Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Gibraltar: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Territorial disputes: implacably oppose this suggestion now
Line 929: Line 929:
::::::'''Warning, parody alert:'''
::::::'''Warning, parody alert:'''
::::::Your suggestion above is, I think, "Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters." Or, possibly, "The UK disputes Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting the Rock with the rest of Spain or to recognise any right of Spain to its territorial rights". I hope that the symmetry of these two expressions may be sufficient to indicate their unsuitability. [[User:Richard Keatinge|Richard Keatinge]] ([[User talk:Richard Keatinge|talk]]) 08:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
::::::Your suggestion above is, I think, "Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters." Or, possibly, "The UK disputes Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting the Rock with the rest of Spain or to recognise any right of Spain to its territorial rights". I hope that the symmetry of these two expressions may be sufficient to indicate their unsuitability. [[User:Richard Keatinge|Richard Keatinge]] ([[User talk:Richard Keatinge|talk]]) 08:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Regarding your "parody", unhelpful Richard, the two sentences are rather obviously not in the least symmetric. The first is reasonable, the second is not and serves only as a strawman to paint the first as unreasonable. If you're reduced to that sort of petty tactic then obviously you lack confidence in your content suggestion. Parody Alert: So Richard, when did you stop beating your wife?
:::::::Still oppose, implacably so now. ''[[User:Justin_A_Kuntz|Justin]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Justin_A_Kuntz|talk]]''</small> 09:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


== Reference list 2 ==
== Reference list 2 ==

Revision as of 09:31, 3 December 2010

Former good article nomineeGibraltar was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:V0.5

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.


Territorial dispute with Spain

Here is a redraft including my personal responses to Pfain's work and the comments above. I note that this is the crux of a very difficult issue and we will need to take more than usual care to achieve both a truly neutral point of view and sufficient conciseness. May I suggest that so far as possible we use the text below and edit it, as boldly as we feel is reasonable, giving clear summaries of our edits? (As opposed to either repeating all the text every time or talking in generalities, either of which will result in a very large amount of text.)

I have tried to incorporate into this the point that the international debate is to a large extent given its structure and vocabulary by the UN's comments, so I'd sugggest that a brief mention of the most important UN statements is worthwhile. I don't feel that in this article we should analyze all of them, though in the Dispute article more of them might be worth remark. In either case it is beyond the remit of an encyclopedia to point out perceived inconsistencies within the UN's various statements. I have cut and pasted a few references, but more are needed, and I haven't tried chasing up the dead links. Anyway, edit away, I hope this helps and even if it doesn't I foresee an interesting debate.

Relations with Spain

Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control.

Two referendums on the subject have been held, in 1967 (on a handover to Spain) and 2002 (on the principle of joint sovereignty). In each case, more than 98% of voters rejected the outlined change. Both referenda were opposed by the Spanish government.<Sources from the articles on the referendums> The UN General Assembly in Resolution 2353, on 20 December 1966, declared the holding of the 1967 referendum to be a "contravention of the provisions" of Resolution 1514 (the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples), and has passed other resolutions supporting the Spanish claim. The subsequent international debate has repeatedly used words from Resolution 1514 including "the right to self-determination", "the territorial integrity of a country", and "colony".

Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.[1] The British and Gibraltarian governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised.[2][3][4][5][6] Spain opposes such attempts[7] and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.[8][9]

Spain argues that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity.<Spanish government document discussed above> In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the provision of the Treaty of Utrecht which gives the Crown of Spain the right to acquire Gibraltar if the British Crown ever abandons it.<this FCO doc, page 5, marked as page 58> The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination.<this Times article>

Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht. On this basis, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.<the same Spanish gov't document> The UK and Gibraltar governments do not accept any such limitations on British sovereignty,<this Gibraltar Chronicle article> and claim the isthmus based on longstanding occupation.<same FCO doc> Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC) (Sorry, I'd timed out and hadn't noticed)[reply]

I would suggest if you wish to mention 2353 and I encourage that you do, you quote the resolution in full - it loses a lot in selective quoting. Its also worth mentioning that the GoG disputes both the Spanish and UK Governments intepretation of Utrecht and has asked for the ICJ to deliver an judgement. At present the Spanish Government has declined to do so. The most recent occasion was last month. Also to put things into perspective 1514 and 1541 need to be mentioned. I have to say I prefer the original wording. Justin talk 22:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the UN resolutions, my position is reasonably clear-cut. I do not accept that the passage of non-binding resolutions discussing the political situation 40-45 years ago implies that said resolutions are directly relevant to modern Gibraltar politics - any more than General Franco's position on Gibraltar (for example) is directly relevant to modern Gibraltar politics. On the other hand, inclusion inappropriately diverts a section discussing modern politics by pushing us into historical discussion. I do not feel that the use of the referenda to make a point about modern Gibraltar politics diverts the text in this way.

Thus, unless someone can give me a compelling explanation as to how and why the resolutions are directly relevant to the current political situation - and I do not consider the fact that they exist and reference the dispute to be "compelling" - I oppose any text that includes them. Better to have no change than to create a coatrack of Spanish grievances.

As such, my proposed text is and remains what I proposed under the earlier part of this talk page, with the words under UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 optionally included after the words "United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories". As I said before, I feel that 1541 is different from the others, as it defines a UN list that includes Gibraltar today and that consensus accepts is relevant. The only reason to include mention of that list in this section - as opposed to before it - is so that we don't discuss the British and Spanish positions before mentioning the fact of the dispute. Pfainuk talk 23:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can support that as a basis for the proposed edit. I agree that the suggestion to mention 2353 is a WP:COATRACK and your arguments for including relevant resolutions are compelling. I have to say that the argument to include 1541 is long overdue. Too often its used as an excuse to further disruptive edits. Explaining it to our readers provides a valuable insight. Justin talk 23:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The UN key phrases are a structure for the later and current debate, including the key points from all sides. This is why the word "colony" is central, this is why the phrase "self-governing" is a hot button, and this is why "self-determination" is important, especially in the context of a referendum. Could we have some draft wording on the referral to the ICJ? And what do others think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a brief summary, the text deals with 1) Spain's sovereignty claim on the territory, 2) The two referenda about soverignty, 3) The inclusion in (and the claims for exclusion from) the UN's list of non self-governing territories (which deals with self-determination, etc.), 4) Spain's, the UK's and Gibraltar's arguments with regards to the territorial dispute, 5) The specific territorial dispute around the isthmus and surrounding waters.
The proposed text neither deals with all political "Relations with Spain", nor it limits itself to them. Like many Gibraltarians could tell you, the relations with Spain are much broader than that; also, this section does not only mention Spain: the UK and the UN are also prominently mentioned. What we have here is not a summary of the "Relations with Spain", but a summary of the territorial dispute (this is actually the common thread of all the issues that have been mentioned).
A title such as "Territorial dispute" or something similar would be much more accurate for this subsection. In fact, if you take a look at the lede, it would be an extention of the paragraph that deals with the Politics section (sovereignty dispute, self-goverment...). Pfainuk, you proposed this text (and I agree that it's a very good idea to include this issues in a subsection of its own): would you agree that a title such as "Territorial dispute" (or something similar that you can think up) is more accurate? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial dispute is indeed much better - I've changed the title of my draft above. I hope it's clear to all that this is not a coatrack; this is an attempt to summarize very briefly, with appropriate conceptual grouping and in approximate chronological order, the arguments still used by both sides. I'd suggest strongly that including 1514 is important - there is an important contradiction (or not depending on which side you're coming from) in a request for self-determination expressed as opposition to a referendum. The ICJ may also be relevant - again, could someone well-informed do a draft? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a weak preference for sticking with the original title for the reasons that the text could include matters such as the tripartite forum. A small matter but talk page etiquette would I believe suggest you don't change titles in the talk page once established. I would be prepared to do a draft, however, I hestitate to start pulling together the sources. You may consider this a bad faith presumption but given that each and every content proposal I have made even when acknowledged as well written and sourced has been rejected. Justin talk 12:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather meh about going ino the detail of every UN General Assembly ruling, as they have as much authority as a Women's Institute Bake Sale. I'm fine with the current title. It is Spain that uses avenues like the UN etc, it is part of that situation. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the text proposed (Pfainuk's, and also the proposal by Richard Keatinge) describes part of Gibraltar's relations with Spain, UK and the UN; also, it does not describe all the relevant relations with Spain. On the other hand, it covers pretty well the issues regarding the territorial dispute. What do you think? (it would be great that we could agree on something once in a while). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A general response to the above, if I may:

I prefer the current title "relations with Spain", as it allows the text to cover a broader range of issues to be added at a later date. I also feel that it is more appropriate in the context that we are writing - this is the section discussing modern politics, and some aspects of the dispute are not relevant - and that the title "territorial dispute" is not strictly accurate because Spain only disputes the extent, not the fact, of British sovereignty in Gibraltar. That said, I am willing to compromise on this.

It may be worth clarifying my position on the resolutions. In my comment above, I'm specifically referring to UN General Assembly resolutions 2070, 2231 and 2353. These resolutions specifically addressed the political situation in 1965, 1966 and 1968 respectively and have no bearing on modern politics. While I do not consider them vital, I do not feel that a reference to 1514 (setting out the General Assembly's support for decolonisation in general terms) and 1541 (setting out the formal criteria for inclusion in the C24 list) fall into the same category. They have significance to the current discussions on the subject, and I would be willing to include them if an appropriate form of words can be found to summarise them. Pfainuk talk 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In case it might be useful, I have put a minor redraft of the above on a user subpage, User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar. This is intended as an area for draft and suggestions, which I hope we may refine towards a consensus. Pfainuk, does the current version strike you as "an appropriate form of words", and if not, what does? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I appear awkward but I would prefer any attempts to draft text are conducted in the talk page of the article. A users talk page is not appropriate in my opinion. I will take the liberty of moving the text here. Justin talk 20:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard's proposal:

Relations with Spain

Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control.

Two referendums on the subject have been held, in 1967 (on a handover to Spain) and 2002 (on the principle of joint sovereignty). In each case, more than 98% of voters rejected the outlined change. Both referenda were opposed by the Spanish government.<Sources from the articles on the referendums> The UN General Assembly in Resolution 2353, on 20 December 1966, declared the holding of the 1967 referendum to be a "contravention of the provisions" of Resolution 1514 (the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples), and has passed other resolutions supporting the Spanish claim. The subsequent international debate has repeatedly used words from Resolution 1514 including "the right to self-determination", "the territorial integrity of a country", and "colony".

Under UN General Assembly Resolution 1541, Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.[10] The British and Gibraltarian governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised.[11][3][12][13][14] Spain opposes such attempts[15] and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.[16][17]

Spain argues that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity.<Spanish government document discussed above> In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the provision of the Treaty of Utrecht which gives the Crown of Spain the right to acquire Gibraltar if the British Crown ever abandons it.<this FCO doc, page 5, marked as page 58> The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination.<this Times article>

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


I suggest altering several paragraphs:

The second should be changed to:


To claim that UN resolutions support Spanish claims is simply untrue they don't. I agree to mentioning 2353 if is covered appropriately. But the proposed text fails WP:CHERRY in selectively quoting the resolution.

I suggest the next paragraph is amended as:


Note that I have included the Spanish practise of referring to Gibraltar as a colony, however, to be neutral I think it is worth commenting this is considered offensive in Gibraltar itself. Justin talk 21:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massed response again. Richard, remove the sentence beginning "The UN General Assembly in Resolution 2353", and I'll go with it, though I think that the point about the referendums is better after the explanation of the positions of each side. The only reason to include them at all is to make the point that self-determination effectively means that the territory remains British.
As I've said twice before now, I can see no reason at all to assume that UNGA resolution 2353 - or the other two - have any bearing whatsoever on the current politics of Gibraltar. Unless someone can give me a compelling explanation as to how they are relevant to modern politics - an explanation that goes beyond the fact of their existence - I cannot but conclude that they are totally irrelevant to this part of article. On that basis, as I've said before, I oppose any text that includes them.
Justin's text, I feel, goes into rather too much general detail about the UN list. This is all best discussed at United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, to which I think we all agree we should link.
As to what would go with 1514, I'm afraid I'm not really sure. It needs to be part of a point about modern politics, and your proposal (Richard) isn't. And I'm not convinced that there is a way of doing it without diverting the text into a WP:COATRACK on the issues surrounding the UN decolonisation process - something best left to another article. Pfainuk talk 21:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for my suggested text on 1541 is that we constantly have the issue of the C24 raised as a pretext for removing content on democracy and government in Gibraltar. I believe the text I wrote explains it better. Another point is the claim the UN lists Gibraltar, it doesn't, it was only ever listed because of the UK's nomination in 1947. I contend these are important points to raise in the article. The issue with 1514 is that it stipulates self-determination.
I don't object to mentioning 2353, if it is done properly. Truly 1514 puts self-determination as primary in decolonisation and here we have a UN resolution condemning the British Government for asking the people of a dependent territory on their views on their self-determination. It also calls for the British Government to negotiate with a fascist dictatorship ignoring the self-determination of the people of a dependent territory. Justin talk 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; the reason for including UNGA resolutions is not the mere fact of their existence, but their ongoing role in shaping the discussion. User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar has a redraft including what I understand to be Justin's suggestions. I feel that this is a good way of keeping track of the various suggestions keeping discussion focussed, and I'd like to invite all editors to use this subpage as a sandbox for drafting. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do UN General Assembly Resolutions 2070, 2231 and 2353 play a role in shaping the current discussion? I can't think of any way in which they do this that does not equally apply to any number of other things that don't belong, such as the closure of the border. Sure, we can use them to criticise the UN - it's not difficult to find ways of criticising the UN's (and in particular the C24's) record in implementing the UN Charter, 1514 and 1541 - but that's not really our job here. Fact is, the UN role in this dispute is really quite small and fairly irrelevant - far smaller than the current proposals would imply. Pfainuk talk 18:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add to this: the reason I'm being picky like this is because the politics section of any article should reflect current politics and only current politics. We should discuss historical events only to make a point about current politics. Anything that is not directly related to the current political situation should be considered irrelevant.
Self-determination and territorial integrity are matters of international law. If we want to explore where these laws came from, that's fine - in the articles concerned. But this is a section about modern day Gibraltar politics. It's the fact of the laws, not the resolutions they came from, that shape current discussions.
The UN has no significant involvement in the current politics of Gibraltar, and discussion of the UN should be limited to what is absolutely necessary - the C24 list noted currently. Points of view expressed by the UN do not have any greater significance in the dispute beyond those expressed by other countries or organisations, and thus should not be treated as though they do. Pfainuk talk 21:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK for good faith I will state again, that I do not consider a users talk page a suitable place to discuss content. The discussion should take place here. Keeping the content discussion in one place so that the narrative is plain. IF there is need for a sandbox, it should be here. You have ignored my content suggestions, ignored my request to not dilute the discussion by continuing it in multiple places and continued to include content that is blatant POV nonsense. Could we please continue in future as we did before, per wiki norms, discuss content here and act upon editor's suggestions.
I'm prepared to compromise on the mention of UN resolutions per Pfainuk's content suggestions and would ask that he frame the text he suggests - here as it should be. Justin talk 21:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I've seen nothing so far that would lead me to deviate significantly from my original proposal. A suitable variation may be:

Appropriate title

Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control, arguing that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity. In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the Treaty of Utrecht, which gives Spain "first refusal" if the British decide to leave. The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination. Gibraltarians overwhelmingly oppose any Spanish sovereignty over Gibraltar.

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

Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, defined by UN General Assembly Resolution 1541. While the British and Gibraltar governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised, Spain opposes such attempts, and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.

This gets rid of the referenda entirely, making the point intended explicitly rather than by implication. The detail of 1541 should properly be explained in the article United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, not here, and I mention no other resolution. This is a more appropriate indication of the UN's actual relevance to the Gibraltar dispute - though it still overstates it IMO. I must admit, I'm not convinced even that the C24 list is really relevant - but I'm willing to accept a mention as standing consensus. Pfainuk talk 22:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm impressed, its very well written and covers the bases. I would prefer to include more details of 1541 but would be prepared to compromise over that. If we were to amend the aricle with a section on 1541 and wikilink from here that would satisfy my concerns. Justin talk 22:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it is well written, but not complete. The UN's opinion is usually very notable regarding territorial disputes. There is a relevant number of noteworthy resolutions from the General Assembly directly dealing with this dispute. I feel very strongly that we should have a consensus on this point before we move on. If you want, we can make a RfC about the UN's relevancy about this territorial dispute (with the same criteria as the RfC proposed below: short presentations of each position and then a "hands-off" attitude by "inside" editors). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've said this, but you have never explained your point. You have never explained how and why, in this specific situation, three non-binding UN resolutions drafted in quick succession over forty years ago, that deal with the situation as it was forty years ago, are in any way relevant to the current dispute.
Fact is, generalities such as "[t]he UN's opinion is usually very notable regarding territorial disputes", aside being open to serious dispute, are not in any significant sense arguments as to why these three specific resolutions should be included in this particular section.
I would dispute another point here. You seem to assume that three over-forty-year-old non-binding resolutions necessarily represent the opinion of the UN in 2010. This does not appear to me to be a reasonable assumption to me.
I've laid out my position. I will look at any new arguments with an open mind, but as of now nothing has been said that comes remotely close to the compelling explanation I asked for a few days ago. So I remain opposed to including any text that mentions those resolutions.
Just to give some warning, I am going away for a few days, and so may not respond quickly. If a consensus is reached in my brief absence that I cannot accept, I may well revert it and reopen discussion here on the basis of WP:BRD - and I'd ask editors to allow that discussion to conclude before text is re-added. You've seen my views, and I would imagine that you have a good idea of what I am likely to accept - but if there's doubt, I won't be away for long and am happy to continue discussion then. Pfainuk talk 20:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting proposal. As compared to the previous one it leaves out the referenda and most of the UNGA stuff, while leaving in the non-self-governing list. There are also a few minor changes of wording. On thinking it through, I tend to agree that we could leave most of the UNGA resolutions for the Dispute article, the self-governing list is the UNGA contribution of most current importance. On my sandbox page I compare the two, but here is my suggestion:

Territorial claim by Spain

Spain, while recognising British sovereignty over the town of Gibraltar, requests that the territory be handed over to Spanish control, arguing that Gibraltar's status undermines Spain's territorial integrity.<Spanish government document discussed above> In response, the British government argues that the Gibraltarian people have the right to self-determination, limited only by the provision of the Treaty of Utrecht which gives the Crown of Spain the right to acquire Gibraltar if the British Crown ever abandons it.<this FCO doc, page 5, marked as page 58> The Gibraltar government, for its part, argues that Gibraltarians have an unlimited right to self-determination.<this Times article> In referenda in 1967and 2002, Gibraltarians overwhelmingly opposed any Spanish sovereignty over Gibraltar.

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

Gibraltar is included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.[26], defined by UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 The British and Gibraltarian governments argue for removal, stating that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised.[27][3][28][29][30] Spain opposes such attempts[31] and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.[32][33]

Comments?

Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with one suggestion, the label colony is considered offensive in Gibraltar. It is worth commenting on that for example by adding "a label rejected by the Gibraltarians" or "considered offensive by the Gibraltarians". Justin talk 00:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We already have the comments of the Gibraltarian government on that matter, which I would think sufficient. Do you have references? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern with this suggestion is that Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas which all parties agree were ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht is tautological: it's effectively saying that Spain only accepts British sovereignty over areas where Spain accepts that there is British sovereignty. Maybe we could the first two sentences of that paragraph with:
Spain further interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain does. For example, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.
How does that look?
(Incidentally, I noticed a comment on your user page: you probably guessed, but just to be clear, my intention was not to do away with the references in the final text, but to make the proposal a bit more readable). Pfainuk talk 17:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a definite improvement, thanks. Yes, I'd guessed about the references, they're only on my subpage for possible convenience when it comes to the eventual edit. Can we have some more opinions before we actually make the edit? In particular Imalbornoz feels strongly that the UNGA resolutions should be in, even in an overview article, and many others may well agree. I'd be happy to raise an RfC on this issue if that's desired. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page I've suggested the wording "Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain does. For example, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting the Rock of Gibraltar to La Línea de la Concepción and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters." The Rock is geographically unambiguous - on anybody's interpretation, it excludes the Campo de Gibraltar. And, just to avoid any out-of-place arguments over what is Spain and what actually isn't, I'd say La Linea instead. Again, everybody agrees on what that means. Could we have ideas and any better suggestions? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, tell me how do you know what Imalbornoz thinks? Have you been communicating by email, seeing as he has barely contributed to this thread.
Strong feelings do not matter a jot unless there is a relevant policy based argument for inclusion. Pfainuk asked for one above, if one isn't supplied then he can't really complain if his "strong feelings" do not translate into content. Another RFC? Really, do we have an RFC on every content suggestion now? The content is neutrally written and pretty uncontroversial, it shouldn't need this level of scrutiny.
I have a preference for Pfainuk's proposal. The isthmus is a perfectly neutral description, we don't make judgement on who owns it. Richard's suggestion appears contrived to avoid a non-existent controversy. Good prose should be the content guideline. Justin talk 21:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above for what Imalbornoz has written so far. I doubt he's the only one with strong feelings. And I'd like to avoid potential conflict with anyone who thinks that the isthmus is a part of Spain. Non-existent controversy? I don't think so. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than demands he has not made a case for inclusion and he can speak for himself. Strong feelings don't trump wikipedia's policies however. The content proposal does not make a judgement on ownership or imply it. That is the non-existent controversy I referred to, so please stop the diversion of content discussion down rabbit holes. Appeasement never was an effective policy, nor do you write effective content by anticipating the demands of people who would disrupt wikipedia and censoring or suppressing content in response. Justin talk 22:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous content proposal could imply a point of view on the Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain. We should avoid potential problems of this sort, especially when it's easy to write unambiguously. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNINDENT

About the UN's POV: I think I have made a case for myself (I just don't wanted to bore anybody repeating it again). To sum it up, my case is that the UN's POV is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in an overview article about a territorial dispute. I know that some other editors think that the UN's POV is not noteworthy enough to be in this overview article. Therefore, I think we should find a way to reach an agreement (mediation, RfC, some noticeboard, ...) I propose that we agree on a short and neutral explanation of this dispute and then ask for outside opinion (with compromise from all "inside editors" to not make any comment so as to not scare outside editors away). What do you think?

I'd support that. I'd agree that the self-governing territory bit is important, and I wonder if we could refer to the other UNGA resolutions


About the isthmus and territorial waters:

  • I think we should try to avoid saying that "The UK interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more expansively than Spain does." as well as "Spain interprets (...) more restrictively (...)" or "(...) more literally (...)".
  • I propose a less interpretative wording:

Do you think this is neutral enough? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is utterly partisan and completely inappropriate. Justin talk 14:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Imalbornoz, a good and very neutral job. What about shortening it slightly to

Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again see User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar for the corresponding redraft and to avoid excessive text. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again not acceptable, not neutral and factually incorrect. Britain doesn't claim sovereignty it has de jure sovereignty, a first year law student understands that and the difference. Again utterly partisan, completely inappropriate. Justin talk 17:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain the difference, and phrase suggested text appropriately? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with shortening it. The text is accurate, except -IMHO- "The Spanish view of the Treaty of Utrecht". The Spanish and the British views of the Treaty of Utrecht are more or less similar (thankfully, at least they agree mostly in that aspect). The main difference is whether to apply (or not) additional concepts.
Therefore, the two views of the territorial dispute (not the treaty) are:
A) British view of the dispute:
B) Spanish view of the dispute:
  • Only the literal terms of the Treaty of Utrecht apply to the sovereignty of the isthmus: "Spain has neither ceded nor recognized any British sovereignty over the isthmus and has never shown any acquiescence to its illegal occupation. On the contrary, Spain considers that the occupation of the isthmus is illegal and contrary to the principles of international law." (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Spain, La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish), pg 10)
  • The UN Convention of territorial waters does not apply: "In ratifying the Convention, Spain wishes to make it known that this act cannot be construed as recognition of any rights or status regarding the maritime space of Gibraltar that are not included in article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713 concluded between the Crowns of Spain and Great Britain. Furthermore, Spain does not consider that Resolution III of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is applicable to the colony of Gibraltar, which is subject to a process of decolonization in which only relevant resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly are applicable." (Spanish Government, Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, point (2)]
Therefore, I think that the text should reflect these views of the dispute on the territory (not on the interpretation of the Treaty):
I've tried to make it as descriptive of each position as possible. Any comments? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems convincing. Just to check, is there also an official British view that the T of U can be viewed as covering more than just the Rock? Unless I'm sure that there isn't one, I'd prefer to write:

Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Pfainuk's text rather neatly avoided falling into any particular trap of making judgement on claims, what Imalbornoz and you propose does not. I continue to support Pfainuk's last draft, a perfectly acceptable draft that is being rejected for no particularly good reason to push prose that is partisan. Richard, if you do not understand the difference between claim and title may I suggest you visit the library to do some research. May I suggest the American writer Lowell Gustafson as an expert in International Law regarding sovereignty.

Peter Caruana recently challenged Spain to test its claim in the International Court of Justice, Spain as it has previously has refused. This is worthy of inclusion.


The text is written neutrally and does not fall into a trap of recognising any particular claim as yours does, it also neatly avoids saying what is claim and what is title. Justin talk 20:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I have not seen any modern official position from the UK stating a different interpretation of the perimeter. But, just in case, I propose the following text, which does not suggest that there is only one interpretation of the perimeter and -at the same time- mentions that Spain considers that the treaty supports its position (just as it mentions the arguments of the British side):
What do you think? Imalbornoz (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, again its text that is making judgement on merits of claims. Note that my suggestion does not, neither does Pfainuk's. You appear to lack the ability to put personal bias to one side. I also think the verifiable fact that there has been a request to refer the fact to the ICJ should be mentioned. It seems incongruous that someone who has argued so often for mention of UN bodies would repeatedly ignore that suggestion. Justin talk 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would only propose to include official positions of noteworthy sources. If the ICJ has a position about this dispute, tell us and I will support its inclusion. Please notice that for the sake of brevity (and consensus) I have not included the EC position about the territorial waters aroun Gibraltar [7]. If you consider it relevant, we can include it. Imalbornoz (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to see any "judgement on merits of claims" in the proposed text. Can you list them all? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have set up an irrelevant strawman with that comment. The ICJ is only able to state a position if a case is filed, as Spain refuses to have the matter referred there it does not. However, the ICJ is the only UN body capable of delivering a definitive and binding judgement on the merits of the case advanced by both parties. It is therefore relevant when one party in a dispute is prepared to refer the case for judgement, whereas the other declines. I propose to simply mention that. The source supplied supports the claim made.
Secondly, you state that "I would only propose to include official positions of noteworthy sources." Tell me do you not consider the official position of the Government of Gibraltar as stated by its leader a noteworthy source? Justin talk 23:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we have alternative texts, the first Pfainuk's initial draft as above:

"Spain further interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain does. For example, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters."

Or:

"Spain accepts British sovereignty only within the limits of the Rock.[35] The UK claims sovereignty of half of the isthmus that connects the Rock to the mainland and on the waters surrounding Gibraltar, arguing that continuous possession of the isthmus should also be taken into account and the more modern concept of territorial waters is applicable.[36]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[37]

Both strike me as good and I don't see any very important difference between them, though the second makes positive comments which are slightly closer to what the references say. Also, it seems that interpretation of the T of U is not the main difference between the two sides. Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for insisting in this, but the text I have proposed is a bit different. I only tried to summarise the arguments of each side. The formula I proposed is "A says B, arguing C". The second text you have written here only has that structure for the case of the UK. In the case of Spain, it only says "A says B" (without the arguments). Also, I changed my own wording in order to be nearer to the sources, without any words that can be misinterpreted as having a loaded meaning (such as "more modern", "more restrictively"...) and without suggesting that any Treaty only has one interpretation (that is, trying to summarise each position in its own voice). Therefore, I would like to propose the second option as:

Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cesion outside those limits.[38] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also considers that the UN Convention on the Law and the Sea supports British control of the territorial waters around Gibraltar.[39]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[40]

I really think that this is as neutral as can get. I propose to post those two texts in the NPOV Noticeboard, if noone has any strong objection. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I apologise as well for persistence, but would be happier with:

Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cession outside those limits.[41] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters around Gibraltar.[42]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[43]

The reason is that - if I understand correctly - territorial waters and claims on them are a much older concept than the UN Convention. The Convention is not the basis of the British or the Spanish claim nor is it the origin of the disagreement. But it is a convenient reference, because in it, all signing parties state the limits to their acceptance of its terms. And cession has two esses - Latin cessio.
Some outside opinions might well be a very good idea. Post with my blessing. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. In fact, I've just checked that the UK defined its territorial waters within the distance of 3 miles in the mid-19th century (much earlier than the UN Convention). On the other hand, on behalf of the British position, I think that the article should mention that the UK argues that the Convention -among other things- supports its position (in fact, whether I share it or not, I think that the UK has a very strong argument there). Sorry for my Latin (the more similar the language, the worse the orthography...). The new proposal:

Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cession outside those limits.[44] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters around Gibraltar arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control.[45]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[46][47]

Do you think that this solves your question? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does. thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, massed response again.

Imalbornoz's claim that Spain accepts British sovereignty only within the limits of the Rock of Gibraltar is not backed up by his source, which states that Spain accepts British sovereignty over "the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts belonging to them" (almost a direct quote of Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht). Pretty plainly, this includes areas that are not "within the limits of the Rock" - not least the port.

The other issue is, as Justin points out, the distinction between making a claim and holding de facto control. The distinction being that the first rather implies that there is no control, whereas in this case there is.

Based on these two points I oppose Imalbornoz's current proposal.

Editors should, incidentally, be aware that this has been brought up at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Imalbornoz, in the future, if you're worried about people objecting, I suggest you wait more than ten minutes to see if there's an objection. Pfainuk talk 20:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worth adding here that I think that the text being proposed is probably too detailed. We have an article on the dispute, where all the detail should go. I mention the dispute over territorial waters only by way of example in my version. We could equally discuss the dispute over airspace. If we're going into detail about these bits, we really need to go into all of them, and that's probably too much.
Another point I notice is that Imalbornoz is now arguing that we should try and get an RFC on the UNGA resolutions. He says "to sum up", but his summing up gives his entire point. The fact is, Imalbornoz, you have made no attempt whatsoever to explain why these three resolutions in particular are so significant to the modern politics of Gibraltar that they have to be included here. The fact that you are keen to include them is totally irrelevant unless you can explain why they belong. And I would note that I still dispute your claim that they necessarily represent the current view of the United Nations.
To me it is perfectly plain. Unless someone is willing to explain how and why these resolutions in particular are relevant to the modern politics of Gibraltar, I oppose any text that mentions them. If they're as relevant as you say, this should not be a difficult thing to do. And I am happy to read any explanation with an open mind. But if no-one's even willing to justify their inclusion beyond the vague generalities that you repeat, it seems to me that it is far better for the encyclopædia that I continue to reject any attempt to include them - including the RFC you demand. Pfainuk talk 20:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, they're relevant because a lot of people think they are? I do recommend writing for the opposition here. As I've mentioned I now tend to oppose the inclusion of the UNGA resolutions, here, but many may disagree, especially Spaniards. If we go to RfC - it's not something I can exactly stop anyway - I'd suggest we write a pro and a con argument and take that along.
I'm not sure if I'm pleased to find myself part of a "mass" of two. If it means any more than sometimes agreeing with someone else, it sounds vaguely neo-Soviet to me. I suppose I'll have to imbue it with new meaning.
You may have interpreted the earlier comment about "de jure" correctly, the author may have meant to write "de facto" or may confuse the two. I must admit that it's been puzzling me.
Can anyone find some definitive reference for what the current official Spanish interpretation of the T of U actually agrees as the ceded territory? I've read the treaty itself in three languages but it's an official current interpretation we'd be after here.
As I think I've mentioned, there is a wide range of things that reasonably might, or might not, be included in this article. I've tried to suggest a range of acceptable variants and no doubt could produce more. Perhaps keeping an open mind on the range of possibilities would be a good idea? Perhaps all four of us have frightened everyone else away and are now arguing about minutiae nobody else can be bothered to worry about? "Claims" is one. I claim I've got ten fingers and that they all belong to me under the Treaty of Thcertu. In fact I have them and they do belong to me, whatever the treaty says - my claiming them doesn't exclude the fact that I actually presently possess them. Could we relax a little about very minor details and "implications" that aren't actually required? Generally lighten up a bit?

Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, the Ministry of Spain says in "La cuestión de Gibraltar"[8] that: "La controversia sobre los límites del territorio cedido afecta al Istmo, a las aguas territoriales y al espacio aéreo." = "The controvesy about the limits of the ceded territory affect the Isthmus, the territorial waters and the airspace." All those points were not mentioned in the Treaty and only were taken into account later on (with continuous occupation and the evolution of modern international law). Therefore there doesn't seem to be any differences of interpretation on the limits of the Treaty (especially taking into account Spain's insistence in always mentioning the points it does not accept). If anyone has any source that says otherwise, it will be welcome. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC) (added after Justin's comment below)[reply]
Patronising doesn't help, perhaps that was intended as humour but it comes across as patronising. A point made before when someone wrote a 2000 word essay on "incompetence" on the basis of a light hearted remark "Patience Grasshopper".
Text propoal is:


You can pretend I haven't made it but its in the written record. I note someone "forgot" to mention it at the NPOV noticeboard. If there is no objection to it, seeing as no one has addressed it, then we have a solution.
I endorse Pfainuk's remarks above. Richard your remarks weren't helpful, if Imalbornoz wishes to include certain texts, he should be able to justify why. Please stop the pretence of being a neutral arbiter, you clearly are not, you back up the same editor whether right or wrong. Justin talk 21:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pfainuk, I will try to discuss your objections about this last proposal first (we can talk about the UNGA later, if you agree). I'll try to respond to them point by point, trying to understand your arguments and make our positions nearer:
  • You say that Spain accepts more than the Rock. I you think that the port is outside the Rock, then we could add "and the port". Do you think that there is anything else that falls outside of the Rock -besides the port- that Spain accepts?
  • You say that there is a difference between making a claim and holding de facto control. This section discusses about claims about "de iure" claims. The whole article is clear about the fact that Britain holds "de facto" control (sorry for the repetition). Do you think that this section should repeat this fact again?
  • You say that airspace could be equally discussed. Actually, all of the sources I have checked do highlight the disputes about the isthmus and the territorial waters, but all of them barely mention any other issue (if they mention any at all). What do the sources you have checked say? Don't you think that the two issues you (and I) are mentioning are much more noteworthy than any dispute about -say- airspace?
Please, tell me what you think. I am honestly trying to reach consensus here. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me how do you propose to achieve consensus, when you ignore content suggestions based on reliable sources?
Tell me also how you propose to achieve consensus by avoiding a polite invitation to explain yourself to demand that someone answers an unrelated question. People provide justification for their suggestion, you make an assertion and avoid any questions that result.
Tell me how you propose to achieve consensus? Your conduct seems designed to frustrate it. Justin talk 22:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to deal with one issue at a time. I have responded to your proposal about ICJ, and will do it again if you insist. I think I have provided justifications to my suggestions (please remind me which question I have left unanswered). Please, let's try to make this as orderly as possible. (BTW, which was it that you meant: "de facto" or "de jure"?) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In actual fact you failed to respond to my proposal on the ICJ, you put up an irrelevant strawman in the full knowledge the ICJ hasn't presented an opinion because one party refuses to agree to a case. Which isn't actually related to the point that party request the matter is referred. Further I could have added how do you propose to achieve consensus when you don't have the courtesy to include a note here about your post on the NPOV noticeboard. You know full well that is required, I at least had the courtesy to do so. Justin talk 22:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I wrote a further response to your question, but then some other comments got in the way (edit conflict) some calls and meetings from my real life got in the way (too), and the discussion took a different direction (I apologise for not insisting in my answer). I reproduce the answer I wrote below (which I copied and pasted in a Word doc just in case). Regarding the NPOV noticeboard, I did mention I was going to post a comment there.
My (never posted) answer to your second question about the ICJ: Indeed, the GoG is a very noteworthy source. On the other hand, so far the (brief) text only deals with official positions about the extension of the territory under British (or Spanish) sovereignty. It does not mention any action that has been taken or requested (I suppose that for the sake of brevity). The declaration that you mention from the GoG is a request that an action be taken by Spain. If your criteria is that the text should also include noteworthy actions or requests for action, I suppose that you would accept other instances besides the one you mention from the GoG. Please, can you tell me if I am right to suppose that?
Finally, please read the new question I've opened at the bottom of the page. Please, let's try to find a way to solve this discussion. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(multiple ec) If we're listing bits that Spain recognises, then that's what should do. Spain accepts British sovereignty over the town, castle and port, and the defences and fortifications belonging to them.
You again miss the point of mentioning these. It is an attempt to explain the Spanish position in general terms. Fact is, this is supposed to be a summary, not a means of turning this article into a WP:COATRACK about the dispute. Of course we could have mentioned airspace instead of territorial waters. We can easily source that Spain doesn't accept any right to airspace, and as an illustration of the point being made it works just as well. If territorial waters and the isthmus get a majority vote of sources, so what? Writing Wikipedia articles is not, and never has been, about a majority vote of sources.
I fail to see where the whole article makes the point that Britain has de facto control over territorial waters surrounding Gibraltar. Could you give specific examples please?
I've been trying to persuade you to discuss the UNGA for weeks now. So far, you haven't even tried to explain why you think these specific resolutions belong in this specific section of this specific article. You've just asserted it. I've repeatedly asked you to do this, and I don't think what I'm asking is unreasonable. I note in passing that Richard's point doesn't come close: there are many things that lots of people think are relevant to some articles - and that doesn't necessarily imply that they belong in them. Pfainuk talk 22:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you ask for a clarification or expansion or even a simple explanation and all you hear are strongly held opinions without any of this, consensus will be frustrated. You provide a source that backs a claim and its denied that is what it says - this frustrates consensus. A direct quote: "...he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing that issue in the International Court, as we have repeatedly suggested." What could be more clear, the GoG requested the case is referred to the ICJ and Spain has refused. These are not unreasonable points to make.
This is a very recent event. The ICJ is a UN body. Imalbornoz argues the importance of the "UN POV" but doesn't elaborate. Not unreasonably I ask the question why non-binding resolutions from the 1960s are relevant but recent events involving UN bodies that can deliver binding resolutions aren't? Justin talk 23:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pfainuk, let's go by parts:
  • territorial limits accepted by Spain: for the sake of brevity (and using general -but accurate- terms), don't you think there is a shorter way to mention all the places that, as you say, are recognised by Spain ("the town, castle and port, and the defences and fortifications belonging to them")? They have something in common: they are expressly mentioned in the T of Utrecht. Is there any place mentioned in the ToU that Spain does not recognise? Is there any place not mentioned in the ToU that Spain recognises? In that case, wouldn't it be a completely accurate description to say "Spain only accepts British sovereignty in the terms expressly mentioned in the ToU."? That would summarise the limits and the reasons behind Spain's position. (Please notice that this is not a more "restrictive" interpretation of the ToU: Spain and UK share the same interpretation; the difference between them is that Spain only accepts the ToU while Britain thinks that continuous possession, and more recent international customary and conventional laws should apply.)
  • airspace: I left it out because I thought it was less noteworthy. But, if you want, we can add "airspace" to the text, it's only a word.
  • "de facto" control: Britain has undisputable "de facto" possession of the isthmus, and I think this is very well explained all along the article. On the other hand, I am not sure that Britain has an undisputable "de facto" possession of territorial waters within the 3 mile limit (check here and here) and the airspace (here). In any case, nobody has mentioned "de facto" control in any proposed text, so... why raise this issue now?
I hope we are able to reach a consensus text. Let's try with this paragraph (which should not be too difficult) and then we'll deal with the other paragraphs (including the ICJ, Justin). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar has de facto control of its waters, they're patroled and enforced by Gibraltar authorities. Spanish incursions do not change that, Spanish officers have been arrested and interned for doing so. Proposal on the table is:


What is wrong with it, this is appropriate coverage for an overview and you quibbling but point blank to refuse to identify what is the problem. Justin talk 13:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question, Justin, is: are you ready to accept any objections to the text? And also: what is wrong with the text I proposed?
About your text: for instance, Spain has EXACTLY the same interpretation about the territorial limits of the ToU as Britain does. Therefore, Spain does not interpret it more restrictively (or Britain more "expansively"). The controversy comes from the fact that Britain (I don't judge whether they are right or wrong) wants to apply continuous possession of the isthmus as an argument for claiming sovereignty, while Spain says that continuous possession does not apply because the ishtmus was ceded only temporarily in order to build hospitals during an epidemy, and when it has repeatedly been claimed back Britain has refused to accept; also, Britain claims that conventional and customary international laws regarding territorial waters and airspace apply, while Spain says that they don't. Therefore you can't say that Spain interprets the ToU more restrictevily.
Please, just read the sources. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I disagree it is easy to fix, if that really is the issue,


It is actually more compact as well. Does this meet with your approval? Justin talk 14:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going by parts in response to Imalbornoz:

First point, if you look at my original text, I stated it in almost those exact terms. My original text read:

Spain further asserts that British sovereignty only extends to those areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht.

Richard objected on the basis that it was not sufficiently clear what was explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht - doubtless having noticed lines such as "to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever". This is where the matter of interpretation came in. I do not feel that "the Rock and the port" is accurate in fact or in implication, given as the Rock is not mentioned by Spain.

Second point, you miss my point entirely. We could add airspace. We could remove territorial waters. We could remove the isthmus. It is useful to give an example, but it makes no difference which one it is. And there is no good reason to use the example to divert ourselves into vast quantities of detail that would be far better left to more detailed articles.

Third point has already been answered by Justin.

I note that once again your refusal to discuss the UNGA resolutions, that you assert (without argument) have to go in. Pfainuk talk 18:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but also I had in mind the sadly indefinite definition of "the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging". Does there exist anywhere a reasonably concise definition of what exactly is agreed by all parties to be covered by this? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike in some international disputes, there is no part of Gibraltar that Spain recognises as British, but that Britain recognises as Spanish. Thus what you're asking for would appear to be the Spanish POV, which has been cited before. Spain recognises that Britain has sovereignty over:
  • The town of Gibraltar, together with its port, defences and forts.
  • The castle of Gibraltar, together with its defences and forts.
In practice, this means that Spain recognises British sovereignty over areas coloured in beige on this map, excluding the airport runway and any other areas reclaimed from the sea (another point that could have been used as an example), but including the area of water within the port. Pfainuk talk 19:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change proposal

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

be changed to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This makes the fact of disorder clearer than Justin's proposal, without going into "atrocity tennis". Another thing: was there a massed and organised departure on 7 August, or was it a more disorganised affair, with some leaving at some times and others at others? The massed departure we currently describe just seems a little tidy - it doesn't quite ring true to me.
By the way, is 4/7 August here Old Style or New Style? I'm sure it's been mentioned before but Wikipedia's being slow at the moment. (Has someone deleted the sandbox again?) Pfainuk talk 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I respond to Pfainuk I would like to make an observation. Text is not a good medium in which to convey humour, I am sure Richard intended his comments to be humorous. However, equally they can be interpreted as patronising and dismissive of my concerns. I would suggest in the current climate avoiding what are intended to be humorous comments to defuse tension, as they could be misinterpreted. Much as my earlier "Patience Grasshopper" was, it was intended to be jocular, Richard took exception to it.
In addition, yes we've been through this before but the discussion was bad tempered with any comment suggesting this was too much for an overview howled down in protests that we were suppressing and censoring information. I don't believe the atmosphere was conducive to writing neutral prose. I did make a content suggestion that covered all the relevant facts in a neutral manner see [9].
The above text illustrates my point in making this suggestion. To cover all relevant points to achieve a neutral text, requires including many details that are just too much for an overview. I would happily support Pfainuk's alternative text but I think I have demonstrated that the current text is non-neutral and is an example of WP:CHERRY. It picks facts selectively to make a point, it doesn't address the issue neutrally. I make no judgement whether that was the intention of the original editor, sometimes we don't recognise our own bias. As a result I don't think continuing with the current text is compatible with wikipedia's policies.
Please note that I'm not suggesting we don't need to mention the violence that occurred, in fact I've always suggested that it does need to be mentioned. However, the appropriate place for detailed text would be History of Gibraltar for example, where the more focused subject of the article allows us to consider such details. The text proposed simply didn't dwell on the details but conveyed the fact that the population felt the need to move because they were in fear. I believe this to be a neutral summary.
In answer to a question posed by Pfainuk, the exodus was an organised affair and is documented as a procession that proceeded to the ruins of the nearby hermitage of San Roque (from which the modern town takes its name); 4000 is the number given in numerous authoritive texts.
I support all the points he makes and I find the text he suggests acceptable. I tend to agree that it is better not to mention San Roque per brevity, his reason re-inforce the argument I set out above. I also find the current text inappropriate, they didn't go to the town of San Roque, the refugees founded San Roque there 2 years later. Justin talk 20:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your long version is good stuff, far too long for this article as you say. I'm sorry to disagree entirely that we need so many words to make the result NPOV. The essential points are those that are still important enough for this overview (often those that are the basis of current grievance), the NPOV words are those that give an impartial account of the important points. And I'm fairly sure that the present version fulfils those criteria, rather well. The atrocities of the Anglo-Dutch force were and are very important - most of the inhabitants and their city charter might well have stayed otherwise, the war might have gone a lot better for Charles, history would have been different, and one source of ongoing mutual grievance would have been absent. I'm working hard to keep my mind open, and I'm not fixated on one exact wording, but I can't agree that we have seen any suggestions that would improve the present paragraph. And as for the town not being officially founded until 1706 - yes. But the hermitage of San Roque had been there for a long time, giving its name to what there was of the place, and we have wisely avoided specifying its exact municipal status. I hate to have to say it, but the present paragraph still strikes me as very well-crafted: "On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings.[10][11][12][13] By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.[11]" Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have set out clear and concise reasons for my issues with this text. It is not neutral and does not cover all crucial and essential points. I believe that has been comprehensively demonstrated - there are several equally compelling points to make. Its atrocity tennis pure and simple, focusing on misdeeds, cherry picking facts to make a point. You actually acknowledge some of those when you mention the war would have gone better for Charles if they hadn't happened.
It is also poorly written, its an abortion of English grammar, I cannot accept the suggestion that it is well-crafted. It simply isn't.
These issues were raised at the time it was crafted by Pfainuk. If you go back and review the talk page, his concerns were brushed aside and ignored and the comments directed toward him were uncivil. This content was imposed over and above his objections, the atmosphere at the time was distinctly unhealthy and not conducive to writing good prose.
On San Roque if you say the Hermitage had existed, well my longer version explains that. It did but it wasn't the modern town of San Roque, founded in 1706. San Roque was founded as a result of the exodus they didn't go to there. We currently claim they went to a town that didn't yet exist. This clearly is not part of a quality article.
I have raised several important areas of our policies and identified why they are relevant. I find it difficult to move forward in a contructive dialogue whilst these points are not being addressed. The arguments aren't being addressed but simply a preference for the current text stated - this isn't conducive to building a consensus text. Please address the issues raised and perhaps consider the proposal put forward by Pfainuk. Justin talk 22:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat my position very respectfully. I honestly believe that the violence during the capture and the exile to San Roque is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article: 1) they are overwhelmingly mentioned by historians, by popular books and leaflets and even by diplomats (and hard-core Spanish nationalists too, which is no reason not to mention the episodes); 2) they deal with the destiny of almost all the population of Gibraltar (the topic of the article) of the time, and 3) those three days of August are a pivotal point in the history of Gibraltar: almost all of the previous population left and a new population arrived, with a dramatic effect in all the history of the Rock.
IMHO, the text should 1) be NPOV, and mention (with more or less detail) that 2) an Anglo-Dutch force captured the town during the War of Spanish Succession, 3) the invaders exerted violence on the villagers, although it was not ordered by their commanders, 5) the terms of surrender were peaceful, but 4) the villagers decided to leave for fear of the violence/danger, and 5) they went mostly to San Roque (notice that we're only mentioning the physical place called San Roque, whether it is officially only some houses with a hermitage, a refugees camp or a city -the place went through all those stages, but it was called "San Roque" all the time).
Regarding Pfainuk's and Justin's proposals, I have to say I am open to alternative wording (a bit longer or a bit shorter), so long as they comply with the points in the paragraph above. IMHO the current text has been carefully crafted to be NPOV and mention all relevant points, but...
  • If Justin feels that NPOV requires that the article briefly mentions the fact that villagers retaliated on some murdered soldiers, it's OK with me (although I don't think that the NPOV requires the text to mention other details such as the pincer attack from the isthmus and Point Europa, the heavy bombardment or the well provisioned but outnumbered Spanish forces, for example). As another minor comment, I believe there's one slight inaccuracy: according to his cite, the perpetrators of violence were not severely punished, only one was executed to give example (could you check it out, Justin, please?). I'm not too sure that one execution merits mention in this overview article...
  • If Pfainuk wants the text to be very brief, it's OK with me too, so long as it mentions the points that I have explained before. For example, instead of "disorders", I would say "atrocities", "acts of violence" or a similar synonym; I would mention that it was the largest part of the villagers that settled down in San Roque (and I would suppress the words "hermitage of" or "town of" - as per Richard's and my own comment); I would also mention that there was a connection between the violence and the exodus. I don't think my suggestions add much length to Pfain's very brief proposal.
My main worry is that the motivations and destiny of almost all the previous inhabitants of Gibraltar (who WERE Gibraltar just before the capture, who left room to current day Gibraltarians and whose exodus is mentioned by many sources) is sufficiently explained. I hope that we reach consensus (since August 2009, this talk page mentions rape 92 times and the name "San Roque" appears 739 times -I am sure that this must be some kind of record).
Only two more comments for Pfainuk: the capture was on 24 July 1704 Old Style, and 4 August 1704 New Style[10]; the exodus was more or less ordered and took place on 7 August 1704 (3 days after the capture), look here at George Hills' text, for example. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Imalbornoz's comments on content. I believe they illustrate a fundamental problem with his approach and this is illustrated by the word "atrocities". Per WP:WORDS, specifically WP:LABEL we should be avoiding such terms as this is one of those expression that introduce bias.
In addition, his assertion about mentioning "violence" is disingenuous. We do not propose that it isn't mentioned, we're proposing covering it in neutral language, coverage appropriate for an overview and not focused on individual acts. I don't desire that we have to mention the murders of British and Dutch troops. I wish to avoid this ludicrous trading of who did what to whom. It doesn't make for a well written article. It is sufficient in an overview to cover this with top level details - that convey there were acts of violence from both sides. We don't need to have a list of misdeeds on either side. Disorder would do that.
Additionally claiming that the violence was the sole reason for the exodus is WP:SYN and I have to say I believe a personal opinion of his. I don't shrink from the fact that sources mention it as a factor, equally the anticipated Spanish counter attack is mentioned as a factor. Your content proposal this violates WP:SYN and WP:CHERRY in cherry picking the facts to support this opinion. Again the top level coverage, that the people felt to stay was "too dangerous" or some other variation on that is sufficient for an overview - this covers both motivations mentioned in sources neutrally.
Can we also stop the practise of trying to obscure points by taking the discussion down rabbit holes. The source I used does mention a single execution. So what, it wasn't the sole punishment discussed in that article. It is a fact that the commanders of the Anglo-Dutch forces severely punished offenders. This isn't a factor I propose to include so why are you mentioing it anyway? It isn't helping to move to a consensus. If we stick with top level coverage this is one of those details we can lose but if you insist on listing every crime, then to balance that to achieve a NPOV it becomes appropriate to mention punishments, terms of surrender and the motives of the commanders and the article balloons. Focus of the point please and don't take discussions down rabbit holes. The insistence on minute details of every act of violence is the fundamental issue that causes other factors to need to be mentioned to achieve a neutral text and that is the point I'm making. Please address this and it is not appropriate to say its just a "few words", because you introduce the need to introduce other factors and a "few words" becomes an opus.
On San Roque, you wikilink to the entry for the modern town. Why do that unless you plan to indicate thats where they meant? If it wasn't mentioned, would the article be poorer, no it wouldn't. Does mentioning as is make for a poorer article? Yes it does, the details are misleading. Improving the understanding of the subject should be the benchmark and this doesn't fit that criteria. Its a tangential detail and the article wouldn't be any poorer for not mentioning it. Now that isn't to say we shouldn't mention it but if as indicated you're not prepared to qualify the statement in some way then clearly it shouldn't be included.
If we can discuss such details as appropriate for an article detailing an overview of the history we can move forward. Insisting on mentioning lower level details and the content will balloon. That is the issue. Justin talk 13:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would it be helpful...RFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard's suggestion

Only minimally changed from the current version:

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

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

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

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

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

The sources also mention the expected Spanish counter attack as being a motivation for the exodus. Whatever the sources say, the motivation of the people to leave is the opinion of the author not a fact. You're reporting opinions as facts. Worse, you're attaching your personal opinion to one of the reasons, using the sources to back it up and ignoring others. This is cherry picking to support a particular opinion, not give due regard to others. This is unacceptable and not supported by wikipedia's policies and fundamentally violates a core policy of neutral point of view.
I also consider it unhelpful in the extreme to raise the issue of nationalism. But you did so lets get it out in the open. Spanish nationalists advance the idea that San Roque is the real Gibraltar. So basically you're creating a WP:COATRACK for the usual nationalist nonsense to disrupt the article. Its relationship to Gibraltar is tangential at best, so inclusion to sate the Spanish nationalist cause seems a poor justification to me. We don't say it became a refugee camp with your version, we say they went to the modern town of San Roque, which was founded 2 years later by the refugees. So to keep the content brief, we have text that misleads as to the historical timeline and narrative. The exodus preceeds the town but the article says the exodus went to the town - it simply is arse about face.
As an aside those references were supposed to be deleted after the previous RFC, they were too extensive and were considerd a copyright violation. Remember? Justin talk 12:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here you can find more sources about the Capture of Gibraltar[11], about the exodus[12], and a summary of the notability of San Roque[[13] in books about the history of Gibraltar.
If you look at the sources, you will see that they don't mention the expected Spanish counter attack as a motivation for the exodus. In fact, they don't mention any other motivation but the fear of violence from the invaders. In fact, the expected counter attack is mentioned as a reason to remain, because "The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary."
The sources do mention San Roque as the main destination. Whether or not this is used by any nationalists should not be taken into account; we should only look at reputed secondary sources dealing with the history of Gibraltar.
The proposed edit does not mention the "town" but a place called San Roque (whether it's a chapel surrounded by a few houses -such as the town major's-, a refugees camp or a town it was still called "San Roque" -previously the place was called Carteia with the Phoenicians and Romans). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.
Clearly it was expected the Spanish would counter attack and retake the town. Verified, established fact. Continuing to insist the violence in the days following the attack is the sole and only reason the people left is not a sustainable argument, it demonstrates tendentious editing and a POV fixation that is not conducive to writing a NPOV. Spinning it as a motive to stay is complete WP:OR and further demonstrates a POV fixations, its mentioned as a motive to go somewhere safe. Aside from being WP:OR it does not stand up to logical scrutiny. If you expect a couter attack to shortly liberate your town, do you a) stay in the town whilst it is bombarded and there is fighting or b) go somewhere safe till the coast clears? I've seen it time and time again in Bosnia, I know how it works, I've seen the way refugees act.
Detailed historical texts do mention San Roque and a number of other destinations. Overviews of Gibraltar do not. We are writing an overview. The edit links to the article on the modern town of San Roque, the place wasn't called San Roque, there was a hermitage there named after San Roque from which the modern town derives its name. If we're being accurate we would say they settled around the hermitage of San Roque and remove the wikilink. But that as an option has been rejected to repeatedly demand that the edit says they went to a town founded 2 years later - this makes no sense to me. So tell us why do we have to have a wikilink, linked to the modern town of San Roque (and btw the article there is a classic WP:COATRACK as it is virtually nothing but the capture of Gibraltar)? Please start by explaining why we don't explain the historical context and have a misleading wikilink. Justin talk 09:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNINDENT

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

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

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

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

Pfainuk's bit

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

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

I would argue that:

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

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

Pfainuk talk 09:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would someone please remind Imalbornoz of talk page etiquette as I have done, time and time again, that edits such as this [15] are unacceptable as they change the narrative of the discussion. He has been warned time and time again about this - please ask the admin user:Atama.

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

And again [16]. Justin talk 00:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for not signing my previous comment (I now have). (One more comment, on the side: You criticise the inability to resist interfering. Myself, I would recommend that you check who has been the first editor to comment in each proposal, and who has added most words in total to those proposals... Maybe some self-criticism would be healthy, Justin; I would make this comment in your talk page, but you say you won't allow it... so I apologise to editors not interested in our private comments...) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the issue and you know, you added a comment part way through a discussion to give the impression I replied to it. Its misleading and mendacious and its not the first time you've done it. You regularly breach talk page etiquette to create a misleading narrative.
I replied to Richard as the first thing he did with his "justification" was to cast aspersions on the content suggested by others by attacking their motives. And no you're not welcome on my talk page, seeing as neither you or Richard have the good graces to apologise for the needless personal attacks made concerning a trivial issue, that you then compounded by repeating them at AN/I and elsewhere. Of course none of this would be necessary if you could comment on content not editors, they would not them feel the need to defend themselves. Justin talk 14:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to comment on a throw away line. "Officers seldom hang their own men for no reason, to say no more." Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres. Sadly yes they do[17], especially if there is a politic imperative. Justin talk 00:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin's bit

I have two suggestions:

My second, more compact suggestion:


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

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

And a third even more compact version without tangential information:


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

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

Comment

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

References

  1. ^ "Non-Self Governing Territories". United Nations. Retrieved 2008-10-18.
  2. ^ "Official Government of Gibraltar London website". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  3. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Maec was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "Address to UN". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  5. ^ Gibraltar.gov.gi, Chief Minister's UN Speech "Mr Chairman, nobody who visits Gibraltar and observes its society and self government can objectively think that Gibraltar, in reality, remains a colony." Speech to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation 8 October 2009
  6. ^ "Our main political challenges come from Spain's antiquated territorial claim." Government of Gibraltar Information Services, Office of the Chief Minister. http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/office-of-the-chief-minister accessed 15th May 2010
  7. ^ UN.org, Special Committee on Decolonisation hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, "the representative of Spain opposed any attempt to remove it from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories undergoing decolonisation"
  8. ^ http://www.lukor.com/not-esp/internacional/portada/06040333.htm
  9. ^ http://www.publico.es/espana/276568/cospedal/gibraltar/colonia/deberia/exitir
  10. ^ "Non-Self Governing Territories". United Nations. Retrieved 2008-10-18.
  11. ^ "Official Government of Gibraltar London website". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  12. ^ "Address to UN". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  13. ^ Gibraltar.gov.gi, Chief Minister's UN Speech "Mr Chairman, nobody who visits Gibraltar and observes its society and self government can objectively think that Gibraltar, in reality, remains a colony." Speech to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation 8 October 2009
  14. ^ "Our main political challenges come from Spain's antiquated territorial claim." Government of Gibraltar Information Services, Office of the Chief Minister. http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/office-of-the-chief-minister accessed 15th May 2010
  15. ^ UN.org, Special Committee on Decolonisation hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, "the representative of Spain opposed any attempt to remove it from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories undergoing decolonisation"
  16. ^ http://www.lukor.com/not-esp/internacional/portada/06040333.htm
  17. ^ http://www.publico.es/espana/276568/cospedal/gibraltar/colonia/deberia/exitir
  18. ^ "Non-Self Governing Territories". United Nations. Retrieved 2008-10-18.
  19. ^ "Official Government of Gibraltar London website". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  20. ^ "Address to UN". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  21. ^ Gibraltar.gov.gi, Chief Minister's UN Speech "Mr Chairman, nobody who visits Gibraltar and observes its society and self government can objectively think that Gibraltar, in reality, remains a colony." Speech to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation 8 October 2009
  22. ^ "Our main political challenges come from Spain's antiquated territorial claim." Government of Gibraltar Information Services, Office of the Chief Minister. http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/office-of-the-chief-minister accessed 15th May 2010
  23. ^ UN.org, Special Committee on Decolonisation hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, "the representative of Spain opposed any attempt to remove it from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories undergoing decolonisation"
  24. ^ http://www.lukor.com/not-esp/internacional/portada/06040333.htm
  25. ^ http://www.publico.es/espana/276568/cospedal/gibraltar/colonia/deberia/exitir
  26. ^ "Non-Self Governing Territories". United Nations. Retrieved 2008-10-18.
  27. ^ "Official Government of Gibraltar London website". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  28. ^ "Address to UN". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  29. ^ Gibraltar.gov.gi, Chief Minister's UN Speech "Mr Chairman, nobody who visits Gibraltar and observes its society and self government can objectively think that Gibraltar, in reality, remains a colony." Speech to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation 8 October 2009
  30. ^ "Our main political challenges come from Spain's antiquated territorial claim." Government of Gibraltar Information Services, Office of the Chief Minister. http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/office-of-the-chief-minister accessed 15th May 2010
  31. ^ UN.org, Special Committee on Decolonisation hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, "the representative of Spain opposed any attempt to remove it from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories undergoing decolonisation"
  32. ^ http://www.lukor.com/not-esp/internacional/portada/06040333.htm
  33. ^ http://www.publico.es/espana/276568/cospedal/gibraltar/colonia/deberia/exitir
  34. ^ [1] Peter Caruana, Gibraltar First Minister, Ministerial Statement in full "So, if Mr Moratinos is convinced that under international law, the waters around Gibraltar are not British, then he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing that issue in the International Court, as we have repeatedly suggested."
  35. ^ La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
  36. ^ Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  37. ^ Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
  38. ^ La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
  39. ^ Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  40. ^ Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
  41. ^ La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
  42. ^ Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  43. ^ Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
  44. ^ La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
  45. ^ Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  46. ^ Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
  47. ^ [http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/publications/full/bsb7-1_oreilly.pdf O’Reilly, G. (1992) Gibraltar: Spanish and UK Claims, Territory Briefing, 4, Durham: International Boundaries Research Unit]
  48. ^ [2] Peter Caruana, Gibraltar First Minister, Ministerial Statement in full "So, if Mr Moratinos is convinced that under international law, the waters around Gibraltar are not British, then he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing that issue in the International Court, as we have repeatedly suggested."
  49. ^ [3] Peter Caruana, Gibraltar First Minister, Ministerial Statement in full "So, if Mr Moratinos is convinced that under international law, the waters around Gibraltar are not British, then he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing that issue in the International Court, as we have repeatedly suggested."
  50. ^ [4] Peter Caruana, Gibraltar First Minister, Ministerial Statement in full "So, if Mr Moratinos is convinced that under international law, the waters around Gibraltar are not British, then he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing that issue in the International Court, as we have repeatedly suggested."
  51. ^ Jackson, William G. F. (1986). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. ISBN 0838632378., p. 97
  52. ^ Jackson, p. 98
  53. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33:
  54. ^ a b c d e f Jackson, Sir William, Rock of the Gibraltarians, p100-101
  55. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33
  56. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  57. ^ George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4. "Byng's [English Rear-Admiral George Byng] chaplain Pocock [Rev. Thomas Pocock] went ashore on 6 August and walked 'all over the town'. 'Great disorders', he found, had been 'committed by the boats' crews that came on shore and marines; but the General Officers took great care to prevent them, by continually patrolling with their sergeants, and sending them on board their ships and punishing the marines; one of which was hanged"
  58. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33:
  59. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33
  60. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  61. ^ Jackson, William G. F. (1986). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. ISBN 0838632378., p. 97
  62. ^ Jackson, p. 98
  63. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33:
  64. ^ Andrews, Allen, Proud Fortress The Fighting Story Of Gibraltar, p32-33
  65. ^ Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. George Hills (1974). London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4
  66. ^ George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4. "Byng's [English Rear-Admiral George Byng] chaplain Pocock [Rev. Thomas Pocock] went ashore on 6 August and walked 'all over the town'. 'Great disorders', he found, had been 'committed by the boats' crews that came on shore and marines; but the General Officers took great care to prevent them, by continually patrolling with their sergeants, and sending them on board their ships and punishing the marines; one of which was hanged"
  67. ^ 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.
  68. ^ Jackson, William G. F. (1986). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. ISBN 0838632378., p. 97
  69. ^ George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4. "Byng's [English Rear-Admiral George Byng] chaplain Pocock [Rev. Thomas Pocock] went ashore on 6 August and walked 'all over the town'. 'Great disorders', he found, had been 'committed by the boats' crews that came on shore and marines; but the General Officers took great care to prevent them, by continually patrolling with their sergeants, and sending them on board their ships and punishing the marines; one of which was hanged"
  70. ^ 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.
  71. ^ Jackson, William G. F. (1986). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. ISBN 0838632378., p. 97
  72. ^ George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173-174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4. "Byng's [English Rear-Admiral George Byng] chaplain Pocock [Rev. Thomas Pocock] went ashore on 6 August and walked 'all over the town'. 'Great disorders', he found, had been 'committed by the boats' crews that came on shore and marines; but the General Officers took great care to prevent them, by continually patrolling with their sergeants, and sending them on board their ships and punishing the marines; one of which was hanged"
  73. ^ 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.

A proposal to find consensus in a more orderly way

I'm afraid this is not going anywhere. We bring up things in an disorderly manner, we clutter RfCs and noticeboards with our own comments, we have tried informal mediation at least three times (without any success)... I propose that we ask for formal mediation. If you want, we can start with the controversy about the territorial limits of Gibraltar. Would you agree to accept formal mediation? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Straight question. Why won't you allow content to stand on its own merits, supported by sources and allow community to decide what best represents wikipedia's policies? Mmmm. Why not?
I'm quite prepared to offer a suggestion and let it stand on its own merits. You're clearly not. And I think think the community here is entitled to ask why. Justin talk 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very simple: the issues we are dealing with are not too simple, so I think that a brief explanation is better. Otherwise, outsiders may not understand what's going on, or may not even bother to comment. Of course, I think all sides should have the same (brief) space to explain their case. (You seem to be of the same opinion: you have been the FIRST to comment below each editors' proposal[18][19][20][21][22]).
Would you agree to ask for MedCom's help? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Text should stand on its own merits, with supporting references. Explanations are not brief and deter outside comment. Clearly I'm not of that opinion, because I responded to an attempt to spin the motives of other editors and to denigrate their contributions. The text wasn't there to justify content, it rubbished other suggestions, pretty much as you did to my suggestions.
So effectively you are saying you have no faith in the community to judge text on its own merits unless you explain it to them? Yes/No. Justin talk 12:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you an example: I just posted two alternative texts without any explanation (at the NPOV noticeboard). The response was: "I don't see any issue of NPOV there, ¿what're the complaints?" Then we had to give explanations (me, Pfainuk and you), cluttering the noticeboard. If each text had had a short explanation (from its defenders) from the beginning, no question would probably have been made, we wouldn't have cluttered the page, and we would have obtained more outside comments without ourselves getting in the middle.
It's not me having faith or lack thereof, it's just the evidence. I just wanna be practical. Does this answer your question? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't answer the question, if those two texts are judged to be equal. Then for an overview we'd go with the shorter one, if we accept community input, the shorter being best for an overview. So on the basis of that feedback would you agree to go with my proposal? The feedback so far says its neutral and by far the most compact.
The comments from Pfainuk and myself relate to the fact of your demonstration of bad faith by failing to follow the accepted protocol of notifying users that you'd made that post, that you were not accurately presenting proposals and you'd omitted to mention a factor in the discussion. The discussion that follows relates to your conduct. I'm happy to allow the case to be considered on merits but I do take exception when its misrepresented - and it is a recurring theme that my proposals are not accurately portrayed. They're not explanations, they're comments on disruptive behaviour.
Although you poisoned the well with a post stating the text I proposed was POV, I still accepted the outcome from the NPOV noticeboard and withdrew a proposal previously. Text shouldn't need an explanation if you want an outside opinion when it is sourced and cited properly. What your comments say to me is you've no confidence that your proposal would have community support. Aside from anything else, if you've no prepared to accept community input unless you can lobby first then not unreasonably I ask what hope does MEDCOM have. Justin talk 14:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if the NPOV noticeboard is the right forum for this particular issue. But, sorry, text does need some comment for outsiders. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Territorial disputes

We now have five alternative texts. I have put them in my preferred order with a couple of comments:

1.

Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock and its port, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cession outside those limits.[1] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar, arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control.[2]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[3][4]

This seems to make all the important points and is still commendably brief. If it's confirmed that the UK government does not entirely agree with the Spanish government on the exact territory covered by the T of U, this would be my preferred text.

2.

"Spain accepts British sovereignty only within the limits of the Rock.[5] The UK claims sovereignty of half of the isthmus that connects the Rock to the mainland and on the waters surrounding Gibraltar, arguing that continuous possession of the isthmus should be taken into account and the modern concept of territorial waters is applicable.[6]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[7]

This leaves out the T of U entirely, which may be appropriate if in fact the governments do entirely agree on the exact territory covered by the Treaty.

3.

"Spain further interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain does. For example, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters."

This may not give enough detail for our target audience, a new reader who doesn't have any background on the dispute. It also assumes that the interpretation of the Treaty does in fact differ importantly between the two sides, which we've yet to confirm or reject with appropriate references. But it still strikes me as acceptable.

4.

Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has repeatedly requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response[8].

This is basically 3. with the addition of a debating point. A perfectly good one, but suitable only for the overview article. If we are to document the entire wrangle we could include an awful lot more before we get to this point. We do need to know: does the interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht about the land ceded differ importantly between the two sides? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And less is often more:


.

I find the reluctance to mention the ICJ issue puzzling. Justin talk 14:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be support for option 4, then? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add one more option, in order to illustrate why I think that some of the above view the question a bit too much from the British POV:

5.

Britain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more expansively than Spain, disputing Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Spain to territorial waters around the Rock. Spain is helping the European Commission fend off a legal challenge by Gibraltar over a decision designating most of Gibraltar’s territorial waters as one of Spain’s protected nature sites under EU law[9].

Some editors may think that this text is biased towards the Spanish POV. Some others might think that similar texts (replacing Spain's by Britain's position) are too British POV. That's why I support the first option which only mentions the two positions and its arguments. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's another debating point, even lower down the list than the other, but I take your point. That's support for option 1 then? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is support for option 1.
It is also a kind request to include this last text for debate alongside the other ones as yet another option. I think that it will help put each option in perspective.
One question: Pfainuk offered some allegations to option number 1 which I think are reasonable. I think that making some changes in line with Pfainuk's allegations might help make it more accurate (and, therefore, more acceptable to all sides). Would anybody mind if I made those changes in option number 1?
  • Adding "and its port" to "the Rock" in the first sentence
  • Adding "and airspace" to "territorial waters" in the last sentence
Thank you -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added them, to save you the trouble. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1: I oppose on the basis of accuracy. This strongly implies that the Rock and the port are a list of bits that Spain recognises. It isn't. Spain recognises the town and castle, and the port, defences and fortifications belonging to the town and castle. I also feel that it goes into far too much detail about territorial waters.

Point 2: I oppose on the basis of accuracy. Spain recognises British sovereignty beyond the Rock: specifically, Spain recognises the town and castle, and the port, defences and fortifications belonging to the town and castle. I also feel that it goes into far too much detail about territorial waters.

Point 3: I support. It gives a proper amount of detail and accurately represents Spain's position, giving examples. If readers want more detail then they are perfectly welcome to visit the two full articles that we have on the subject of the dispute. I'm willing to discuss the first sentence if necessary, but it must be accurate. Neither point 1 or point 2 is accurate.

Point 4: I find it amusing that you say that this point is too much detail, but a rather longer and more drawn out discussion of the territorial waters dispute is "commendably brief". As it happens, I do agree with you that it's a detail too far. But I don't accept that you can consistently say that this one is too much detail without also accepting that options 1 and 2 are also too much detail.

Point 5: "Some editors may think that this text is biased towards the Spanish POV". It's not a matter of thinking it's biased. It does not require much thought to realise that a text that says that the poor, innocent EU and Spain are being persecuted through the courts by the evil British is pretty clearly biased. Pfainuk talk 19:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 2 are innacurate I would oppose those as an option. 3 I could support, 4 I support. My personal preference only for its brevity and the avoidance of any dispute about Utrecht is my proposal:

6.

.

5. is biased and the author has deliberately been so to create a strawman to rubbish other options. This is decidedly pointy behaviour, not helpful, yet another example Richard of disruptive behaviour that you do not confront and indeed appear to encourage.

Pfainuk you know that I respect your opinion, could you perhaps elucidate why you think the mention of the ICJ is a point too far. The case I would put forward for mentioning it is that the ICJ is the only body that is capable of delivering a binding legal judgement that would settle the dispute once and for all. Do you not think it worthy of mention that one party is prepared to put its case to the test, whereas the other let us say prefers not to. Is that not significant? Justin talk 20:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's worthy of mention, and is a significant point, but I'm not convinced that it belongs here.
(In principle, incidentally, the UN Security Council is also capable of giving a legally binding judgement - albeit one based on politics rather than international law. But given Britain's veto-wielding membership of the UNSC, there's only one side they could support - and I'd imagine the other members would rather feel that a British attempt to push that through would be a little too close to pushing national interests over international interests.)
This section, IMO, should deal only with the very basic points on each side of the dispute. That will mean leaving out points that people here consider significant. It will mean not mentioning even rather large details. The basic points I refer to are:
  • The fact of the dispute, together with the basic positions of the three sides on the dispute as a whole. That means:
    • Spain: territorial integrity; British sovereignty restricted by Utrecht
    • UK: self-determination restricted by Utrecht; unrestricted British sovereignty
    • Gibraltar: unrestricted self-determination; unrestricted British sovereignty
  • The independently relevant fact of the UN list, and the positions of Spain, and the UK and Gibraltar, on it. (As I've mentioned before, I don't entirely accept that this is independently relevant - but accept that removal will never get consensus.)
Everything in this section should be there to explain these points. Anything that does not explain these points should go in Disputed status of Gibraltar or Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain. And if the reader wants more detail, we should and (I assume) will point them at those two articles.
The reason for this is because I think there's a significant risk of our three or four paragraphs turning into to seven or eight unless we're prepared to restrict ourselves. We already have two articles on the dispute and I think there's a significant risk of this article becoming a third. We need the basics in here, but the detail belongs on the dedicated articles. Pfainuk talk 21:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I would be prepared to compromise and put that detail in Disputed status of Gibraltar or Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain or possibly both. Thank you. I guess that leaves Option 3 as the basis for moving forward in my opinion. Justin talk 21:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I would also compromise. If Justin is ready to put the detail about the GoG's wishes about the ICJ in another article, I can accept to do the same with the EC's ruling.
In that case, option 5bis would be:

5bis.

Britain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more expansively than Spain, disputing Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Spain to territorial waters around the Rock.

Regarding option 3, I think it is symmetrical to number 5bis. I think that they run the risk of being biased by making a comparison between the two POVs. Would Justin and Pfainuk accept 5bis?
Options 5 and 4 have been discarded for options 5bis and 3, so I won't comment on them.
Regarding option 1:
  • The long sentence in the ToU can be summarised as: "the limits expressly mentioned in the Treaty of Utrecht". That would bring us nearer to Painuk's first proposal. Looking at the map, I think that "the Rock and its port" also summarises it (but maybe I'm wrong, Pfainuk, what do you think?)
  • The source from the government of Spain and other sources summarise the controversy about the territorial limits mentioning no further claims than the territorial waters, isthmus and airspace, so I think this should be enough for this overview article.
Would this solve Painuk's allegations of inaccuracy? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, 1 bis would be as follows:

1 bis.

Spain claims that British sovereignty is only acceptable in the areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht[10] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar, arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control.[11]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[12][13]

Would you find this to be more accurate and neutral? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your version 1b still is still far too detailed as per my previous message. Richard has also argued that it is not clear what is explicitly mentioned in the Treaty of Utrecht.
On your version 5b (and noting in passing that, assuming I understand your use of the word "symmetrical" correctly, your 3 and 5b are not "symmetrical"), could you explain what your objection to Justin's original version is - i.e. your version 4 without the second sentence? I mean, since you're insisting it be changed, one assumes that you must have have an objection? Pfainuk talk 18:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given your silence on this matter, perhaps we could assume that you accept the first sentence of Justin's proposal for inclusion? Pfainuk talk 18:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been very busy lately. I think I have explained my position several times, but without success (it seems). Let's see if I can be clearer this time so that we can find a consensus:
  • First of all, I think that sentence is bad English (i.e. if you read it again, you'll see that it makes no sense: what is the alternative clause for "or to recognize..."?)
  • Also, it mentions territorial waters and the isthmus but it does not mention airspace (I thought you said that this was not right).
  • In any case, most importantly, I think that it runs the risk of being a bit biased. We should should not have to choose between saying that Spain disputes/doesn't recognize British sovereignty and the opposite (which is also true). I would not accept Justin's sentence for the same reasons that you wouldn't accept the following one:


  • There's an alternative: let's just make the effort to agree on a neutral paragraph that explains both positions. I agree that we shouldn't make it too long (your first proposal was about 40 words long, so I would agree to make it in less than 80 words).
Am I very unreasonable? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the words "or to recognize..." in the first sentence of the proposal I cited, which I remind you was:
Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.
Second point, I think you ought to read my points more closely because you are entirely misinterpreting them. I have never, at any point, said that I consider airspace dispute to be significant enough for inclusion on its own merits. I have used it as an alternative example to the territorial waters dispute, which is not the same thing at all.
Third point, if you think it's biased then why on earth are you proposing in its place something that you have stated is the exact equivalent on the other side? In what way is proposing things that you consider unacceptably POV helpful in finding consensus? Pfainuk talk 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another draft (omitting references for the moment), using Pfainuk's excellent headings which I repeat first, and everyone else's ideas: 

           * The fact of the dispute, together with the basic positions of the three sides on the dispute as a whole. That means:
                 o Spain: territorial integrity; British sovereignty restricted by Utrecht
                 o UK: self-determination restricted by Utrecht; unrestricted British sovereignty
                 o Gibraltar: unrestricted self-determination; unrestricted British sovereignty

           * The independently relevant fact of the UN list, and the positions of Spain, and the UK and Gibraltar, on it.


A bit longer than ideal, but still worth including if it, or some variant, can bring consensus. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will accept this proposal as-is, but would suggest that the second sentence of the first paragraph might be better off worded in such a way as to not appear to be a definitive list? While the isthmus and territorial waters are the main points of contention, Spain's position on airspace and land Gibraltar has reclaimed from the sea - along with, I believe, other matters - is similar (on that latter point, this is linked to territorial waters: Spain believes that land reclaimed from the sea was originally in Spanish waters).
One other thing, the adjective form of "Gibraltar" is "Gibraltar". "Gibraltarian" explicitly refers to people. So, "Both the British and Gibraltar governments" and "Gibraltar self-determination" would be more appropriate. Pfainuk talk 19:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree mostly, but I suggest a couple of precisions. I think they should not be controversial:
  • "Additionally, Spain's position (...) or over any territorial waters." -> "Additionally, Spain's position (...) nor over any territorial waters or airspace." That way, we cover all the significant territorial issues (why give a sample of two issues when the universe of relevant issues amounts to three?)
  • "(...) over all the territory of modern Gibraltar." -> "(...) over the Rock and the southern part of the isthmus, and the right to control its territorial waters and airspace." I'm not sure what "modern" Gibraltar is according to each POV... Let's mention the objective geographical places and avoid the controversy. Besides, I'm not too sure that Britain claims sovereignty on territorial waters and airspace (I think it always talks about "control").
  • "Gibraltar remains in (...)" -> "Gibraltar is in (...) since 1946." The word remains seemed (to me) a bit awkward. If we try to say that it was included long ago, I think it's better to say it this way.
  • Let's solve the first (and larger) part of the text and we will discuss about the last paragraph later on. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the isthmus, water and airspace are necessarily the sum total of what Spain disputes. If they are, I don't believe that such a list is necessarily accurate in implication, given the issues with land reclamation. Better to treat territorial waters and the isthmus as examples IMO.
The territory of modern Gibraltar would be the territory on which Gibraltar exists on the ground. In the same way, we use a map of modern Gibraltar, based on the realities on the ground. Spain disputes the legality of British control of the isthmus, but does not dispute the fact of it.
You state that Britain doesn't claim to have sovereignty over territorial waters and airspace. Could you give us an exceptional source to demonstrate this exceptional claim please? We already have sources cited on this page that make the opposite point, and logic would seem to support them: it would seem distinctly strange for the British to argue that they were infringing Spanish rights by exercising control over territorial waters and airspace, as you seem to be suggesting.
Your last point I can accept, given a grammatical correction. The word "since" in English, unlike in French and Spanish, always takes the past tense. Gibraltar has been... is better. Pfainuk talk 20:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "has been..." then, thanks.
Regarding the words "control" or "sovereignty", I was only talking about the "preference" of the UK Gvt, not its official position. Most importantly, I think this is a side issue (and I'm sorry to have got us sidetracked with it).
Regarding the term "modern Gibraltar", I don't think it is uncontroversial and neutral: it's not clear that the isthmus -the airport and everything- is Gibraltar (or "modern Gibraltar"). Most papers refer to the Rock and the isthmus, not to the territory of "modern Gibraltar". I would ask you to look for a less controversial term. Doesn't the UK Government talk about "the Rock and the isthmus"? (look here in page 58, for example).
Regarding the list of issues in the dispute, let's look at the Spanish and British official positions:
  • the official report by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2008: "La controversia sobre los límites del territorio cedido afecta al istmo, a las aguas territoriales y al espacio aéreo." ("The controversy regarding the limits of the territory affects the isthmus, the territorial waters and the air space").[23]
  • a memorandum submitted by the UK FCO to the Parliament in 2008: "Sovereignty is also an ongoing issue for Gibraltar, where Spain recognises British sovereignty over the Rock, but not over the isthmus, waters surrounding the Rock (with the exception of the port), or adjoining the isthmus, or airspace over the entire Territory."[24]
According to what they officially say, these are the issues that UK and Spain consider noteworthy. Have you found any other official position regarding this issue that says otherwise? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, try this:


Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first three paragraphs. Like I said before, I think the last one needs some changes, but we can talk about it right after we reach some consensus on the larger part of the text. Thank you very much for all the good work, Richard. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed the words "if Britain wishes to alienate its rights in Gibraltar". One problem with quoting 300-year old documents is that sometimes words have changed in meaning. The word "alienate" does not work in this sentence in modern English IMO, and the entire sentence seems a touch laboured. Maybe:
It argues that Gibraltar has a right to self-determination, subject to the Treaty of Utrecht, which states that if Britain chooses to leave Gibraltar the territory must be offered to Spain.
I also notice that you mention sovereignty being "agreed to be British" without first explaining who is agreeing. I believe it would be better to introduce the fact of the dispute before going into details of people's positions on it.
The phrase "with all attached rights" also seems a touch awkward to me. If "modern Gibraltar" is a problem for Imalbornoz (and I don't accept his reasoning: there is no plausible doubt that the isthmus, including the airport, are controlled by Gibraltar), then it would be better for us to come up with a different phrase that means the same thing. I note that I cannot account for his claim that the British government uses the phrase "the rock and the isthmus".
I also still don't think I can go with the "Rock and the port". If we're listing the areas that Spain recognises as British, we should list the areas that Spain recognises as British. That means the town and castle, and their port, fortifications and defences. Pfainuk talk 19:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that the phraseology of the T of U was never precise enough to draw a fully-agreed line on any map, or on the ground. Approximately, the present disagreements have to do with the southern part of the isthmus and so on, but if we try for precision we will be setting ourselves up to fail. I suggest that we actually need to give a correct, but approximate guide. I think it's unambiguously true that the G of S recognizes British sovereignty over the Rock and the port? It may recognize other snippets as well, but we will do well to leave them out of this article. Anyway, here's a redraft, using your other points:


Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been away for a few days but rejoining the discussion I would oppose this suggestion as it omits clearly relevant facts. Gibraltar was listed as colony only because Britain chose to list it, this fact is relevant. This fact becomes relevant as a result of from function creep where the text has grown and grown and grown, so that where previously a sentence would have been more than adequate it is now giving more and more prominence to the dispute and its no longer appropriate for an overview. This could be covered in a few words instead we're stretching it into an opus again. Just like adding two words self-governing was stretched into an opus to avoid mentioning those two words. Every attempt to add text to this article, no matter how brief is turned into an excuse to add more and more text to give additional prominince to territorial claims. I also have to observe that the reasons for rejecting shorter versions don't stand up to scrutiny. Its becoming a WP:COATRACK as feared and I'd personally just give up on the whole idea if we're going down this route. Sorry but I really do have very strong feelinsg about this and I oppose this. Justin talk 13:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Pfainuk's suggestions are reasonable, so long as we can find a text brief enough to satisfy them (I think it's possible). If we need other ideas for the wording, I think we can use some official diplomatic sources (who usually are very precise when they write official papers) -> you can take a look at the official papers from the Foreign Affairs Offices from Spain and the UK that I cited above.
I think that Richard's text is a very good effort to satisfy Pfainuk's (and my) suggestions. Thank you.
Regarding Justin's comment, if what he means is that he will agree with the text if we mention the UK's role in including Gibraltar in the UN list, I am ready to agree for the sake of consensus. Anyway, I have not yet given my opinion about the last paragraph (I prefer to reach consensus on the larger part of the text). Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I am saying I am not prepared to accept it because it has become way too big for an overview article. We need to go back to the brief comments that were originally proposed and actually address what was wrong with those. I waited patiently for you to explain your objection to them and you didn't. Instead we have more and more devoted to the issue and I'm saying its too much. So no I won't accept it going into the article. Justin talk 15:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that the text above would allow us to dispense with the present paragraph:

"More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states." which seems clearly pointy, POV, and verbose, making far fewer points than our present proposal in over half the amount of space. And I too would be prepared to include the UK's role in putting Gibraltar on the UN list if this would bring agreement by all editors, but I really don't see it as required for this overview. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of which addresses the point that the proposed text is of itself needlessly verbose, requiring more points to address neutrality issues, which in turn will require more points to address neutrality issues. Sorry but I oppose this for that reason, it will simply get worse and grow from here. Imalbornoz is already talking about addressing another paragraph, which from experience always mean even more verbose coverage. Please address the issue, what was wrong with the earlier briefer text? Its been rejected for no good reason to reach the state where more and more unnecessary detail is added. Detail goes into the Disputed article, not here. Justin talk 17:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if we stay with the developing consensus text above, which is about the same length as the text it will be replacing, rather than expand further? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a wording of mine:

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also argues that the extent of British sovereignty is limited by the Treaty of Utrecht, and disputes the location of the border.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its existing borders.
Gibraltar, for its part, argues that its people have an unrestricted right to self-determination, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".

Significant points:

  • This does not mention "modern Gibraltar", but makes it clear what Britain's position is.
  • It does not attempt to detail either side's arguments, putting them both in general terms only. Notably, it does not attempt to define Spain's position on where the border is.
  • It notes the origin of Gibraltar's inclusion on the UN list.
  • It removes the sentence about Spanish commentators, and replaces it with a more appropriate Spanish government position sourced from the commonly cited Spanish government document (page 17).
  • It is significantly shorter than previous proposals, while effectively putting across the points that need to be put across. Pfainuk talk 19:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but again no. We have suggestions above for brief coverage which are appropriate for an overview. The expanded text I oppose, there is more to Gibraltar than territorial disputes. Too verbose. I also question why you insist on persisting with a text I have indicated a problem with. This to my mind demonstrates a lack of respect to me, in that you're brushing aside any views that I have. Richard, when Imalbornoz was the sole voice of dissent you defended his position making allegations I was being uncivil, allegations you repeated at AN/I.
I suggest returning to the point where there was general agreement and proceed from there, you're significantly divergent from a point I'd support and now propose moving further in that direction. My opposition to that move will only harden. Justin talk 20:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to suggest a text? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already have look above you, it really doesn't help to suggest I haven't. I suggest coverage needs to be brief, at most a few sentences. Justin talk 22:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have seven sentences at present (awaiting comments on the last paragraph in particular), replacing about the same amount of text.
Warning, parody alert:
Your suggestion above is, I think, "Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters." Or, possibly, "The UK disputes Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting the Rock with the rest of Spain or to recognise any right of Spain to its territorial rights". I hope that the symmetry of these two expressions may be sufficient to indicate their unsuitability. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your "parody", unhelpful Richard, the two sentences are rather obviously not in the least symmetric. The first is reasonable, the second is not and serves only as a strawman to paint the first as unreasonable. If you're reduced to that sort of petty tactic then obviously you lack confidence in your content suggestion. Parody Alert: So Richard, when did you stop beating your wife?
Still oppose, implacably so now. Justin talk 09:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference list 2

  1. ^ La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
  2. ^ Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  3. ^ Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
  4. ^ [http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/publications/full/bsb7-1_oreilly.pdf O’Reilly, G. (1992) Gibraltar: Spanish and UK Claims, Territory Briefing, 4, Durham: International Boundaries Research Unit]
  5. ^ La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
  6. ^ Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  7. ^ Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
  8. ^ [5] Peter Caruana, Gibraltar First Minister, Ministerial Statement in full "So, if Mr Moratinos is convinced that under international law, the waters around Gibraltar are not British, then he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing that issue in the International Court, as we have repeatedly suggested."
  9. ^ [6] Mercopress: Spain plans to help the European Commission fend off a legal challenge by Gibraltar over a decision relating to the Rock’s territorial waters, reports the Gibraltar Chronicle. Lawyers representing the Spanish government filed an application to join the controversial case last Friday, a day after the British government confirmed that it would support Gibraltar in court.(...) The Gibraltar Government is challenging the Commission’s decision last December to approve a Spanish request designating most of Gibraltar’s territorial waters as one of Spain’s protected nature sites under EU law.
  10. ^ La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
  11. ^ Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  12. ^ Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
  13. ^ [http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/publications/full/bsb7-1_oreilly.pdf O’Reilly, G. (1992) Gibraltar: Spanish and UK Claims, Territory Briefing, 4, Durham: International Boundaries Research Unit]

Good Work All

It seems you are coming to a conclusion on these issues. It's nice to see people working together to achieve a good result. I apologize for my absence here (family illnesses and a death) but I am pleased to see the work. Thanks for the reordering things Richard, I think that was the necessary move. JodyB talk 12:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar&oldid=400286787"