede.
 * The line about economics seems about right to me:
 * The UK FCO mentions offshore banking several times, one of them as "fundamental in generating income and providing new jobs". It you look, it also considers "internet gaming" as one of the four main sectors (it is not in Richard's version). One language question: could "bunkering" be a shorter expression for "supply of shipping fuel"?
 * The CIA also mentions offshore banking
 * The former crown colony status should be mentioned. I would prefer it in the lede (as many people don't know what a BOT is) but, if it is going to a problem to have it there, it can be mentioned in the History or Politics section.
 * The sovereignty dispute surely is notable enough to be in the lede. I think Richard's line about the issue is good enough and seemingly acceptable to all editors. It already includes Spain's and UK's POV. If any improvement can be suggested (unless it breaks consensus) I would suggest including Gib's and the UN's POV.
 * All POVs (Spain, Gib, UK, and the UN) about Gib's self-governing/colony status should be equally mentioned in the same place, but it does not necessarily have to be the lede.
 * That's all. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that "Gibraltar is still consider as a colony by special UN comitee and Spanish goverments.[ref. informe sobre la cuestion de gibraltar]

Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories. The British and Gibraltarian governments reject this view.[11]" It´s better becouse it remark the "oficially" POV, What dou you think?
 * And the place in article, i think is better in lead becouse it give a general idea about status problem.

best regards Verboom (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For people who don't know what a BOT is, it is wikilinked.
 * Why would be feature non-self governing first? A country's self identification should come first and any disagreements after.
 * No problem with offshore banking going in the article, but in the lede? Does the Icelandic article mention its primary exports are Bjork, Lazy Town and Fish in its lede?
 * My point about the UN above was that the position on the list is detirmined by the recommedation of the Committee of 24 rather than being a free choice of the assembly/UNSC, and that the UN has a stated POV (And I would like to thank Imal for acknowledging that the UN itself has a POV and a agenda on this and isn't the arbiter of NPOV) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 09:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Narson, I made a major edit before your comment immediately above. I take your point, and I'd suggest inserting references, probably not article text, that make clear the exact status of the UN resolution. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A couple of minor points; "bunkering" is definitely shorter than "supply of shipping fuel" but I hadn't seen or heard it before and had to guess the meaning from context. It seems to be a technical term and I think is best omitted from a general article in an encyclopedia.
 * I have left out internet gaming, as its brief period seems to be ending. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have boldly made some fairly major changes to the article, per discussions above. The lead is shorter and, I think, now rather good. The words "self-government" and "colony" do not appear in the lead although the dispute is prominently mentioned. Both are treated briefly in the Politics section, which I have put into approximate chronological and thematic order, with a few edits for clarity and brevity. I really, really hope that this is a stepping stone on the way to a more stable account that will enable all editors to concentrate on improving the article to Good or even Featured status. I don't think that we will make any progress in that direction while reasonable editors feel strongly that important points of view are not fairly represented. But maybe I'm wrong, in which case I've just wasted another couple of hours. Even if I'm right there are doubtless improvements to be made. Anyway, comments are welcome! Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you still haven't cited your claim that financial services are a large and growing sector of the Gibraltar economy. A ten-year-old cite that doesn't make that claim simply won't do.  Nor, indeed, will any other cite that doesn't make the claim in question.  I have now found some suitable sources and rewritten that part to reflect them.  I have also added the Gibraltarians' POV to balance out the Spanish POV that Gibraltar should be handed over. Pfainuk talk 10:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Economy line: Iceland's Bjork and Lazy Town are not mentioned by the CIA or the UK FCO, but Fish is. In the case of Gibraltar, internet gaming is mentioned as one of the four main sectors (together with financial services), and offshore financing is called "fundamental". Even the GoG talks about "the need for the development of Gibraltar as an offshore finance centre". To be honest, I believe that Gibraltarians have been very intelligent to take that approach in order to bring business in; I don't think Gibraltar is a very active "City" for M&As, stocktrading, etc. So let's call it for what it is (and what the UK FCO, the GoG and the CIA call it): offshore financing. And let's also include internet gaming together with tourism and oil shipping/bunkering, if you think it's alright.
 * Regarding the "former" or "current" colony status, I think it could be relevant for the lede, but I'd not get stuck with it and move on with Richard's current proposal.
 * Finally, regarding the UN and Gib POV on the sovereignty dispute (thanks Narson!), what do you think about including them in the lede together with GB's and Spain's? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC) I didn't see Richard's comment about internet gaming, so maybe my previous comment is wrong. What do you mean with the brief period coming to an end? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Imalbornoz, thanks for the FCO reference. It seems recent and reliable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see need or benefit in going into the precise details of the financial services offered in Gibraltar in the lede. It is enough to say that it is financial services.  The lede is supposed to be a brief introduction, with only limited detail.  I also see no reason at all to get into "colony" in the lede - as Narson has said before it belongs on British Overseas Territory.  Here, it would serve no purpose there other than to further a POV, which is unacceptable.  On Internet gambling, I don't know the current state of the industry, beyond the fact that the CEOs of online gambling firms aren't able to go to the US for fear of arrest - but that's been the case for a few years now.  But I think it's better off in the economy section.


 * Richard's version of the sovereignty dispute only put Spain's POV, excluding all others. I have added the Gibraltar POV, but think that the sentence would be better off with the British POV.  I do not see any need for the C24's POV because the C24 do not play a clear and active role in the dispute.  Similarly, I see no need to put the US POV, the Chinese POV or the Argentine POV. Pfainuk talk 14:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Crown colony" in the politics section
I'm not keen on this sentence at all - "Gibraltar was ruled directly by the British Governor from 1704, and was described formally as a Crown colony from 1830 until 1983." This is the politics section. Politics sections describe the politics of the country as they are now. For example, see Angola or Belize, two countries that were until relatively recently also European colonies. This information should be in the history section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. Pfainuk talk 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just noticed: this was one of Richard's changes this morning. Given the objection, I think it fair to remove it and ask for its suitability in this section to be discussed. Pfainuk talk 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the point. Is there any objection to it going in the History section? Perhaps at the end of the second paragraph? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * None from me, if you write "was a cc" rather than "was described formally as a cc". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure what you mean by "the second paragraph", since that appears to be discussing the Phoenicians, Carthaginians and Romans. I would not object to its going in the British period section, provided we also mention the later statuses as well (British Dependent Territory, British Overseas Territory). Pfainuk talk 16:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes, British period section. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's now in the British period section of history. Pfainuk, you might want to put in a brief remark about later BDT and BOT status? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Improving the article
The following are areas where I think we can immediately improve the article. Would there be any objections if I went ahead and tackled these? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) There are too many pictures which means the article does not follow the WP:MOS.
 * 2) The history section too long, particularly "recent history", much of which is too recent to be considered "history", and frankly not really very notable (e.g. the one-off 2009 public holiday)
 * 3) Climate section: do we really need to know the average morning humidity?
 * 4) Why does the one-off tercentenary have its own subsection in the culture section?
 * 5) Military - I've said this before, but the attempted IRA bombing has way too much airtime. What does it have to do with Gibraltar that the inquest ruled the SAS's action was lawful, or the breakdown of the voting?  There should be a one sentence mention of the bombing in the history section, with a link to the article on this subject.


 * No objection from me. I note that my edit to the Climate section has been reverted, so there are others who may disagree, and I'd maybe give two sentences to the IRA business. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I tackled some of these, performing each as an individual edit so I hope noone will come along and revert the whole lot if they have a problem with just one of them. Also please note that when you edit the article you get the message "This page is XX kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles".  We should be heeding that advice...  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the UN and the UK POV about sovereignty should also be included in the lead:
 * 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. The UK has negotiated proposals of shared sovereignty with Spain but has committed itself to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes. The UN invited in 1968 the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom to undertake negotiations in order to put an end to what it considered a colonial situation in Gibraltar, safeguarding the interests of its population.
 * Note: I'm sure that the UN's position is very notable, although -from the UK's and Gib's POV- very controversial. The last sentence reflects what seems to be the UN's last POV about the controversy and is directly related to one of the referenda mentioned in the current lede (it is from a resolution quite a few years old, so in case I'm wrong I'll accept any sources proving otherwise). In any case, the word "colonial" should be edited or formatted so that it is clear that it is not a fact assumed by WP, but only the POV of the UN (I'm not sure how to do it so some suggestions would be welcome). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree about putting these viewpoints in the lead, Imalbornoz. The lead should summarise the article.  As it stands, the lead mentions that there is a disagreement over sovereignty.  It links to the main article on this, and the reader can read more about it in the body.  Let's not get fixated over the lead.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try not to get fixated on it, but the truth is that the "dispute" is one of the most notable things about Gibraltar (look at the proportion of news, papers, reports about the dispute and about other things...) Looking at my text again maybe that wording is not such a good idea (I wasn't too sure of mentioning the word "colonial" in the first place). Anyway, I think that the UK and the UN POV should be very briefly mentioned, together with Spain's and Gibraltar's, and as uncontroversially as possible. I wouldn't want to propose a text that can be described as "one sided", so please tell me if you think if following text is neutral:
 * 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 have resoundingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in referenda. The UK has negotiated proposals of shared sovereignty with Spain but has committed itself to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes. The UN has approved several resolutions inviting the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom to negotiate a solution.
 * Don't want to get tiresome, but I really think the UK's and UN's POV should be included in this very notable issue. What do you think? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the UN's position should have a place in this article, let alone the lede. This is not an article about the dispute, it is an article about Gibraltar in general.  The fact that newspaper coverage often deals with the dispute does not change the fact that there is a hell of a lot more to Gibraltar than simply a sovereignty dispute.  We are at serious risk of making this article a WP:COATRACK article for the dispute: whereby this is in theory an article about Gibraltar as a whole but in practice nothing more than a content fork of Disputed status of Gibraltar.


 * Unless the UN's position has had clear practical effects on Gibraltar, it should not be included in this article - any more than the American, Canadian, Greek or Argentine positions. Instead, it and all of these other points that people insist are vital but that are only relevant in the context of the dispute, should be left out of this article and instead put in the main article about the dispute: Disputed status of Gibraltar. Pfainuk talk 10:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for clarity (since I see it's open to misinterpretation), by the "UN position" I mean the GA resolutions (which you seek to include in the lede). I don't have a problem with some mention of the C24 list being included in the Politics section of the article (though I do have a problem with its going in the lede). Pfainuk talk 15:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the article needing a trim in order for it to perform its purpose as an overview article. However, can I kindly ask all editors to check if the information they're removing from this article is available in another? If it isn't, I believe it should be added to a relevant article rather than losing it altogether. --Gibmetal 77 talk 01:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure - sorry I agree I should have done that. I promise to do this tomorrow with the information that I have trimmed.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well done Red Hat for lots of good work. Per Gibmetal I'd encourage you to find homes for the fairly large amount of good material that has to go in order to trim the article to MoS length. Imalbornoz, I'd see the "colonial" epithet as part of the dispute, and not something that can be neatly summarized in the lead. The dispute certainly needs mention in the lead but I'd suggest "colony" in the body, as we now have it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Information about the dispute should go, first and foremost, in the article about the dispute. Only if it is particularly pertinent to Gibraltar in general - if it has some actual practical effect on Gibraltar - should it go in this article.  Even with Red Hat's changes the article is still far too long, and I don't see much benefit in making it even longer by putting every detail of a subject that we already have a separate dedicated article for. Pfainuk talk 10:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Richard and Pfainuk, though I think it's fine to continue to mention the list in the politics section. There are plenty of other things we could be putting in the lead that are very notable. the fact that it's location is very strategic, for example, more on the very famous rock itself, the very famous barbary apes, or the fact that almost the entire civilian population was evacuated during WW2. Imalbornoz - sometimes you have to ask yourself, for whose benefit do you want to add this information - yours or the reader's? Assume that the reader will be reading the whole article top to bottom, then ask - if the issue is briefly summarized in the lead and expanded on in the body, or even linked to in another article, why is it so important to get into the lead here?  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Richard, I agree about the word "colonial" in the lead, on second thought it was too controversial and not necessary. Red Hat, it wasn't me I was thinking of, but of the many readers who probably come to the Gib article looking for info on the dispute (that's the main reason why I came here the first time, for example). Pfainuk, Red Hat and Richard, having it in the lead is not so fundamental, as long as 1) the lead is not misguiding (which I think it isn't) and 2) it is easy to find further info in the article (which I think can be improved right now). To make it short: OK, let's leave the lead alone and make sure there's enough NPOV overview info further down in the article. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks that would really help, as it would take too long to write what's been removed and find all the relevant citations. Remember if you can't find an existing article to include this info in, it may be a good idea to start one of the articles in the WikiProject's to-do list. --Gibmetal 77 talk 15:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

History Section
The history section is disproportionately large and needs a bit of a hacksaw job on it. Are people OK if I get my hedge trimmers out, ensuring that History of Gibraltar contains all the excised info? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. It needs shortening. Pfainuk talk 15:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK - took a first stab at it. Things can be shortened further but better to see what everyone thinks so far.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed, Red Hat. I have corrected a minor typo and with extreme boldness - over six months after I first thought I'd make a brief but considered comment, at the request of a stranger, on a town and an issue I'd never heard of - re-inserted mention of San Roque as the destination of most of the previous inhabitants of Gibraltar. To reiterate for the umpteenth time, it's true, and it's mentioned by historians ahead of facts which are uncontentiously in the article. I will also add my personal comment, which is that the fact is also important to people who want to understand what the arguments on either side actually are. Let's see what everyone else thinks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that bold move. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the bold move and with the trimming. Maybe I was wrong to put too much emphasis on the dispute in the lead. On the other hand, I'm sure that the dispute is important and notable enough to have a very brief and very neutral section or subsection in the body of the article (summarising the 3 or 4 main facts and POVs on the dispute and redirecting to the main articles dealing with the dispute). The resolutions of the UN about Gibraltar should be mentioned either in the History section or in the new "Dispute" section. See Israel, Cyprus or Western Sahara for example: they have several mentions of UN resolutions in the body of the article. Also, they have a History or Politics subsection about the conflicts, which mentions several main articles (e.g.: List of UN resolutions, several conflicts, positions on Jerusalem...) I insist: this section should be very brief and very neutral (this last thing means -among other things- that I'd rather have consensus before being too bold). What do you think? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A brief dispute section could be a good idea - I would support it if there is consensus for it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I support a reference about the dispute in the lead becouse in my opinion is a important fact. Best regards Verboom (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two ways of addressing this. Either put in the more notable facts in approximate chronological order, as we now have them. Or write a separate section, presumably using most of the facts and removing them from elsewhere. Either seems fine to me. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Having a section on the dispute is sensible. It's not only a notable issue (you can see the large amount of books devoted to the issue) but, in a purely empiric way, you may simply verify the number of readers of Disputed status of Gibraltar. You'll see that it's one of the most visited articles in the "Gibraltar space". --Ecemaml (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The interest of the public is not a great barometre of inclusion. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So, which is the barometre then? --Ecemaml (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also those hits don't exclude the editors themselves. :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, but you can compare the number of viewer in, let's say, March (here) and the history of the article (12 editions in March). --Ecemaml (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see much need for a new section for the dispute. I don't see significant benefit over simply noting the relevant parts of the dispute in relevant parts of this article as and when the need arises (as we do now). This article is already too long, and I feel that we should be thinking of cutting it down, not adding new sections. Our time would be better spent improving Disputed status of Gibraltar, to give it some actual structure and make it into a usable article. Pfainuk talk 20:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pfainuk in that we need to be looking at improving the quality of the Gibraltar-related articles (such as that on the dispute) rather than just making this article a higgeldy-piggeldy summary of all others. --Gibmetal 77 talk 21:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To that end, what other sections can we shorten? I think the economy one definitely can. There is way too much on that new project. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In light of the above, I understand (RHPF) your excision of the interesting (albeit uncited) Military subsection on conscription. Then I was unable to find the material in History of Gibraltar. Maybe it's just the way you work. M'self, I'd do the restoration edit (and look for a citation) ahead of making the deletion. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was, as you say, without any source, and it was added very recently. It also struck me as rather trivia-esque. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Operation Flavius and Radical Rehaul of the History Section
The more I think about this, the less I'm inclined to see this as being important enough to include in a potted history of Gibraltar. It's an extra paragraph in a subsection that is already disproportionately long (50% of the history section is devoted to the last 60 years) in a section that is disproportionately long in the article as a whole. I suggest we remove it entirely - it still gets coverage in History of Gibraltar. What are people's thoughts? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What do people think of this radical rehaul of the history section?.
 * It's of a length comparable to other sections.
 * Voting results to two decimal places is a bit excessive - you can click on links if you want to read more.
 * Each "era" of history roughly gets the same paragraph size.
 * The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm close to the point of saying that we should just remove the section and replacing it with a link to the history article. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We all seem to be getting along very well here and tackling the article problems together. It's great if you want to be part of that, but if not, in the interests of maintaining the new-found collaborative atmosphere, may I ask that you only post constructive comments here?   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment was a serious suggestion, so you can cut out the holier than thou thing. It doesn't suit you - it definitely doesn't fit. If we do not have the space, sometimes it is better to send people to the full history article, as what remains becomes of little use and it frees up bytes. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for misunderstanding your intent, Narson. It's the norm for these country/territory articles to have a small history section, so I don't think we need to go so far as to remove the section entirely.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me pretty good. I have corrected a couple of typos. Also, there's probably some information that can be added/modified by several editors. Some proposed changes:
 * trying to put myself in a Gibraltarian's shoes, the last sentence feels a bit too much like a happy ending (with the Spaniards retiring sanctions) when only some practical issues have been dealt with and all sides (not only Spain) have given way; I think it would sound more objective if it just said that "A process of tripartite negotiations started in 2006 between Spain, Gibraltar and the UK, ending some restrictions and dealing with disputes in some specific areas such as air movements, customs procedures, telecommunications, pensions and cultural exchange. ."
 * I think that the UN resolutions at the end of the 60s should be briefly mentioned together with the UK's, Gibraltar's and Spain's position. The UN was a very important player in that crisis and all books about that episode mention the UN resolutions: "In the 1950s, Franco renewed Spain's claim to sovereignty over Gibraltar and restricted movement between Gibraltar and Spain. In 1964 the UN requested the UK and Spain to undertake formal negotiations. During the process, Gibraltarians rejected Spain's proposals and voted overwhelmingly to remain under British sovereignty in a 1967 referendum. The UN General Assembly criticised the referendum and invited the Governments of Spain and the UK to resume negotiations, without success: Gibraltar and the UK approved the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution Order and Spain completely closed the border with Gibraltar severing all communication links."
 * Maybe the language has to be improved, but I think this important episode has all the important facts this way, leaving all detail to other articles. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking over my proposal, Imalbornoz. I agree it seems like a happy ending the way I've worded it.  Another solution could be to add (briefly) what the outstanding restrictions are?  (What are they?)  On your second point, though, I don't agree we need to mention the UN here, because again it's TMI ("too much information"), and better mentioned at the "dispute" and "history" articles.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what restrictions are left. What I mean is that the tripartite talks have not only been about restrictions and not only Spain has given way (e.g. the UK has agreed to increase pensions to the Spanish workers who had to leave after the closure of the fence, Gibraltar has accepted a Cervantes Institute...). I think we don't need to go into the details of which restrictions have been retired, that's why I propose to just mention the areas of negotiation.
 * Regarding the UN, I understand that too much detail is not good and I think you have done a very good job trimming the History section. Therefore, I agree that the UN participation in Gibraltar's history should not be explained in detail. On the other hand, I see that its resolutions are mentioned in many other articles about countries with territorial disputes:
 * Israel UN gets 7 mentions, UN resolutions get 5. BTW this is a featured article (in spite of the very contentious issues it deals with)
 * Western Sahara: UN 14 mentions, resolutions 3
 * Cyprus: UN 5 mentions, resolutions 1
 * There are (at least) 3 specific UN resolutions, a specific UN list, and a Committee dealing with Gib every year. So, I can't see why the UN are only mentioned once and the expression "UN resolution" is not even mentioned... That's what I think, I'd like to know what other people think (I admit that the UN resolutions are not too nice for Gibraltar and may be contentious here). If I find out I am the only one to think that (or only Spaniards seem to support this), then maybe I am wrong... -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Red Hat, there are outstanding restrictions such as those at the frontier where Spain agreed to implement two green channels as are used on the Gibraltar side to ease traffic flow, but to date have only done so sporadiccally. However, I agree with Imalbornnoz in that this would be too much information for the "new" Gibraltar article and mentioning the areas of negotiation should suffice. Similarly I believe that mentioning of the specific UN resolutions would be too much info for this article. We could perhaps explore the possibility of mentioning that the UN GA have passed various resolutions on Gibraltar whivh have had no/negligible effect in the territory? --Gibmetal 77 talk 11:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Imalbornoz, if you have references for the info you provided above in relation to the Trialateral Forum, why not jot them down so we can start an article on Trilateral Forum of Dialogue on Gibraltar?


 * I don't think we need them. They have not had any practical effect on Gibraltar itself and do not form a particularly significant part of the dispute.  This is unlike the three situations you cite, where the UN resolutions cited have generally had a significant effect on the disputes concerned.  Note in particular that most of the resolutions cited in those three articles are UN Security Council resolutions, which are part of international law and are binding on UN member states.  The resolutions we're discussing here are UN General Assembly resolutions, which are not part of international law and which UN member states are free to ignore if they wish.  The resolutions should absolutely be mentioned at Disputed status of Gibraltar.  But I don't think they belong here. Pfainuk talk 21:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. We can't refer to the 1967 referendum without mentioning the prior UN resolutions which are its background. But a simple mention and a wikilink should suffice. On the following phrase: "After three days of violence on the part of the invaders and reprisal attacks by the townspeople", I think that the accurate representation of soldiers plundering the town and the civilian population defending themselves should include the word 'sacking'. Perhaps it ain't nice, but it's neutral and correct. Other than that, I think that this edition its a further step in the good direction.
 * Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can meet in the middle on the UN resolutions - one sentence prior to the referendum sentence? Re "sacking", what verbs do the sources use?   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Red Hat, yes, I'm sure we can find a very brief way to mention it.
 * Cremallera, I agree that the crisis in the 60s (referendum and all) cannot be explained without the role of the UN.
 * Pfainuk, I've quickly checked it (before going to bed) and the first two resolutions mentioned in the Israel article are from the GA. One is about the creation of the State of Israel (right, it surely had effect) but the other one has been completely ignored by Israel and had no effect (other than moral). I suppose that at some point maybe it was discussed whether "this is an article about Israel not the UN", but in the end that content was included and the final result seems to work pretty well! Back to Gibraltar: do you think that we can find a way to mention the UN resolutions without giving it undue coverage? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Peter Gold mentions that the constitution was granted by the UK only because of the UN procedings as a means to "impress the UN" (Gibraltar, British or Spanish?, page 377, note 7). The source is a FCO declassified document. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

One sentence would be perfect in my opinion. There's no need to write a thesis here, its just that the 1964 UN resolutions, the 1967 referendum and the 1969 Constitution Order are very closely related. As for the verbs used in the sources, here's a recollection made some time ago by Ecemaml (thanks!) where we can read: I think that 'sacking' sums it up quite well whilst being concise and aseptic enough (at least more than the current "drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating most Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings"). Any thoughts? Cremallera (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "women were insulted and outraged; Roman Catholic churches and institutions were taken over as stores and for other military purposes";
 * "Great disorders all over the town committed by the boats' crews that came on shore and marines";
 * "Such was the behaviour not only of the men but their officers that the worst fears of the population were confirmed";
 * "There were 'disorders involving persons of the weaker sex with gave rise to secret bloody acts of vengeance";
 * "What shocked Spaniards most was the profanation by the Englishmen of places of worship and their mockery of religious objects";
 * "all but 70 of the inhabitants of the 1,200 houses in the city took what they could carry of what had not yet been plundered (...)";
 * "al igual que sucedió en los pueblos aledaños a Cádiz dos años antes, la soldadesca se entregó a la profanación y saqueo del templo, al robo de todos los objetos de valor de los refugiados y, lo más grave, a la vejación y violación de algunas mujeres" (roughly translated as: "as it happened two years before near Cádiz, the soldiery profanated and sacked the temple, robbed every valuable object belonging to the refugees and vexated and raped some women").


 * I think the word "atrocities" sums it all up pretty well: It is the word many sources (Jackson among them) use. It is a word with specific meaning in a military context, and it is sourced. I have found it is used in 1.010 articles in WP in combination with the word "siege" . (I think sacking is more related with robbing than with rape and desecration: ). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, Imalbornoz, but it is still a valorative term. 'Sacking' is a descriptive one and I'd rather publish the latter than the former. Not that sacking earns you a nobel prize (unless you are Henry Kissinger...). I am just suggesting and thus, very open to what the community thinks, though. Cremallera (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "To sack" carries the implication that the British encouraged or were indifferent to the acts of their soldiers. I'm not going to trawl through the archives now to find the source, but I believe it is clear from sources that this is not accurate in this case.  Thus, unless it is clearly the word preferred by reliable sources (including pro-British sources), I oppose its use here.


 * On the resolutions, yes, Israel mentions some GA resolutions. The first resolution that confirmed the partition in 1947, which obviously had a major practical impact on the future history of Israeli-Arab relations.  The second deals with multiple resolutions (not sure how many, but given the number of resolutions the Security Council has passed on Israel we're probably talking about dozens of them) sustained over a long period of time on the same subject, used to demonstrate the international position on a major point in the dispute.


 * By contrast, we're referring to two GA resolutions passed within the space of a year. They did not have a significant impact on the dispute and have not been followed up since 1968.  They deal with a relatively minor point in the dispute (whether a referendum should have been held or not in 1967).  I would suggest that the fact that the referendum was held and the consequences of that referendum can perfectly well be understood without noting the UN resolutions, given the lack of significant impact.  I would suggest that no particular conclusion about broader international opinion long-term can be drawn from the existence or content of the resolutions.  The UN resolutions are a detail, and so I think it reasonable to suggest that they belong on a more detailed article. Pfainuk talk 17:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note: I've been thinking about it and I can't see why "sacking" carries the implication that the British encouraged or were indifferent to the acts of their soldiers. I don't think so, it just means that the town was sacked (which, as a matter of fact, it was). Anyway, if you can synthesize in a better wording/word what the excerpts I've provided tell us, please be my guest! What would you suggest? Cremallera (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The wording as it is now makes that implication very clearly. Indeed, the implication of the current wording is that the poor innocent townspeople were driven out by the evil British.  Which is misleading - sources show that the British had the opposite intention.  The townspeople were not entirely innocent in what happened in 1704: sources demonstrate that they themselves killed English and Dutchmen at the time as well; that the fear of reprisals for these killings may well have been part of the motivation for their departure.  The current wording is strongly pro-Spanish POV.  Brevity is not a good reason for us to put a biased position, as we currently do. Pfainuk talk 17:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The implication is not as you describe it. Coalition (not British) troops (not their commanders) committed excesses. The townspeople fled because of those excesses. It does not involve that there was a master plan to drive out the inhabitants of the town. But they felt so unsecure that they left. And sorry, but "that the fear of reprisals for these killings may well have been part of the motivation for their departure" is a clear example of WP:SYN. No source says that (and believe me, I've got all the relevant sources describing the capture) and therefore there's no room for our speculations. And your edition is plainly POV in the sense that presents two equivalent sides (something odd as we're considering some thousand soldiers agains some hundreds of civilian inhabitants). --Ecemaml (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The implication is exactly as I describe it. The piece pretty clearly implies that, as I say, the poor innocent townspeople were driven out by the evil British.  That's what the current wording says.  It puts the Spanish POV as fact and completely ignores the British.  Of course that's unacceptable.  Obviously that's unacceptable.  We have to have neutrality here.  What we have isn't it.


 * My edit pointed out that there were attacks on both sides. Given that we have it sourced that English and Dutch soldiers were killed by the townspeople and left in cesspits, I think that's not an unreasonable description.  If there were fewer Spanish then that does not mean that those that were there did not kill people.


 * "That the fear of reprisals for these killings may well have been part of the motivation for their departure" can be sourced to Gibnews' oft-quoted passage. You've seen it many times before.  That's what that passage says, or at least very strongly implies.  So, I reject the notion that it is synthesis.


 * I have reverted this section to the last position that had consensus until new consensus can be reached. Pfainuk talk 21:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, Pfainuk, don't talk about something someone quoted somewhere some time in the past. Are you able to find at least one reliable source talking about such "fear of reprisals" (mind that NONE of the books I have, and they're not few and mainly British ones, mention nothing similar to that)? At least, can you provide "Gibnews' oft-quoted passage"? Because as far as I can remember, such "passage" was entirely his invention (I mean, his synthesis). This request is not rhetoric, since IMHO, such kind of synthesis has been one of the main reasons of the toxic atmosphere we're suffering before the arbitration case (and therefore it's very important to discard such invented versions and stick to the sources) --Ecemaml (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We seem to be falling down on a spot of WP:AGF. It is never good to put yourself forward as an absolute expert, stating you have 'all the relevent sources' or all the information is a road that shuts down debate rather than opens it. The wording was niggling at me (and sacking does imply, somehow, an organised and directed pillage. I know this is not its dictionary definition, but it is how the term is often used) and Pfain has really put his finger on that niggling and ellaborated better than I could. I support him in this. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 09:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Pfainuk on this one; the (very) slightly longer sentence here is more faithful to the sources, giving similar implications as well, and it gives a better description of a very unpleasant few days. I think it's a particularly good example of encyclopedic prose: "The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating most Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings      ." Richard Keatinge (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems everyone is OK with the radical overhaul and we just need to iron out the final details, so I went ahead and put up the preliminary version from my workshop page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Pfainuk: the wording has been reverted in favor of a description of the sacking. I have no problem at all with that. But let's be clear about my intentions and the sources, because I don't really enjoy implications like the one you left in the edit summary stating that I "assert the Spanish POV as fact while ignoring the British". I based my edition purely on the sources, which are authored mainly by British historians, and tried to write it down pretty dispassionately. The result being: Nowhere in these 3 phrases the townspeople are qualified as poor and innocent, but as villagers. Equally, the British and Dutch troops aren't qualified as evil nor their commanders are accused of promoting the plunder. How on Earth did you manage to think that villagers weren't "entirely innocent" because they defended themselves against the uncontrolled soldiery which after the surrender started beating them, desecrating the churches, looting their houses and raping their women and daughters, is beyond my grasp. However, neither your opinion nor mine made it to the published draft, what's written above are the plain facts as all the reliable sources tell us it happened. As for the intention of the British, whilst William Jackson wrote that "Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline" in "The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar" (Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101); George Hills in his book "Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar" (London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174) states that "Such was the behaviour not only of the men but their officers that the worst fears of the population were confirmed". So, probably, George Rooke was sincere when he offered the Terms of Surrender, and most certainly he wasn't competent enough to impose them to his own officers and troops. Presumably, the villagers were as innocent as any other civilian could've been; and in all probability no reliable source states that the fear of reprisals was part of the motivation for the "departure" (sic.) of the townsfolk. Nevertheless, when devoid of any emotive language and putative intentions attributed by people who assuredly wasn't there at that time, what's supported by the references is the aforementioned text. I understand that this was not the most brilliant episode in the Royal Marines' history, but that's no reason to accuse me of bias. Especially without providing a single reliable source to back up your diatribe.
 * "On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Gibraltar surrendered to a combined Anglo-Dutch force".
 * "The town was sacked by the invading forces".
 * "and the villagers fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain".

With all that said, if y'all think that the current wording is preferable and more encyclopaedic, you've got my blessing. I don't like it, but I won't oppose to it. Cremallera (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You put the Spanish POV, and state it as though it were fact. You base it on your own interpretation of sources.  We should be being neutral.  The clear implication of the phrase that we had was that the poor innocent villagers were driven out by the evil British.  Which is pure POV.  We can't neutrally mention what the soldiers and marines did to the town without also mentioning what the townspeople did to the soldiers and marines.  We can't accurately imply that the British officers supported or were at least indifferent to attacks on the town when sources show that the opposite is true.  You seek to do both, and I will not accept that.  Propose another wording and I'll consider it on its merits.  But I won't accept this one. Pfainuk talk 20:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stating that the town and its people were abused by the invading British and Dutch forces is not my opinion stated as though it were fact, but William Jackson's, George Hill's, Isidro Sepúlveda's and Maurice Harvey's opinion. All of them coincide. And it is explained in every reliable source dealing with the issue at stake because it is relevant to understand why the population fled. With regard to my own interpretation of sources (as if you had something different to your own interpretation of them) it stood in the talk page. What I published are three phrases devoid of emotional asserts, and that's why you complain about their 'implications' and not their actual 'content'. Well, in my opinion, you are wrong. The text does not suggest any positive nor negative intent. It just remains silent because -from my perspective- there is a pretty clear difference between every single source describing a factual event and a single source describing an intention.
 * Anyway, if you feel that mentioning that the civilians defended themselves against the sacking infantry is needed for neutrality; just be bold and do it. If you want to add the motives as attributed by a source whose author wasn't born in 1704. I say, be bold and do it. You can propose a wording too. But please, cut out the holier than thou thing. Cremallera (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I might suggest that accusations such as that of people being "holier than thou" are part of the reason we ended up at arbcom? It's also very likely that it had something to do with some editors' unwillingness to take any account of the concerns of others when writing text.


 * You make it sound like you think I'm trying to deceive you or something. I'm not.  I have concerns about the text you propose and have given you reasons for them.  I have expressed these reasons very clearly on several occasions now, and have proposed an alternative text (which was reverted).  You've told me my concerns don't matter - well, they do.  I have done all of this in good faith.


 * The implications that readers are likely to draw from our text matter. If the text implies something that is inaccurate or biased, then that's just as much a problem as if it states something that is inaccurate or biased.  It is unacceptable for us to imply something when it is clear from sources that the opposite is true.  You propose we do exactly that.  It is biased to present the townspeople as complete innocents driven out by evil British soldiers and marines, as you propose - especially when we have it sourced that the townspeople killed soldiers and desecrated their bodies.  And no matter how much you insist that my concerns about the clear bias in your text and the serious inaccuracy implied by it are unimportant, I will not accept that. Pfainuk talk 21:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cremallera that we need to explain why a whole town fled. I haven't read the 3 sources I have on this yet so this is just my opinion, but you could argue that the townspeople were minding their own business until they were invaded and their town ransacked, after which they defended themselves and/or sought retribution for the destruction wrought upon them, until such time that they realized they couldn't win so they got out of there. The history of Gibraltar might have been very different had they stayed, they key here is what drove them to leave, we are not attempting to judge both sides for their behaviours at a time when this kind of warcrime was par for the course. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 07:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this episode is both pretty sensible and a very important turning point in the history of Gibraltar, so I can live with a text that goes into a bit more detail about verified facts than other parts of the article (like Pfainuk proposes). I will even accept, for the sake of consensus, things in the current text which I don't find supported by sources (like implying that all of the troops were drunk before they started with the atrocities). I only hope that this matter is done with and we don't have to discuss it any longer. In the end, I think that we can all be happy that we have reached an agreement and this very important episode is undisputedly explained in the History section (something that had not happened since the first writing of the article many years ago). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good, so we're all able to live with the current text? This strikes me as a very good moment to leave the matter alone. And concentrate our minds on making the entire article Good or even Featured. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the fact that they were boozed up is not supported by sources then we should remove that. The entire contingent being constantly drunk for 72 hours strikes me as unlikely anyway! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Brits in Spain being boozed up for days on end? Doesn't strain my personal credulity. Nevertheless, until we can provide a reference for drunkenness we should remove that particular remark, and I shall do so in a minute. Ecemaml, you seem to have a large collection of the relevant reliable sources; do any of them specifically mention drunkenness? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what are we agreeing to here? And isn't Pfain disagreeing still? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 15:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A good question. I've just re-read the above and I don't see any substantial disagreements remaining. Perhaps I should be a bit clearer; please, everyone, avoid making guesses about other people's motives, or at least avoid writing them down. Is anyone disagreeing with the current text? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the current wording - that is, Richard's current wording. I think a shortened version would probably be better (subject to my concerns as noted above), but if we can't agree on one then this one will do. Pfainuk talk 18:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard, you mean everyone happy about the current wording... of the capture episode, don't you? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC) (I am)


 * Yes, sorry, the capture episode is what I meant. Everyone prepared to accept the current wording is good. In fact the whole article is looking a lot better, much easier to read and still getting essential facts in. Are there any remaining obstacles in the way of Good Article status? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Motto
The latin motto is incorrectly translated. Expugnabilis does not mean conquered.--190.22.140.13 (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a common mistranslation, which has stuck globally (several things use the same motto, I think it is biblical) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Minorca
Replying to Cremallera's post on my page, the reason I removed Minorca is because we need to stick to the topic at hand - the history of Gibraltar. I don't believe we need to add the fact that Minorca was also ceded in 1713 to the history section purely in order to give background to mention of Minorcans in the demography section. The right place for this information is at Demographics of Gibraltar. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is, in my opinion, that whilst a mention of the relationship between Gibraltar and Minorca might be in order, its' place isn't in the 'demographics' section nor in the Demographics article. As I pointed out in Red Hat's user page, it is virtually impossible to discriminate minorcan from other balearic, valencian or catalan surnames and I have never seen any book studying/classifying Minorcans as an ethnically distinct group within the Spaniards with the exception of the dubious reference found in Archer's book. Cremallera (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's too small a detail.  If explanation is needed, it can go in Demographics of Gibraltar. Pfainuk talk 21:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of you too. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Time for a Good Article application?
Well, this is what it says at Good article criteria:

What is a good article?
A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

.</li> <li>.</li> <li>:</li>
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

</ol> --<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#FF7F00;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">Gibmetal 77 <sup style="color:#9932CC;">talk 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I say let's go for it!  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I've just re-read the article, trying to take a fresh look at the whole thing, and while we may not have achieved perfection I think that we are doing quite well. Who wants to put in the GA nomination? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - it's nominated . The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

History of Gibraltar
I think it's time to turn the History of Gibraltar article into prose instead of the chronological timeline it currently is. I'm happy to make the first stab at this, but given that it is going to be very time consuming and hard work, I don't want to do this if it's just going to get reverted. So can everyone give their support or opposition to this move? Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This would be a good thing to do. I will put it on my watchlist. Go for it! Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The other issue is that there are some entries that article which would need to be removed as they are either too detailed or would disrupt the flow (it's a lot easier to insert an isolated entry into a list than it is to insert a sentence into prose and have it continue to read well). So I would propose moving the current article to Timeline of the history of Gibraltar so nothing is lost.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * By the looks of things, you've already seen History of the Falkland Islands and Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands - but just in case you haven't, they may be worth a look.


 * I agree that this would be a useful thing to do. Pfainuk talk 17:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Pfainuk - I hadn't - so there is a precedent for such a move. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest using the work in progress at User:ChrisO/drafts as a starting point for the first few sections? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Very nice (and hello again - it's been a while). Looks like that has been a work in progress for some time now - how come you never used it?  Anyway, it's up there now, and Timeline of the history of Gibraltar has been created from the old page.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I got sidetracked by other stuff, I'm afraid... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I originally suggested keeping the existing article as a timeline to ChrisO when he began work on the new article. Thanks for getting this going again Red Hat. --<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#FF7F00;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">Gibmetal 77 <sup style="color:#9932CC;">talk 21:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Communications in Gibraltar section
This was raised in the GA review as needing work, because it's basically a list in disguise. I moved out the media part of this to "culture", but the remainder strikes me as far too technical for this article and would be better served just by getting rid of this section entirely and simply doing a See Also to the Communications in Gibraltar article. Thoughts? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed it quite a lot, now basically saying only that it has the connectivity you'd expect in a First World country. Or we could get rid of it altogether, as Red Hat suggests. Comments, or bold edits? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes for GA status
I've added some changes in the History section (deduplicating references and adding some new ones and some slight detail according to previous talks) and the Geography section (leaving only one picture of the Rock -of the 3 preexisting ones- if someone has a different preference, please feel free to choose another one).

I still think that the dispute over Gibraltar should be explained in one subsection as in the Israel featured article (the dispute even has one full paragraph in the lead of the Gib article, even though there's no proportional development in the body of the article). Any comments? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which section are you referring to in the Israel article? I don't see it.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is in the Conflicts and peace treaties subsection, inside the History section, and it has links to "Further information: Arab–Israeli conflict, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and Positions on Jerusalem". I suppose it's easier to put it there in the case of Israel, given that it has such a short history and it fits very well there (even though the wikilinks refer to events outside of that specific period). In the case of Gibraltar, maybe it could go in the Politics section as well... -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (BTW, I've eliminated a couple of images in the Politics section, as per GA article, and one image that wasn't too relevant in the History section and overlapped into the Politics section)
 * Yes, but if you look carefully, it's the final section of a chronologically ordered history section, it's not a separate section specifically for the "dispute", even though the authors seem to only concentrate on foreign affairs and have given the subsection that title.
 * "Antiquity" covers up til the Middle Ages.
 * "Zionism and the British Mandate" takes things up to the end of WW2.
 * "Independence and first years" up to the 1960s
 * "Conflicts and peace treaties" up to the present.
 * As it stands, the Gibraltar history section does exactly the same: issues relating to the dispute are covered in the history section. So, the Israel article is not an example of what you propose, and I strongly disagree that a separate section is required.  It's enough that Disputed status of Gibraltar exists.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, maybe it's enough if we put some redirect such as "Further information: Disputed status of Gibraltar"? Where would you put it? In the History section or the Politics section? (BTW, I've already checked the categories of the chart about education). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Parallels
I reverted a large addition about parallels with other territories. I'm mindful of past disputes and don't want to provoke another, but I politely suggest to Justin that an overview article on Gibraltar is not the right place to go into this kind of thing. Gibraltar is so much more than the subject of territorial disputes involving Spain. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * May I remind you that WP:CIVIL includes a section about not raking up past disputes, please stop it now. Please identify exactly what is wrong with the content I proposed, it is relevant, possibly too long and could be slimmed down but it is relevant and that is what is important.  I will discuss content but if you continue to rake up past disputes per WP:CIVIL I will ask for the special conditions imposed by arbcom to be invoked.  Justin talk 17:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin, I am just saying, I don't want to provoke another dispute - please don't overreact.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Focus on content, that is all I will say. Justin talk 22:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Red Hat that the dispute article is a better place for this. I must admit I'd question whether a mention belongs in this article at all, bearing in mind that that section intends to represent Gibraltar politics as a whole and this is a relatively tangential part of the dispute, itself only part of Gibraltar politics.  Given that, the text as proposed is certainly too long and detailed IMO. Pfainuk talk 17:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of this. Probably the best place for it is the international disputes section of Foreign relations of Spain?  That's hardly got any information there at all.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly but given this was brought up recently by Peter Caruana and is cited in numerous documents on the sovereignty dispute it is relevant. The more detailed text could go in another article but a slimmed down version is relevant here. It is also cited from a reliable source, it is verifiable and to avoid covering it would be to suppress relevant material. Justin talk 22:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is sourced - but we're discussing its relevance, not whether it's original research. It's well written, so I sincerely encourage you to look at integrating it elsewhere on WP - Foreign relations of Spain really is its perfect home - the entirety of your addition would work perfectly there.  We can also add a link to that article in the See Also section of the Gib article.  How does that sound?  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain why the analogue of Spanish enclaves in Moroccan territory, in part only 15 km away, are not of relevance? I contend the relevance is compelling and have sources that confirm this.  I have already conceded the text I initially proposed is overly large for this article, it would be more relevant elsewhere.  Here, I am suggesting a brief coverage pertinent to an overview article.  Please address what I actually propose. Justin talk 23:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For the reasons stated by Pfainuk: "this is a relatively tangential part of the dispute, itself only part of Gibraltar politics". And, to put my own perspective on it too, what you added - even if we massively trim it down - is really an analysis of Spain's territorial disputes - Spain is the common thread amongst Gibraltar, Ceuta, Melilla and Oliveira, not Gibraltar, and this is an overview article of Gibraltar.  Anyway, I'm obviously not going to convince you, and, I have to say, vice versa, so this will be a matter for consensus.  Let's see what others have to say.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC) ps it is late there in Scotland - time to hit the hay?
 * Given this has been raised by Peter Caruana QC, Chief Minister, Government of Gibraltar, as I point out above, the relevance is actually established. And again as I point out above the analogue with the situation in Gibraltar is compelling.  I have already demonstrated a willingness to dicuss content and have already changed position.  Focus on content please.  Justin talk 19:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see that relevance to an overview article like this one is established by any comments so far of the Chief Minister. Spain's other issues are worth passing mention by him, but they aren't directly relevant. If he and other leading spokesmen in this dispute all said that Spain's other territorial disputes are all part of the same dispute, I'd change my mind, but he hasn't and neither has, for example, the foreign minister of Spain. I'd support a brief mention of this issue in the Dispute article, all or a lot of it in Foreign relations of Spain, and none here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Richard, do you have a source that says it isn't relevant to Gibraltar or is that your personal opinion and/or original research - neither of which are grounds that I find are relevant to wikipedia for not supporting the inclusion of material in an article. Let us actually look at this objectively.  Spanish enclave on the edge of Moroccan territory less than 15km away, that Morocco would like to see returned but the people living there don't wish to be part of Morocco, and Spain supports their right to self-detemination, a British enclave on the edge of Spanish territory but Spain denies they have a right to self-detemination and does not respect their wishes not to be part of Spain.  But this doesn't merit a mention in the Gibraltar article? Such a compelling analogue and it doesn't merit a mention? Sorry but I think your argument is completely unsustainable and is based on grounds that are not relevant to the policies of wikipedia.  Justin talk 22:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of sourcing, nor indeed of policy - it's a matter of relevancy.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I happen to have sources that establish relevancy and seriously I don't see how it can be argued that it is not relevant. Justin talk 23:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't relevant because no legal or practical part of the case on Gibraltar would be significantly affected even if all the other parallels had never existed. They simply have nothing to say to the status of Gibraltar. I suppose we could put in a comment, probably on Disputed status of Gibraltar if there isn't one there already, to say that the issue has been brought up in this context. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On what grounds do you base that assertion?  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.
 * 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.
 * Legal opinion does consider it relevant, the latter is the work of a legal scholar. I think that the fact they're 15 km away from Gibraltar is also of great significance.  And all I'm arguing for is a very brief mention.  Sources demonstrate the relevance.  Your assertion it is not relevant based solely on your personal opinion is not grounds based that I find acceptable on Wikipedia given that relevance can be sourced.  You have not advanced a policy based objection to any of my proposals. Justin talk 12:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your quotation is of a lawyer mentioning, in a footnote, a populist argument. Again it might do for a very small comment in Disputed status of Gibraltar. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy based objection, please. Justin talk 12:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a populist point of no legal relevance and minimal notability. A brief mention might fit in an article on the dispute, in which context it has some notability. But not in an overview article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Legal relevance is established above, notability is established by the source quoted - which is a speech at the UN. Populist point?  There you have me, please explain how that is based on grounds acceptable to wikipedia?  Justin talk 16:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Legal relevance is not established by your source, nor sufficient notability by PC's comments. Its only relevance is that it establishes some degree of inconsistency in Spanish policy and this point is popular in some quarters. In the Dispute article it might be worth a brief comment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This you're going to have to explain. A legal opinion in a legal journal by an academic that is not legal relevance?  Notability related to a speech at the UN by Peter Caruana but the UN isn't notable or he isn't?  Inconsistency in Spanish policy toward Gibraltar but that is not relevant on the grounds that it is popular in some quarters?  I don't see a policy based argument here at all, certainly not grounds that are relevant to wikipedia.  Sorry but I really don't, so far you've reverted/vetoed any change that I have proposed but I don't see policy grounds for those at all.  Justin talk 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this is a good moment to call for further opinions. I insert here Justin's edit that is the subject of this section:

" 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.

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."

And I would really appreciate the advice of anyone who can take the time to read through this section and advise on whether this text should be in the article, in the above or any form. A more formal request for comments may be appropriate if this doesn't get us anywhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * OK, could we have your revised proposal then? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, patience grasshopper. I didn't see the point in writing anything if it was just going to be rejected.  Justin talk 15:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag
I'm unhappy with the Government and politics section. It is misleading and inaccurate and I wish to see it corrected. Gibraltar is self-governing with the exception of defence and foreign relations. The constitution gives the GoG powers over everything except the judiciary and internal security. As with the UK, the judiciary is independent of Government, the selection of judges is not a GoG resposibity but equally they are not appointed by the UK Government as the article implies. Equally internal security is the responsibility of the Gibraltar Police authority. Effectively these two functions remain under Gibraltar control but this article does not make that clear; effectively POV by ommission. This needs to be corrected. Justin talk 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree here. The paragraph beginning "Under its current Constitution," ought to represent the fact that Gibraltar's internal security and judiciary are not controlled by the UK government.  For information on the police in particular, I suggest this as a useful source. Pfainuk talk 18:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it can be reworded. I don't think a POV tag is warranted really, we can discuss on the talk page.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I disagree, the text here misrepresents the Government and politics of Gibraltar and the POV is skewed. Until that is corrected then I feel a POV tag is warranted.  I will also point out, that I previously pointed the need to correctly represent the way Gibraltar is governed but that was ignored to insert the current text, which is seriously biased.  It needs more than rewording, it needs to be completely rewritten with regard to the policy of WP:NPOV.  Justin talk 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * At the moment we have (omitting the references): "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."


 * What rewording would anyone like to suggest, bearing in mind the rather extensive discussion now happily relegated to the archives or remaining in the references? What about: "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. All of the royal functions are exercised in close consultation with, and normally on the suggestion of, the local elected representatives and officials. 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." Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is misleading thats what wrong with it. The Governor is a figurehead, he doesn't select and appoint judges, he doesn't select the chief constable or run internal security in Gibraltar.  If we have this edit then that is the implication.  Tell me Richard, does the Queen appoint judges in your area personally, or does she appoint the Chief Constable?  So in which case why does the Gibraltar article state that the Governor as representative of the Queen does verbatim as fact.  Is that really fine? Justin talk 22:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Formally the Governor and the Queen do such things. As a matter of practice they normally rubber-stamp local decisions, possibly offering gentle guidance behind the scenes. Or am I wrong? Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but are you really suggesting that the Queen or Governor steer decisions on the judiciary? They do no such thing and were either to try and interfere, there would be the most tremendous row.  The point is rubber-stamping local decisions, as a figurehead, though you'd never know that from reading this article.  The article implies it is the day to day job of the Governor to hire/fire judges and run the police force.  The Governor does no such thing and thats why this article is misleading.  Justin talk 07:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We seem to agree on the facts; the present painfully-achieved wording seems to give a fairly good representation of them though I make a suggestion for possible improvement above. What do you suggest? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No the wording doesn't give a fairly good representation, it is misleading readers implying the Governor is in charge of the judiciary and the police. The text needs to make plain that the judiciary is independent, the Governor is a figure head as Queen's representative whose function is solely to rubber stamp local decisions of an independent judiciary and not to make those decisions.  Similarly with internal security, it needs to be made plain this is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority, with the Governor as a figure head rather than in day-to-day control.  That is what I suggested long ago, it deals with the text neutrally and explains it to readers.  Wikipedia should be about breaking down prejudices based on misinformation, as currently written it re-inforces them. Justin talk 12:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Governor is indeed more or less a figurehead, like the Monarch - until something goes severely wrong. See for example 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. That is when the reserve powers become obvious and real. There are analogies with the actions of King Juan Carlos I against the 23-F coup. Yes, I am (though a humble ordinary citizen) somewhat aware of the various unwritten conventions and expectations surrounding these things. But the present text, while no doubt improvable, is at least accurate. Could we have suggestions, rather than overstatements?

UNINDENT

Richard, it is actually unhelpful to make comments like alleging I am overstating the position. I have made a suggestion for a proposed edit, do you accept the basis or do you want to pontificate further? The present text is not accurate, it does not conform to NPOV - omitting details like the figurehead status of the governor is tantamount to misrepresenting the GoG by omission.

Only in extremis is the Governor able to intervene and in that case it would actually be the UK Government that does so, in the normal course of events it is a purely symbolic position and Gibraltar is governed by the people and for the people. And in many case the GoG has demonstrated it will act independently and in blatant opposition to the British Government, such as recent events when the Blair Government proposed to share sovereignty with Spain. So again my proposal is to explain the symbolic status of the Governor and that power is vested in local institutions such as the GPA and the local independent judiciary. As an aside I don't find the comments about the Spanish king of relevance since the Queen would never intervene in that manner.

Could we discuss my content proposal please, then move ahead to discussing text? Justin talk 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The present text describes the reality accurately and briefly. I don't think that this article needs to go into the conventions of constitutional monarchy any more than, say, the United Kingdom article does. Could we have your suggested text? Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to write prose, if you're simply going to go "no, no, no". And yes the article does need to go into those conventions, especially when they're being used to present a misleading view of how Government works.  Quit stalling please.  Justin talk 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but writing some constructive suggestion would almost certainly help and is better than endless nonspecific argumentation. Anyway, I can't think of any way of making my point clearer than my last comment immediately above. My suggested new text is "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. All of the royal functions are exercised in close consultation with, and normally on the suggestion of, the local elected representatives and officials. 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." Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No it needs more details than that, which I will write if there is a will to consider them objectively and not simply reject by reflex because of past issues. That is what I fear going to the effort of writing it, to hear, no, no, no.  A few simple sentences shouldn't need this microscopic examination.  Justin talk 15:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive
I have restored the archiving of this talk page after Justin's reversion. The page is extremely long - any threads that are pertinent to a discussion can be linked to on the archive page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I feel that at least some of that material is germane to current discussion so I am restoring it. Please can we focus on content of the article. Justin talk 23:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's there on the archive page - you can link to the threads that are relevant.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have restored it as I said I would, it is more convenient to have the material to hand. May I suggest you read WP:BRD, archiving was premature IMHO.  Justin talk 23:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Overview article
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 certain 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 I edited tonight, which no doubt will satisfy no one but treat the incident in a neutral manner. Much as I suggested months ago before we had an outbreak of atrocity tennis. Seems to me that there is certain inconsistenty in the standards on deciding on content. Justin talk 23:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On the reprisals sentence, I agree with you. I don't think this sits well there, and I do think it is too much detail for an overview article.  On the mention of San Roque, I don't agree with you that it should go.  Either way though, this text was the result of a consensus - it sat untouched for several months, so please, let's discuss in a cool and calm atmosphere, OK?   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am happy to discuss content in a cool and calm atmosphere. But threats like this and posts like this and this indicate to me that you intend to continue to focus on the past.  Please let us focus on content as I have pleaded thus far.  Justin talk 23:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you've gone about this in completely the wrong way. You quoted WP:BRD above regarding talk page archiving, but then you fail to follow it yourself, on an extremely contentious edit which you know there is no consensus for, which you know was a major cause of us ending up at ArbCom, and which - from the talk page posts you didn't let me archive - you can see we reached consensus on.  As such, I've filed a report at WP:ANI here.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No I have not, I made a bold edit, that you disrupted half way through. I simply compeleted it and initiated a discussion.  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)

I have reverted back to the last stable version. Sort it out here before engaging in another edit war please mark nutley (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no intention to edit war as I stated. Justin talk 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin, may I suggest at we break your edit into two parts - San Roque and non-San Roque. On the latter, again, I am in agreement with you and if others are too, would support the removal of that sentence. However, given the relative stability of the article in past months, let's proceed to make changes on the basis of consensus. Please?  The ArbCom business was a stain on everybody, whether or not we got sanctioned (ie including me), and we should do all we can to avoid the sorts of behaviours which will have us returning there.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made no reference to arbcom or raked up the past, I pleaded that you didn't and you were out of order to do so. I gave you no cause and your post at ANI was simply needlessly provocative.  If you agreed with part of my edit why revert all of it?  Your editing behaviour makes no sense at all.
 * Again I will discuss content with you that is all and please respect my request to stay off my talk page. Anyway I am off to bed to sleep on matters.  Justin talk 01:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agreed with part of your edit, but I know others won't. Therefore, it would be wrong and hypocritical of me to allow removal of the bit I agree with removing and to put back the bit I don't. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a bizarre argument, if you don't agree with it, why did you side with a faction demanding atrocity tennis is included in the article. Sorry but the historical record in the archive shows you adopting a very different position when I suggested this wasn't appropriate for an overview. Justin talk 12:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a review and possibly more opinions. Here is the longish-consensus text that we have at present, minus references: "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."

and here is Justin's slimmed down version: "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 nearby areas of Spain."

Justin's edit removes details of the disturbances after the conquest of Gibraltar, which Red Hat agrees might well go as too detailed for an overview article, and it also removes mention of San Roque as the destination for most of the refugees.

The consensus text on the disturbances was carefully and painfully crafted as balanced (and I think it is). However I agree that it's also too detailed and personally I'd be happy to see it go. Justin's text here also strikes me as acceptably balanced.

San Roque is an ongoing hot button because the modern town (about 7km from Gibraltar) maintains historical continuity (or identity) with Spanish Gibraltar. It is mentioned in many references as the main destination, ahead of many other details, and the ongoing claim may also be thought to give its foundation some degree of notability. The inclusion of the name "San Roque" had already been the subject of a very long argument - if I remember rightly, starting about archive 15. I haven't changed my opinion here; it should be in. It's true and highly notable in the context.

Could we have some comments on:

Whether to include the fuller version of the disturbances?

Whether to mention the name "San Roque"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I must first say that this is a pivotal episode in the history of Gibraltar (the one with possibly the largest impact in the last 500 years of the Rock): the point when Gibraltar started to be under the influence of a new country, with a new population, with impact on its culture, language, ethnicity, economics, politics... That's why it is explained in a lot of detail in all modern sources when they talk about the history of Gibraltar.
 * I must add that I am happy with the current version, I don't find it exceedingly long and it's quite balanced. But I would be eager to agree on a shorter text in order to make other editors happier. On the other hand, I think that even a shorter version should mention *why* "the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous" (even if in a shorter text): it was not because of fear of revenge or bombs or sickness (as the article used to explain and certain editors used to defend -without proper sourcing- in the past), but because of the atrocities that were committed by the invading forces. I find this very important, and it's very widely mentioned even in English sources (albeit, almost only since the middle of the XX century -it used to be silenced by English sources before, that's a fact if you look at the sources).
 * I also think that the main destination of the population of Gibraltar in 1700 is historically relevant according to the sources -enough to be in the History section of an overview article.
 * Thanks, Richard, for the suggestions. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard, bear in mind our dicussion on the Timeline article and also bear in mind I suggested in something like Archive 15 the necessity of including what I call "atrocity tennis" was completely inappropriate for an overview. Sources also list a number of reasons why the population fled.  One, is the behaviour of the troops, two, is a fear of revenge following the murders of the British and Dutch troops followed by descration of their remains and, three, there was a natural expectation of a Spanish counter attack and a full blooded battle in the town.  I personally feel that latter is the one that most stands up to logical examination as by the time of the exodus order had been restored.  Personal opinion however is not the basis of my argument, which is that for any text to approach NPOV you'd have to cover all bases in that respect, which is clearly impractical in an overview which should be brief.  I want to emphasise, however, that this has been my approach from day 1, whereby I would prefer the details to go into the Main history article with minimal coverage here commensurate with an overview.  They left because they felt it was dangerous covers all bases in that respect.
 * Secondly San Roque falls into the same category. The exodus was not as simple as suggested.  The fishermen of the town, which by the way Gibraltar being a fishing town prior to 1704 you might expect to form a major population, settled to form the modern town of Algeciras.  Initially a number settled around what is now called San Roque but then dispersed wider.  The sources don't match either, 4000 left with 6000 settling in San Roque?  I fear that at least some of the sources have history confused to focus on modern claims.  Also why mention San Roque but not mention Algeciras or any other town that spang up as the result of the events of 1704?  Also San Roque didn't exist at the time, it was founded several years later.  The sources actually mention the population settling in what became San Roque.  So if you do actually mention it, they settled at a location where the town of San Roque was subsequently founded - that is supported by sources.  But then is that appropriate for an overview article, focused on Gibraltar
 * Hence, if we are to deal with the exodus my suggestion is that the best approach is to keep it brief and deal with the details in the History article. Hence, my argument based upon WP:DUE is that it this material detail belongs elsewhere. IT is peripheral and tangential to Gibraltar, much as you're arguing above Richard on other details you consider peripheral and tangential.  And again there I am arguing on the basis of WP:DUE.  This is a perfectly valid argument for wikipedia and breaking my promise to myself not to go over the past, Richard your assertion that my arguments weren't valid for wikipedia was deeply hurtful and I consider an outrageous slur and still do.
 * Inclusion of the details is arguable either way. The details are an important reason for the strength of feeling behind the ongoing claim. If we do have details we need to give a balanced account, especially in a "hot button" issue, and the present text is the balanced product of a very long negotiation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No Richard, it was in fact a solution you chose to impose, tag team edit warred to force into the article and dismissed any disseting voice as "not grounds suitable for wikipedia". It was not a negotiation and that is why I contest it to this day and only why. Justin talk 16:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that San Roque is a hot button to press in the sovereignty dispute I have consistently said from day 1 is not grounds to exclude it. But it does make it behoven upon us to consider the matter carefully and balance whether including it is giving due coverage or by including it we tip the balance into POV territory.  Justin talk 12:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See the archives for details; briefly, San Roque was a hamlet and a convenient place for refugees from Gibraltar to ease their sad and weary legs. Most fled there but not all stayed, and some went elsewhere, the fishermen presumably to places accessible from the sea and with more fish to catch. (To judge by San Roque's rather dry appearance on Google Earth, few places have less fish to catch. Only a very stupid fisherman would have tried sailing there. Nipping over the bay to Algeciras would have been an obviously-better alternative.) San Roque got its royal charter a few years later, not one calculated to relieve anxiety in British Gibraltar, describing San Roque as the city of Gibraltar resident in its campo and so on.
 * The notability of San Roque as a destination has been fairly thoroughly established. I could trawl the archives, but, to reiterate, it is mentioned in multiple good sources ahead of many less important details. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin, we have already gone over this over and over. You are wasting your (and everybody else's) time if you just repeat yourself without bringing sources. Please, don't. In fact, I am ready to accept:
 * That villagers in part fled because of fear of revenge if you cite proper sources. Sources support the fear of atrocities ("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." Jackson, William. The Rock of the Gibraltarians. pp. 100-101). We have NO SOURCES supporting fear of revenge. If you have found any, please, CITE the source, author, page and if possible QUOTE them.
 * That San Roque was not the main destination if you support it properly. There are many sources supporting that San Roque was the main destination . If you have any sources supporting the opposite, please CITE them (source, author, page, and -if possible- QUOTATION).
 * Otherwise, we will have to assume that you are indulging in WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard, notability I conceded long ago that not being the issue and never was in my opinion, relevance for this article I questioned and still do. I long ago established that many overview articles do not feel the need to merit a mention.  That of itself seems a better test for relevance than detailed historical texts focused on that period of time.  I feel the place to conisgn the detail is another article focused on the history.  I've not seen anything that changes my mind on that matter.
 * I would also ask that you don't mix your comments with mine, as I almost missed that you had done so. Also you did not state that it was arguable either way, that I could have conceded and agreed to differ.  You STATED my reasons were on grounds not relevant to wikipedia, that was an outrageous slur and it still rankles.
 * Imalbornoz, your comments bear no relation to mine, so I do not feel the need to respond in detail. I noted that sources support multiple reasons and your proposed text has and always has focused on one.  That doesn't seem appropriate to conform to our policy of NPOV.  Focus on the content and please stop making these personal attacks.  Justin talk 16:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(Justin, I purposely didn't mention names when I made that comment, and I don't even think that I had you in mind. There had been earlier nationalist insults by other parties. I don't propose to repeat them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Richard, go back and look again and consider it from my perspective and how you would have interpreted it - particularly with my comments on your talk page of February 4. You had your chance to explain that it wasn't directed at me but didn't.  You responded in terms I find dismissive.  Secondly it was not a solution arrived at by negotiation it was an imposed solution.  Mediators should never impose solutions, full stop.  You crossed the line into participant and still claimed to be objective.  No that isn't how it works.  So please don't claim it was arrived at by negotiation because that does not reflect how it got there.  Justin talk 22:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin, this is no personal attack. It just is a perfectly wikipedic request for you to cite sources.
 * You have made some assertions as you proposed to eliminate any mention of the atrocities in the article: "Sources also list a number of reasons why the population fled. (…)two, is a fear of revenge following the murders of the British and Dutch troops followed by descration of their remains and, three, there was a natural expectation of a Spanish counter attack and a full blooded battle in the town." Then you go on to say that we would have to mention all the bases, which is too much detail, and thus everything should go in the History article. Please support those statements (cite those "sources" you talk about with author, page and if possible quotation) so that we all can have a constructive discussion. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It was full of personal attacks Imalbornoz. Both Richard and RHoPF acknowledge my proposal has merit, none of us feel this example of "atrocity tennis" adds to the article, too detailed and the issue is just too much for an overview.  You appear to have strong feelings that we must tell everyone that the British did many nasty things in 1704.  Well strong emotions are not conducive to writing prose that meets NPOV.
 * Richard, can we take this as RHoPF suggested in two parts, my deletion proposal and then perhaps look at the issue of San Roque afresh. I feel we need to separate the two.  Justin talk 22:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Opinions please

OK, could we 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) 06:24, 14 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) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And, on whether to remove the mention of San Roque as the main destination: Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:24, 14 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) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin says that sources mention multiple reasons (fear of revenge among them) for the population leaving Gibraltar, and therefore fear of the atrocities should not be singled out, and therefore there's no reason to keep it in the overview article.
 * Again, please Justin, can you provide sources for your assertion: "Sources also list a number of reasons why the population fled. (…) two, is a fear of revenge following the murders of the British and Dutch troops followed by descration of their remains and, three, there was a natural expectation of a Spanish counter attack and a full blooded battle in the town."
 * This is the third time that Justin is requested to provide those sources (and quotations if possible) that support his proposal. Everybody else has spent lots of time and effort to provide sources for each of their proposals. The least that we should ask from him is to spend some time sourcing his proposals before he asks everybody else to dedicate some effort to reopen yet again this issue. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:38, 14 October 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. :

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.

I presume you're familiar with it. Wait. Theres more. Justin talk 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

When the garrison marched out on 7 August almost all of the inhabitants, some 4,000 people in total, joined them. They had reason to believe that their exile would not last long; fortresses changed hands frequently at the time. Many thus resettled nearby in the ruins of Algeciras or around the old hermitage at San Roque at the head of the bay. They took with them the records of the city council including Gibraltar's banner and royal warrant. The newly founded town of San Roque thus became, as Philip V put it in 1706, "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo". A small population of neutral Genoese numbering some seventy people stayed behind in Gibraltar.[60]

Chris's prose, which everyone agreed was an excellent summary. Justin talk 21:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Part of the reason for keeping the talk page record intact was for the ability to refer to the discussion that took place that you claim establishes consensus. I note that Pfainuk had this to say:

You propose we do exactly that. It is biased to present the townspeople as complete innocents driven out by evil British soldiers and marines, as you propose - especially when we have it sourced that the townspeople killed soldiers and desecrated their bodies. And no matter how much you insist that my concerns about the clear bias in your text and the serious inaccuracy implied by it are unimportant, I will not accept that.

I agree the text is clearly biased and the serious inaccuracies implied by it are important. I too can't accept it as conforming to a policy of NPOV. I note that despite these reservations is was nontheless imposed. I have therefore opted to make the text more agreeable with our policy of NPOV. Justin talk 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin, regarding Pfainuk's comment: I don't know what he finds lacking in the article to make it biased, you can clearly see in the History section that "townspeople carried out reprisal killings", like sources say. On the other hand, no source mentions any "desecration" of bodies like he says.
 * Most important: you said that the other reasons for leaving were:
 * "a fear of revenge following the murders of the British and Dutch troops followed by descration of their remains"
 * "a natural expectation of a Spanish counter attack and a full blooded battle in the town."
 * I'm afraid I don't see the sources mention 1) any "fear of revenge" in the Spanish population, nor 2) any expectation of "a full blooded battle in the town" (the texts you cite do mention an expectation to return soon, but nothing else). Justin, can you please help me find where exactly in the text you can find any references to "fear of revenge" or "expectation of a full blooded battle"? Someone else? Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I too can find no mention of "fear of revenge" or of battle among the Spanish population in the references that Justin gives. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The source does mention the expected Spanish counter attack, that is the point I made. The point being there was more than reason.  Are you both claiming that it does not?  Justin talk 20:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ownership
This is getting out of order, changes I did last night gave due coverage of a political issue, they expanded a section to cover an important event and added information that was sourced, from reliable sources and changed POV text to more neutral prose. Any change I make or propose to this article is reverted. This isn't about consensus building it is ownership and it must stop or I will take the issue to WP:AE. Final warning. Justin talk 07:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Self governing in the lede?
I have restored the lede to the previous consensus text. I hope we can see new reasonable arguments in the discussion and are able to reach a new consensus or keep the old one. Please let us all be reasonable and follow BRD. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The section I restored had a long standing consensus, much longer than the current text. It is an important qualification to indicate the devolved Government status of BOT like Gibraltar.  The edit summary in the reversion is of itself demonstrating bias claiming the edit to violate NPOV - something hardly conducive to starting of a discussion reasonably.  I trust there will be no further bad faith accusations and we will focus solely on content.
 * The edit itself is accurate, reliable and sourced, satisfying WP:V and WP:RS. The use and abuse of the C24 list to dispute this edit is not acceptable as it WP:OR and WP:SYN. The criteria for inclusion by the C24 is bizarre in that it bears no relationship to whether a territory is self-governing or not. The C24 criteria lists states that are:
 * A sovereign state
 * An integral part of a sovereign state
 * A state in free association with a sovereign state
 * The C24 list is used to promote a less than honest view of the level of self-government enjoyed by territories such as the Gibraltar. Its used and abused to deny the status of such territories to promote the fiction that they remain British colonies. Wikipedia should be about explaining this to readers not promoting fiction. NPOV is not about representing all viewpoints but rather covering mainstream views.
 * If readers want to know what a BOT is, then we link to a perfectly serviceable article British Overseas Territory dealing with precisely this point. If they want to know details of the self-government enjoyed by the Gibraltar, or the issue of the C24, they could refer to the Politics section of this article once the biased and non-neutral nature of the text is corrected. There is benefit in distinguishing those BOTs that are self-governing from those that are under direct rule, but no benefit in going on and on about exactly what powers are involved in each case in the lede. That is lede fixation. The point of the lede is not to put everything into the article in all its gory detail. If it was, then there wouldn't be any point in putting an article underneath it. The lede is there to summarise the topic only.
 * I also give fair warning that unlike the past where I tried to reason with people and did not as a rule report disruptive behaviour, the first time I see a personal attack, accusation of bias, accusation of suppression, attempts to use my ethnic background to paint me as unreasonable, reams of text to block discussion, forum shopping or disruptive behaviour of any kind I will take it straight to WP:AE and ask that the special sanctions are involed.
 * Please do not take any bad faith accusations. I'm sure non-NPOV edits can be made with good faith also!!
 * The last consensus in the article was NOT to include that expression (since February or March). About previous consensus: There was a previous consensus to INCLUDE it (which lasted since April until July 2009). And previously, the consensus was NOT to include it (for several years). Anyway, I am sure we can work with BRD now and reach a new consensus or keep the old one.
 * Regarding your arguments, I have nothing to answer that has not been previously said: your source does not unequivocally say "self governing territory", but "self governing territory EXCEPT (...)"; also, some sources say that it is "NON-self governing" (UN, consultancy firms, newspapers, Spanish sources...) NPOV should require either to explain the different positions in the lede or to only deal with this issue with detail in the body of the article. This last option was the one chosen in order to reach the last consensus. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No that is misleading, it was uncontroversially in the article for 2 years, until your insistence on making it an issue. It was not added prior to that as the current constitution was implemented in the same year it was added.  Avoid making bad faith statements if you do not wish them to be taken as such.
 * NPOV does not require all positions to be dealt with in the lede as you assert, it requires that the article treats all mainstream view points with due prominence. NPOV also does not require us to give WP:UNDUE prominence to fringe viewpoints based on dogma rather fact.  An article promoting a less than accurate viewpoint of the Government of Gibraltar for dogmatic reasons fails NPOV.
 * The article also previously caveated that defence and foreign relations were not within the purview of the GoG. And before you attempt to claim that the judiciary and internal security are included in this, Gibraltar has an judiciary independent of the executive and internal security is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority; both institutions being under local control.  An attempt to confuse governance with Government will not be acceptable.  Justin talk 12:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ADD - if your objection is solely the lack of suitable caveats then there is a readily available solution. Justin talk 12:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Justin, you say that my comment (that the term self-governing was in the lede for only a few months) "is misleading, it was uncontroversially in the article for 2 years, until your insistence on making it an issue." You also seem to say that the UN, Spain and other sources who do NOT say that Gibraltar is "a self-governing territory" are just "fringe" POVs and thus need not be put at the same level as your statement (which is that "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory").
 * I'm afraid that your perception is very much mistaken. I think that the best option will be to leave prejudice for a moment and look at plain evidence. To begin with, can you please tell me the start and the end date for those TWO "uncontroversial" years until my "insistence on making it an issue"? Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw the accusation of prejudice please, because I am not going to tolerate accusations of prejudice. Justin talk 15:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I will not indulge a post mortem of past events any more than I have already. Content discussions only please, I also stated clearly positions based on fact not dogma.  I made no mention of nationalities and will not do so.  Justin talk 15:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. Let's focus on evidence. You've made two statements, which I don't find evidence for. We disagree, so let's find a solution. Please provide the evidence, or realise the lack of it:
 * You've said that there was a two year long consensus for including the expression "self-governing territory" before a controversy took place (you've even said that my statement that the consensus lasted for only a few months was "misleading"). Please provide the evidence: the start and end date of those two years.
 * You say that sources that say that Gibraltar is not self-governing (UN, commentators, etc which have been provided in previous discussions) are fringe POVs. Please provide the support for that.
 * Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No I am not going to go down the path of raking over the past, I was foolish to allow you to sucker me into that.
 * On the second point I said no such thing. I have explained till blue in the face that the UN C24 list is not based on objective judgement of Self-Government in Gibraltar but other parameters and to use that to deny the self-governing nature of Gibraltar is misleading.  My other point is that Gibraltar has a written constitution, holds democratic elections, independent observers have validated the conduct of democracy in Gibraltar, the Government governs within its parameters, Gibraltar has an independent local judiciary and internal security is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority.  So the sources that state the territory is self-governing with the exception of defence and foreign relations are demonstrably based on objective verifiable fact.  Sources that deny those verifiable facts for entirely dogmatic reasons are denying verfiable objective facts to advance a position that is not sustainable by wikipedian standards.  Yes they can be included in the article, as the dogmatic position they present condemns itself and I would happily include those arguments for that very reason.  However, they cannot be used to deny verifable facts in the lede and giving them equal prominence in the lede violates our policy of a NPOV based on the presentation of objective verifiable fact.
 * There is plenty of objective verifiable sources to back up what I have argued. Now if you can demonstrate any source that denies the self-government of Gibraltar that is based upon objective verifiable fact and neither dogma nor a misrepresentation you might have a case.  But continuing to claim the UN supports that position when it does no such thing is certainly not a sustainable argument, neither is continuing your previous practise of raising tension by continuously misrepresenting my argument - I'm simply not going to allow that to continue and will seek arbitration enforcement if you do so.  Neither is that an invitation to derail discussions by walls of text.  Justin talk 19:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I see:
 * You have reached the conclusion that "Gibraltar is self-governing" based on some verifiable facts. On the other hand, sources such as the UN, Gov. of Spain, commentators, etc. "deny those verifiable facts for entirely dogmatic reasons (...) to advance a position that is not sustainable by wikipedian standards" and therefore their PoV should not be at the same level (at least in the lede). That's your (respectable) opinion.
 * I have my own opinion (like you). My opinion is not important (only reputed secondary sources' is), but I will explain it to you. I think that Gibraltar has a level of self-government. But it does not reach plain self-government: it did NOT develop a constitution by itself (it was negotiated with and granted by the UK -who did not grant all the issues that the GoG demanded), it has no right of self-determination, many powers are in the hands of the Governor who usually does not interfere with the will of the GoG but reports (indeed) to the FCA office and -under certain circumstances- has the right to override the will of the GoG...
 * What WP says is that my (or your) opinion should not be imposed on a WP article. The article should just reflect what relevant sources say. And here is where I disagree with you: UN IS a relevant opinion (as much as the GoG, UK, Spain, etc) and it literally says that Gib is a "non self-governing territory". Saying the opposite in the lede is not NPOV. Also, saying that something is "self-governing" when even according to the GoG and UK it is "self-governing EXCEPT ..." seems to me something like WP:SYN.
 * I must say it is difficult to argue with someone who says that any source opposing your position is not "based upon objective verifiable fact and neither dogma nor a misrepresentation".
 * Finally, please, when you say someone is "misleading" please check before. You said that the term "self governing territory" stood uncontroversially for two years in the lede (when I said that it was there only for a few months vis a vis several years of not being there). When I have asked you for evidence, you just have avoided the issue. You just have to check the history of the article (that's much easier than deciding which international organisations are relevant and/or dogmatic). Please tell me when you have checked whether your statement was true or false. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

No, I said no such thing. I have explained the position of the UN so many times now, yet you repeatedly misrepresent my comments. I say the UN opinion is not relevant for the lede as it is not based on criteria judging governance but statehood and the two are not co-incident. To use the UN position to comment on governance is mendacious and misleading. Stop it, now please. Secondly, no that is not my opinion, it describes how the sources I quoted derived their opinion based on objectively evaluating the facts of the situation. Sources that derive their opinion from dogmatic reasons that deny verifiable facts are not the suitable basis for NPOV. I make no comment whatsoever on their national or ethnic origin, merely that they assert black is white. The only person to raise concerns on a nationalist basis is yourself. No matter the origin on the source, it is the basis of their argument that is the issue here. Thirdly, your reasoning on the status of the Governor is specious. Australia and other Commonwealth countries have Governors whose theoretical powers are identical. Yet we would not qualify their level of self-government on that basis. Similarly the constitution has evolved in consultation between the British Government and people of Gibraltar - so what. Any transfer or devolution of power would require that to take place. Australia, Canada, New Zealand or any former colony has had to go through that process. So to use that as a basis to deny self-government is not a sustainable argument by any stretch of the imagination. Also Spain and Holland and a number of other countries also still have a monarchy, are we to assert on that basis, falsely, they do no enjoy self-government as in theory the monarch can take over. You do not advance an argument that survives logical examination. Fourthly, none of this is based on my personal opinion, it is based on sourced material from reliable sources that evaluate the facts objectively and do not distort facts to assert a position based on dogma. Do not go down the route of attempting to paint me as being unreasonable when I am advancing an argument based on objective evaluation of sources, compliant with wikipedia's policies on content. That is unreasonable and a personal attack, which I have already indicated I will not tolerate. Fifthly, no again I will state the discussion is to focus on content, I am not going to be suckered into raking over the past and taking the discussion down a blind alley. Justin talk 14:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually self-government was rather conspicuously qualified in Australia in 1975. In this article we have comments that describe the reality, that of a sophisticated constitutional monarchy, quite well. Namely, self-government with significant reserved powers, used in unusual and difficult situations. That is the situation of quite a lot of territories - British and Spanish, for example. It does not amount to unqualified self-government, self-governance, or whatever. (Nor, rather more obviously in my humble opinion, does it amount to traditional colonial status.) It may be more important to describe the reality in the Gibraltar article precisely because remarks about "la colonia" and so on are still current. But there is no sensible argument for asserting "essential truths" which oversimplify the situation and omit critical nuances, and even less reason for putting them in the lede. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there is a good reason for qualifying it in the lede. Not all BOT are self-governing, most are to varying degrees but those with a transient military or scientific population are not.  I also did not propose unqualified self-government in the lede but qualified that defence and foreign relations are excluded.   I have also not argued on the basis of "essential truths" but verifiability over truth. But again unfortunately the article doesn't describe the reality of a sophisticated constitutional monarchy, the omissions explaining local dominance detract from it rather seriously.  More on that later when I have the time.  Justin talk 15:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not discuss my own or any other editors' opinion about the "true" meaning of the term "self-governance" or on whether a territory is "in fact" self-governing or not, because we are neither reputed experts nor relevant sources. On the other hand I am ready to discuss about what different sources "literally" (i.e. without WP:SYN) say and whether a WP article is NPOV or not.
 * Following this premise, it is undeniable that:
 * the UN General Assembly literally calls Gibraltar a "non self-governing territory" (with no "or", "except" or "but").
 * not one other source simply calls Gibraltar a "self-governing territory", not even to make a summary; even the Gibraltar Prime Minister qualifies the term explaining the exceptions.
 * Therefore, I would conclude that it would be oversimplifying the issue to just say "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory" or "Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory". I don't find myself (or you, Justin) in the position to perform that simplification. We'd better explain the different positions.
 * To make things easier, please look (again, the nth time since last July or August) at a list of sources:


 * My conclusion: let us not write a lede that "misleads" the reader into believing that Gibraltar is consider by all relevant sources a "self-governing territory". This only happened for 4 months in 2009 (from April until July, Justin, please check the history of the article) before it was questioned. The long standing consensus (for many years) has been and still is to leave this complex issue to the body of the article. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Australia example is misleading because the governor-general was appointed by the Queen acting as the Queen of Australia on the advice of her prime minister for Australia. TFD (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (It was merely to make the point that theoretical powers can become very real. Indeed the constutional details are somewhat different. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC))


 * But that is not what I'm proposing and you've done exactly what I requested you didn't do. Once again you misrepesent what the UN says to infer it is commenting on governance when it is not.  And you've stuffed a great wall of text in the way (which I note by the by supports my proposed edit) derailing discussions.  You also clearly didn't bother to check since encarta is broken and this source  refers to the origin of the use of Gibraltar as a word not its current status. This source  doesn't even mention the word colony as you claimed.  This source's  introduction doesn't detract from what it later says about Government.  In addition, Devolved Government and Self-Government are one and the same.   All of which you've posted repeatedly as a means of ignoring discussions and misrepresenting what is actually proposed.  This is simply filibustering to avoid real consensus building.  The proposal for the lede is self-governing with exception of defence and foreign relations - which I note even the Spanish Government source you quote supports.
 * If you can only argue against my proposal based on misrepresenting what I propose clearly you don't have a sustainable grounds for opposing my edit. Focus on the content proposed please and cease from derailing discussions and filibustering  Justin talk 17:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also add that confusing governance with government is not helping matters. The powers conferred on the GoG do not include the judiciary, internal security or defence. Gibraltar has a judiciary independent of the executive, equally internal security is the function of the Gibraltar Police Authority, with advice from the executive.  Both are under local governance.  Justin talk 17:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And, to repeat, are subject to reserve powers of the Crown. I feel that we are now repeating ourselves somewhat and I'd really appreciate it if any so-far-uninvolved editor would wade through this page and comment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT I apologise for not being able to make my point clear. If you allow me, I would like to try one final time, trying to make it as schematic as possible:
 * I don't care about my own (or any other individual editor's) interpretation of what the sources really say or what the situation is. None of us is an expert in the field and this is a complex matter.
 * NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources".
 * Summarising all sources that have been provided, we can see that:
 * At least TWO relevant sources call Gibraltar a "non self-governing territory" (the UN and Spain).
 * Several other sources say Gibraltar is self-governing in some areas but with exceptions: Chief Minister of Gibraltar, UK FCO, UK HoC FAC, PWC, CIA, ...
 * NO sources (ZERO, NONE) say that Gibraltar is a "self-governing territory" or a "self-governing British Overseas Territory" as is, plainly, without carefully chosen qualifiers or exceptions.


 * To start the wikipedia article about Gibraltar saying that "Gibraltar is a self-governing British Overseas Territory" without anything else does not "represent fairly all significant views". In fact it represents a view supported by zero sources!!! Wikipedia would be the only source saying this!!! And it directly contradicts what the UN and Spain literally say. That's clearly not NPOV.

I hope I have been clear this time. I hope we don't get tangled with what my interpretation of the situation is (or Justin's or...) I agree with Richard: we are repeating ourselves. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I thought given my brief perusal earlier found considerable inconistencies between what Imalbornoz claimed and what the sources actually said that I would go through these sources and see what they actually say, given that I've noted a number are not represented accurately. What is interesting is that I have uncovered that the sources are in many cases misrepresented, in some cases outrageously so. Whats also interesting is that none and I repeat none of these sources contradict the edit I propose, all bar the UN directly support the proposed edit.

Focusing again on the UN, the UN bases its comments on the basis of statehood rather than governance. Specifically its criteria are independence, integration and free association - note devolved Government or self-government is not actually a valid criterion. Hence, to claim the UN list contradicts the proposed edit is to compare apples and oranges.

Misrepresenting sources is a serious matter on wikipedia. Edits should be based on reliable sources that are verifiable. The sources displayed support my proposed edit, they do not as claimed contradict it.

I have summarised the sources below, apologies in advance for the seemingly wall of text but I felt it important to fully list the evidence compiled from these sources. Justin talk 21:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * Justin, I don't understand the logical process through which the UN General Assembly and Spain call Gibraltar a "non self-governing territory >period<" and at the same time their support for your proposal ("self-governing BOT except defence and foreign affairs") is "N/A" and "Y" respectively.
 * Also the Chief Minister of Gibraltar says "except defence, external affairs and internal security" and you only say "defence and foreign affairs". Yet, you seem to say that his statement supports your proposal.
 * Anyway, I would find your proposal NPOV as long as it includes the Chief Minister's position ("self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which vest in the Governor") as well as the UN's and Spanish position ("Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory"). Anyway, I would rather have all this issue and its details only in the body of the article and not in the lede. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another alternative would be to say in the second paragraph that the new Constitution allows for a significant degree of devolved government (it wouldn't contradict the UN and Spain's position which say Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory but agree that it has a great deal of devolved government, and it would fit all the sources no matter if the consider different exceptions such as defence, foreign reltions, internal security and/or public service -the only problem seems to be in the "self-governing territory" expression and the different "perimeters" of self-government). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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)