Talk:Status of Gibraltar/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

A section on General Assembly / United Nations Position

Is evidently warranted. The three relevant resolutions directly addressing Gibraltar are clear and short. They should be cited verbatim in a section underneath the British, Spanish and Gibraltarian positions. I will proceed to adding this section unless someone has a strong argument against adding sourced and relevant material from the UN. Asilah1981 (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you write out a proposal here and if you are willing to forego the abuse we can discuss and reach a consensus text.

Obviously, if this section turns into the last one, which ended up with you issuing torrents of abuse, consensus will probably be impossible. Kahastok talk 18:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok I know we have reached consensus in the past "in extremis" and you edit in good faith even though our positions sometimes are diametrically opposed. What information is false btw? You wrote that in your edit summary.Asilah1981 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I was particularly thinking of the claim that the English took Gibraltar in 1704. We covered this before, some time ago. The force that took Gibraltar was a joint English-Dutch force (probably including some Scots, who at this time were often recruited into English forces) and led by an Austrian prince. The idea was that Gibraltar would be a beachhead, an enclave of Habsburg Spain to be expanded, though of course that never happened. Kahastok talk 22:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way my proposal is simply limited to including the text of the three relevant resolutions, without including any intepretation, nuance or explanation of them. I don't see what can be more NPOV than that. If you find other relevant UN resolutions or statements, I have no issue with including them as well whatever they say. Asilah1981 (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't Wikisource. If we're including the resolutions, we need to have a reason to include them and we need to explain their significance based on reliable sources. I would be concerned that including full resolutions would begin to dominate the article length-wise and I would be very concerned that giving a lot of detail about historical resolutions (and if I've got the right ones these are dated 1960, 1966 and 1968) that did not in fact have a significant impact on the dispute may not meet the requirements of WP:WEIGHT.

I think this article is very poorly structured - a jumbled up mess of disjointed sections that do not lend themselves to a good neutral article. This makes it very difficult to find an appropriate place to discuss twentieth century historical background, and I'm not sure historical UNGA resolutions is where I would start.

I think if it were me writing this up alone, I would probably set up a clear history section including the Utrecht section, briefly mention the Napoleonic Wars and WW2, then flesh it out with the 1953 section and then continue to describe the build-up to the 1967 referendum, the Gibraltar Constitution Order and the border closure, and so on up probably to the 2002 referendum or just after. But even with a lot of discussion and with everyone getting along swimmingly - which we aren't - it'd be a hard task to get consensus for a particular version of that, so we'd be better off trying to take small steps. Kahastok talk 22:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

How about the two relevant paragraphs (not more than 2 or 3 sentences) from each resolution? Asilah1981 (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

6 sentences does still seem to be an awful lot of WP:WEIGHT to give this. The entire section "Capture of Gibraltar and the Treaty of Utrecht" is only seven sentences, and giving three UNGA resolutions from the 1960s that had no lasting effect the same amount of weight seems disproportionate. The long closure of the border (1969-85) is only mentioned once in the entire article, obliquely, in an image caption.

Now, of course, that probably indicates wider issues of WP:WEIGHT in and of itself. I make no bones about this - this article as it stands does not appear to even try to give due weight to issues in the dispute and I would have no problem with adding a maintenance tag for improvement ({{recentism}} and {{undue weight}} both apply, and I would suggest {{cleanup reorganize}} but it does not appear to be against style guidelines per se for the article to be badly organised). But we should we aiming to follow the rules at least from this point and my instinct is that that means a short reference noting the existence of the resolutions in their wider context of the events of the 1960s. That would of course include links to any articles, here or on Wikisource, about the resolutions.

The best way to establish due weight is to look for sources that describe the dispute and then look to see how much weight they give to the point. If they give that much weight, of course, I'll take that into account when forming my view. I haven't seen any evidence of that though. Kahastok talk 16:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok Ok I see why a section on UN position might replicate what is in the Spanish position. But the Spanish Position section actually contains the UN position, whereas the two are distinct and should be separated. There are plenty of sources to quote the Spanish angle, not just saying "Spain says that the UN says x".Also there are an awful lot of quotes from Caruana et al. if we are going to talk about undue weight. Why is he quoted in the lead and why is the Gibraltarian position expressed so extensively in the lead. I have only fixed stylistic errors in my latest edits but the dispute here remains.Asilah1981 (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The UNGA has not expressed any opinion at all on the subject in close to 50 years. The UNSC - the only body in the UN that makes decisions that are binding on member states - has never commented at all so far as I can tell. I find it difficult to see how we can claim a current and relevant independent UN position from that, without reliable secondary sources suggesting that such a position exists today.

I don't count the C24 or other minor organs of the UN of course, because they do not speak for the UN as a whole; if the UN as a whole wanted to adopt a resolution they could do so as they did in the 1960s. Kahastok talk 19:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok Also the first Paragraph of the Spanish position should go. Its just retelling about Sieges, "Spanish dictator Francisco franco blabla". It should just include the official position, just as the British and Gibraltarian sections do. I'll give it a 24h for a counterargument, then remove.Asilah1981 (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I've no objection to removing the first para, its crap. But unless you can actually state what the POV issue, I'll be removing the tags presently. WCM_email 19:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Kahastok talk 19:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

WCM There are half a dozen of issues with the lead, I have mentioned. Directly quoting Caruana (not acceptable in a lead) over the Brussels accords without saying what they are and what was agreed (bilateral discussions on resolving sovereignty issue) in what context (Spain joining the EU), giving undue weight to and fully developing the Gibraltarian position in the lead, not even giving one sentence explaining what the Spanish position is based on in the lead, not mentioning the UN resolutions call for resolution to the territorial conflict and colonial situation on basis of territorial integrity and only quoting it with regards to interests of gibraltarians, (until recently) TWICE mentioning in the lead that the claim was initiated by DICTATOR Franco and a long etc... There is no doubt there is a conflict over POV regarding the lead (and other sections of the article) and the tag cannot be removed until these are resolved as per wikipedia policy. I hope some of these will be resolved through reasoned discussion. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually you haven't mentioned them, hence, I asked. I see you removed mention that Franco was a dicator, given this was a significant fact I restored it. The lead and the entire article is pretty awful, it could do with a rewrite. But if you wish to be involved this requires you co-operate with other editors in a calm manner and stop the behavior which creates conflict. I pretty much gave up on this article as badly written but at least presenting all major points of view. Now if you can't identify problems and are just using the tags for WP:POINT, they will be removed.

And to make a point, I've asked you to stop pinging me, singling me out. I have even posted this on your talk page. Please take the hint and stop doing so - you've done it twice today. WCM_email 16:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Conflicting views on 1514

[1] I added a small text on the conflicting opinions on the territorial integrity clause of UN GA 1514. This has been reverted with the edit summary "Bring to talk first", bringing it here for discussion. WCM_email 17:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You have copy pasted the section of another article which argues against the UN principle of Territorial Integrity into the section which is meant to succintly explain the Spanish Position, to argue within it how the Spanish position is wrong. This is now moving from POV-pushing to borderline vandalism. Asilah1981 (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you start a new section called Wee Curry Monster Original Research and Personal Opinion on the matter', otherwise leave the section on the Spanish position as it is.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

And I thought we were getting somewhere. The text proposed is not original research and it's not POV.

But "This is now moving from POV-pushing to borderline vandalism" is a clear personal attack. Kahastok talk 19:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC

Kahastok How is that a personal attack? It doesn't come under the list of personal attacks you have linked to. It is an expression of a serious concern with an edit which is way out of line. Please stop casting aspersions.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

There are two clear legal opinions on Territorial Integrity, the bit I copied explains both. That is one of the failings of the article as currently written, it fails to do so. Please explain how correcting that is "POV-pushing to borderline vandalism"? WCM_email 20:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

And again I've asked you to stop pinging me, singling me out. I have even posted this on your talk page. Please take the hint and stop doing so - you've done it three times today. WCM_email 21:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It is POV pushing and it does not express the Spanish position. Self-determination is only a right of colonized peoples. Gibraltar is a colonized territory not a colonized people. i.e. The UN and international law does not recognize the Gibraltarians as a "people" to be decolonized, but a territory to be decolonized. This is because the British didn't come and conquer the Gibraltarians, they took over the land and brought their own people. That is why self-governance is irrelevant to it being in the UN list of territories to be decolonized. In fact by categorically denying their right to self-determination (read the UN resolutions) they are implicitely being classed as a "colonizing" population. Do you want to go down this road in the "Spanish position" section? You are trying to fabricate an argument and editorializing because you are not satisfied with the bare facts. Shall we also include sections countering the British and Gibraltarian positions in their respective sections? Is it normal that you are trying to editorialize positions you don't like while refusing to allow crucially important sourced facts in the article lead and body of this and related articles? Asilah1981 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I expressed what the source says, nothing more, nothing less. You have expressed almost verbatim the Spanish Government case, this is not an opinion expressed by the UNGA nor is it a principle of International Law, since so far Spain has refused to take this position for judgement at the International Court of Justice. Am I to infer from your comment that you will revert anything other than the position expressed by Spain and not allow any contrary opinion expressed by noted experts in the field?

And to answer your vexatious question, are we to include commentary on the British or Gibraltar position. If they are by noted experts in the field, of course, we express the range of views in the literature. This would of course come from secondary sources, not primary sources such as a speech by a Spanish foreign minister. WCM_email 14:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The text and sources are irrelevant, Gibraltarians are not recognized by the UN or by anyone as a "colonized people" subject to the right to self-determination. You are copying a text which does not apply to Gibraltar with the hope that readers will draw wrong conclusions, i.e. that somehow Gibraltarians are a colonial population with the right to self-determination according to the UN Charter. The UN has stated categorically that they are not. I am not stating the Spanish position, I`m citing the UN position. There is no "conflict between right of self determination and right to territorial integrity". The debate is irrelevant because quite simply, the right to self determination does not exist. The population of Gibraltar was never colonized.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

And also no, it is not true that you are ok with including speeches of the Spanish Foreign Minister in the section on the UK position. Honestly, you are wasting everyone's time here, arguing for the sake of it. It really is trollish behavior. You have fabricated this edit dispute out of thin air.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

My comments were based on Wikipedian norms. A speech by the Spanish Foreign Minister would be an example of the unsuitable use of a primary source per WP:PRIMARY. An interpretation of the relevant legal opinions by a neutral academic is preferred per WP:SECONDARY. The text I added was drawn from a neutral secondary source - I'm happy to take this to both the WP:NPOVNB and the WP:RSNB. WCM_email 15:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Took it to WP:RSN. WCM_email 15:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned, the sections are a summary of each party's position. You have chosen a paragraph from another wikipedia article to create an argumentation discrediting a position which the section is meant to succintly summarize. It is not warranted, and I am pretty sure you understand why. If you want to copy paste from another article (something you shouldn't be doing anyways), put it in the Gibraltar position section, where arguments of "self-determination" are proposed. Neither Spain nor the UN nor the international community accept that Gibraltarians have a right to self-determination. Would you want the fact that the UN has clearly stated that the Gibraltarians have no such right explained and sourced in the "Gibraltar Position" section? No. This is ridiculous POV pushing. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your claim that the UN and international community do not accept that Gibraltarians have a right to self-determination. The UN does not take a position on such matters and I very much doubt that there is broad agreement by the International Community on the matter. BTW I already know that none exists but always willing to be surprised. WCM_email 16:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Its stated clearly in the UN resolutions. Look them up yourself - google. And why are you taking it to RSN? Is anyone disputing the reliability of sources?Asilah1981 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

http://www.gibnet.com/library/un2353.htm Considering that any colonial situation which partially or completely destroys the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and especially with paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514 (XV) of the General Assembly;

1. Regrets the interruption of negotiations recommended in General Assembly Resolutions 2070 (XX) and 2231 (XXI);

2. Declares the holding of the referendum of 10th September 1967, by the administering Power to be a contravention of the provisions of General Assembly Resolution 2231 (XXI) and of those of the Resolution approved on 1st September 1967 by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;

W You have been very successful thus far at censoring and distorting the facts in these articles through sheer force, but it can't go on for ever. Eventually, they will have to reflect historical reality. Asilah1981 (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No it isn't stated as you claim. Again this is a WP:PRIMARY source that you are interpreting, you can't do that, you need a reliable neutral academic WP:SECONDARY source to do that. WCM_email 07:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And I asking for the last time before I seek admin intervention. You should stop these bad faith attacks, singling me out and constantly pinging me every time you reply. I've asked politely often enough. WCM_email 07:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

WCM, I´m not "pinging" you. There is no beep in your phone waking you in the middle of the night I always address the person I am talking to by their user name, so that they know who I am talking to you. Most editors also address me in the same way, and I appreciate it otherwise I would probably miss their response in a discussion. You are the first editor I have encountered who finds this bothersome.

Regarding the referendum, I am not "interpreting" anything. The UN condemned Gibraltarians holding a referendum on self-determination, it condemned the colonial power for allowing it to happen. This is not subject to interpetation, yet it is carefully ommitted (censored) from the article. Requesting a secondary source may be your last desperate argument left. Well I'm afraid there are evidently dozens of sources which confirm this fact. Is the BBC good enough for you?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23617910

There was a referendum in Gibraltar in 1967, which called on both Spain and the UK to take into account the "interests" of the people of Gibraltar. In it 12,138 of the 12,237 voters chose "voluntarily to retain their links with the UK". The referendum was condemned by the UN General Assembly, and not recognised by any international body or state.

Any other rationale you can dream up to continue censoring this crucial fact from both articles? Asilah1981 (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the only person to notice that I'm being singled out by you and I've asked you to stop it. Constantly pinging another editor is actually discourage and you should discuss content not editors. I have not censored anything from this article. And no that source doesn't support the claim you're making - you're simply moving the goalposts again as to what you said. As regards Resolution 2353, also relevant was the Special Committee on Decolonization was informed in advance of the referendum and invited to observe. The invitation was declined and instead the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 2353, which requested that the United Kingdom enter negotiations with Spain (then under the dictatorship of General Franco) and criticised the United Kingdom for holding a referendum. Resolution 2353 (XXII) was supported by seventy-three countries (mainly Latin American, Arab, African and Eastern European countries),[ rejected by nineteen (United Kingdom and the countries of the Commonwealth of Nations), while twenty-seven countries abstained (Western Europe and the United States). I am perfectly willing to consider relevant content, what I object to is the partisan use of facts. WCM_email 09:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And in your rush to accuse me of censorship, you missed that 2353 is mentioned in the Spanish position section:

“ As a result, the UN General Assembly adopted during its twenty-third session resolution 2429 of 1968 (XXIII) denounced the 1967 referendum and requested the United Kingdom not delay negotiations. ”

I believe an apology is warranted for your needless personal attack. More than anything it just shows what a crap article this really is, stating positions rather than having a neutral academic discussion on the subject. WCM_email 10:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

[2] Bizarrely you edited this only yesterday. [3] And its been in the article since 2013. WCM_email 10:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

See above: "Please provide a source for your claim that the UN and international community do not accept that Gibraltarians have a right to self-determination. The UN does not take a position on such matters and I very much doubt that there is broad agreement by the International Community on the matter." (WCM Dixit)

You have your answer now, please drop it. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The source simply does not support that claim. Tell you what take that to WP:RSN for scrutiny. WCM_email 11:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It does. The resolution says that the UK referendum is in violation of its demand that the dispute be resolved on the basis of territorial integrity (not self-determination). Do you want me to copy paste the resolution again? The one that you want the article to mention was only passed because of blacks, arabs and south americans?Asilah1981 (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The source doesn't support the your claim, that's your personal interpretation of it. I merely wish to point out that the voting was along bloc lines, your hysterical hyperbole on race isn't warranted. WCM_email 13:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

What claim exactly does it not support, according to you? I see you are purposefully using the term "the claim" so that editors do not know that the claim is exactly what the source says. You are a very resourceful individual when overwhelmed with facts and sources.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Providing counter arguments and qualifying (only) the Spanish position

• Each section succintly summarizes the position of each party. No qualifications, OR, editorializing or judgements of such positions are included in any of these three sections. They are all perfectly NPOV. The only part of the article which is not problematic.
• WCM wishes to include a section explaining how only African, Arab, Latin American countries were to blame for the UN condemnation of the Gibraltarian referendum. He also wants to copy paste a section from another article into the section on the Spanish position explaining how Self-determination trumps territorial integrity (something which only applies to sub national liberation movements in the case of post-colonial states) to give the impression it applies to Gibraltar. The UN has clearly stated that the Gibraltarians have no right to self determination and that territorial integrity is the applicable UN principle.
• Evidently no argument rebating the Gibraltarian/British position will be included in the Gibraltarian section (like the UN stating that the self-determination does not apply to Gibraltarians since they are not a colonized people).
• Suddenly WCM´s long used argument that a consensus is needed on talk suddenly does not apply, where his edits are concerned.
• There is no consensus on this article for changing the status quo. Since those are the rules of the game, imposed by WCM, that is how we will play. Please make a fair, balanced proposal to change all three sections, or please leave the only fair part of the article (the three positions) alone.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The actual edit was:

“ The proposal was rejected by the British Government and by the Gibraltarians, which overwhelmingly voted to remain under British sovereignty in a referendum held in 1967 (12,138 to 44). Spain was given the opportunity to explain its proposals but declined to do so[24] but it was widely covered in the Spanish media (available in Gibraltar), so the proposals were well known. The Special Committee on Decolonization was informed in advance of the referendum and invited to observe.[24] The invitation was declined and instead the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 2353, which requested that the United Kingdom enter negotiations with Spain and criticised the United Kingdom for holding a referendum. Resolution 2353 (XXII) was supported by seventy-three countries (mainly Latin American, Arab, African and Eastern European countries),[25] rejected by nineteen (United Kingdom and the countries of the Commonwealth of Nations), while twenty-seven countries abstained (Western Europe and the United States).[25] ”

This was in response to a demand for a section on Resolution 2353. This notes the following:

• Spain was invited to make its own proposal for the referendum but declined.
• The C24 was invited to observe but declined.
• Notes that the UN GA resolution criticized the referendum and the voting lines.

None of this is my comment but derived from reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. Mainly Hills and Jackson. I'll also add that both myself and Kahastok have suggested this badly written article needs to be rewritten. We've aslo both agreed that criticism of the UK and Gibraltar position needs to be included from reliable WP:SECONDARY sources and not as suggested a WP:PRIMARY source (a speech by the Spanish foreign minister). WCM_email 13:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this looks like an accurate description. I particularly find the argument based on the other sections unpersuasive - the whole article isn't very good, we should be making it better. When we raise this kind of proposal, we should be explaining what happened to it. I don't think the split between positions is necessarily useful when discussing history - but this article does need a wide restructure anyway. Kahastok talk 22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolution 2353 Comment

Responding to a demand for a section on 2353, I added a section mentioning all significant facts surrounding this resolution. [4] I find this has been reverted with the edit summary:

“ (please stop pov pushing wcm. there is no argumentation or editorialising in any of the 3 sections. just the positions. also pushing the point that non white countries r to blame for resolution is creepy) ”

I don't believe WP:PA are a suitable grounds for reverting sourced text. Bringing it here for outside comment. WCM_email 13:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Which is hilarious considering you have been systematically reverting sourced text over the past six months and are continuing to do so at this very moment.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Asilah, whenever anyone has disputed a text you've wanted to add, they have given a reason. All you've done, almost every time anyone has tried to engage with you, has been to abuse them. If you have an objection to the edit in question you are welcome to state it. If the only reason for your revert is retaliation, as your response to this would seem to suggest, please note that that is considered highly disruptive.

But is there any point in saying this? I have no sense that you are willing to engage constructively without these accusations of bad faith and extreme personal attacks. If this were a simple disagreement that would be one thing. But if you are not willing to behave in accordance with Wikipedia norms - and you've been here over two years, you should know what they are - it would be best if you stayed away. Kahastok talk 22:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

80-90% of the reasons given for reverting sourced content so far have been "consensus required" or returns to non-existing "consensus versions" over the past months. I engage with many people on a number of articles constructively and come to consensus, even with people with widely diverging opinions to mine. This is the only article where systematic politically motivated POV pushing is occurring. Its the only one on wikipedia I have come across (I tend to steer clear of controversial articles) I would rather not have to engage on Gibraltar related articles since they don´t interest me that much. But where an article has/is being systematically destroyed for political reasons, I can't help but intervene. These two attempted edits are a flagrant violation of NPOV, it is OR, editorialising and destroys the balance, style an content of the three positions. It the nth proof of the bad faith of the user in question. Asilah1981 (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Spanish Position

Going back to sources at the weekend, I noted that the Spanish position as explained in this article is in fact incorrect. The Spanish legal argument is that Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht gives Spain the right of first refusal if the British were to relinquish Gibraltar. Thus if Gibraltar is to be decolonized, then Spanish rights under the Treaty of Utrecht would trump the self-determination right of its inhabitants who are effectively a third party. Thus its the historical Spanish title that Spain claims is pre-eminent here. Anybody object if I formulate an edit to correct this? WCM_email 09:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand your point. Are you saying that Spain does not have a current claim on Gibraltar based on the principle of territorial integrity and relevant UN resolutions, regardless of the content of the Treaty of Utrecht, and that its claim would only be activated should the UK ever wish/decide to relinquish Gibraltar? If so, that is incorrect and contrary to primary and secondary sources. But I may misunderstand your point. In any case, in view of recent edit-warring, proposed edits should be discussed in length, drafted on talk page and fully agreed to by all parties.180.94.83.10 (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No you don't understand, 1514 requires Gibraltar to be decolonized and under Utrecht they argue it should return to Spain if decolonized. WCM_email 09:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

By what I gather, you are saying that the Spanish/UN position is that Gibratlar should be returned IF it is decolonized. Sources state that the Spanish position is that it SHOULD be decolonized regardless. There is no conditional involved. How can you be arguing that its position is based on a Treaty which cedes the territory in perpetuity? It's odd, to say the least. So, no I personally do not agree with your proposed edit, since it seems to diverge completely from sources. But, then again, I may still be misunderstanding you. Maybe if you provide a draft version here it would be easier to get what you are trying to say? :-) 180.94.83.10 (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

OK lets start with the source you are using. I find it odd that from nowhere that an IP editor should happen to choose to weigh just when someone has been blocked for a week. WCM_email 09:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Awaiting your proposed draft so I and other editors can provide feedback and discuss.180.94.83.10 (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

What is your source, I'm not going to the effort of drafting edits only for some random person to obstruct progress without naming their sources. That is why this article is currently so awfully badly written. WCM_email 10:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I understand you may not want to waste your time. No issue discussing, prior to you composing the draft proposal. I'm not using sources beyond those cited in the section and some also I see posted in this talk page. I still don't understand what is "factually incorrect" about the current version. Could you point us to specific sentences or statements which are wrong or misrepresent the Spanish position? That would be very helpful.180.94.83.10 (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the IP is incorrect in his/her assessment, so far as I read the post.

Spain does not currently dispute that Gibraltar is British sovereign territory. Franco did, but that is not the current position. Spain's arguments are threefold:

• That British sovereignty in Gibraltar is strictly limited to the land and the port, not including any right to e.g. airspace or territorial waters because these concepts (which did not exist in 1713) were not explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht.
• That the legal border between Spain and Gibraltar is significantly to the south of the existing border, such that the isthmus is legally Spanish territory in its entirety.
• That UN decolonisation mandates require that Britain leave Gibraltar, and that under the Treaty of Utrecht this would give Spain a right to sovereignty over the whole territory.

In addition, Spain sees no reason not to use its political capital and the powers it has available to it domestically to persuade the British to hand Gibraltar over.

The British reject the first two points and only partially accept the third (they accept that Utrecht would require a handover but not that they have to leave); the Gibraltarians reject all three points entirely. Kahastok talk 19:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That is correct, I would like to rewrite this article but based on neutral academic assessments rather than the political statements it currently is. WCM_email 07:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea to me. Kahastok talk 18:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I find this proposal by users Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster to alter the consensus version highly problematic for quite a number of reasons, which go beyond past edit disputes about these sections that have involved much less drastic proposed changes.

Firstly, its rationale: The section aims to summarize the political position of a particular party. Primary sources are required in such cases. What is NPOV in this particular type of section is a "pick and choose" approach, construing or misconstruing a position from a range of secondary sources, resulting in intended or unintended misrepresentation of a position. Such secondary sources, in any case have not been provided, although they would never take precedence over the source which provides the actual position, ideally government or ministerial statements at national or IGO level.

Secondly, bullet points one and two refer to the conflict regarding the isthmus, which has a separate section on the article. It is not mentioned in the relevant British and Gibraltarian positions and distracts from the main rationale of the Spanish sovereignty claim.

Thirdly, the third statement misrepresents the UN position and Spain's interpretation of it. As quoted in the article, the UN does not simply mandate that Britain leave Gibraltar. It mandates that the UK leave Gibraltar on the basis of the principle of (Spain's) territorial integrity. This mandate and this principle are the basis of the Spanish position, as currently well summarized in the section. It should by no means be omitted nor should the citations from the relevant GA resolutions be deleted, as one could suspect would result from this proposed re-write.

Fourthly, the final sentence of Kahastok's seems to be unrelated to Spain's position but a personal appreciation on its diplomatic relations and actions regarding Gibraltar. It is totally unrelated to Spain's political position regarding the sovereignty question.

I hope that has been sufficient to summarize the reasons for my strong opposition to altering the consensus version. Thank you.180.94.83.10 (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

And there you illustrate perfectly what is wrong with your position. The only UN body that can make a definitive ruling on sovereignty is the International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly cannot and UN GA resolutions simply call for the UK and Spain to resolve their territorial dispute through negotiations. The UN has not taken a position on Gibraltar, simply because it can't; the only thing it could do is refer the case to the ICJ for an advisory opinion. You approach this taking a political stance, favouring one particular national narrative over another. Your position is also not based in policy, since WP:PRIMARY actually directs you not to use primary sources in this case. Notably, though you claim I'm not providing sources, (I am, I've already mentioned Hills, Jackson and Musgrave, to which I'd add Lincoln from the Fordham International Law Journal), despite being asked which neutral secondary sources you're using to oppose the proposal you have declined to do so. This is the 3rd proposal to improve this article, which has not been opposed for any policy based reason but what I would characterize as simply filibustering. WCM_email 08:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I note that the IP has argued for a position diametrically opposed to policy. The objection to primary sources is that it is basically impossible to judge due weight from primary sources alone, and any interpretation (explicit or implicit) of a primary source is forbidden by policy. These sections need to be principally sourced to secondary sources that allow us to discuss the situation based on their interpretations.

It also, it has to be said, odd that the IP suggests that the fact that Spain actually wants Britain to hand Gibraltar over is "totally unrelated to Spain's political position regarding the sovereignty question". If Spain wasn't interested, or was going through the motions, the dispute would be quite different. Kahastok talk 18:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Spanish position

As per RfC above I have added Spanish position based on 1) Official position of Spanish ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/gobierno/news/Paginas/2016/20160511--visits-gibralta.aspx and 2) BBC.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23617910 This follows Wikipedia policy and WP:PRIMARY which allows primary sources to be used in this case as has been pointed in RfC.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, WCM does not want the section on the Spanish position to this dispute to include any reference to the Spanish position, be it in primary or secondary sources. If this continues we can take it to another RfC, now that the other one has been delisted.User:Irondome Simon, I frankly find this annoying. We have excellent sources on what the Spanish position to this dispute is, we are lucky enough to have it summarized in English on the Spanish government website but WCM does not want it, nor does he want the BBC article (secondary source) providing pretty much the same info. Experience says there will be no consensus here, we can take it to RfC again, although the previous one was pretty clear. So next step is ? Dispute resolution? Im not backing down on this one. I'm not going to engage in miles of circular arguments which end in "Yes but the UN has no power to enforce its resolutions, anyways". We are simply describing the fricking Spanish position!!! Asilah1981 (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Irondome: Quote "I'm not backing down on this one", really this demonstrates no understanding of consensus editing. WCM_email 18:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Article Rewrite

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

---

I suggest this article could do with a rewrite. I propose to base this on neutral academic WP:SECONDARY sources, rather than the WP:PRIMARY sources it is currently based upon. This has been opposed with the comment that the article should only be based on WP:PRIMARY sources, principally political speeches and statements by the parties. I propose to use:

• Thomas D. Musgrave (2000). Self-Determination and National Minorities. Oxford University Press. p. 239. ISBN 978-0-19-829898-4.
• Simon J. Lincoln (1994). The Legal Status of Gibraltar: Whose Rock is it Anyway? Fordham International Law Journal. Volume 18, Issue 1, Article 8.

Opening up an RFC for outside opinion. WCM_email 11:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I support in principle of a rewrite based on secondary sources. I note that WP:PSTS says fairly explicitly that the section should be principally based on secondary sources, largely because it is impossible to judge weight from primary sources alone and because we can't draw any form of interpretation from primary sources.

As I have said before, this article is generally quite poorly structured and does not IMO give WP:WEIGHT where it is appropriate - judged based on secondary sources. Kahastok talk 18:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:PSTS.CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• I DON'T EVEN Kafkian. And when statements by secondary sources are brought, you have to expect the partisan editors undermining their points because an additional personal addenda by the editors to the statements by the secondary sources are needed?--Asqueladd (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• This seems rather a vague question for an RFC, but WP:PSTS is crystal clear that we always prefer articles to be based on reliable secondary sources where possible, so I support in principle. My only reservation would be that the two sources you have listed are quite old. If more up-to-date sources contradict them they shouldn't be rejected just because they're primary. Joe Roe (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with the Principle of adding Secondary Sources / Strongly Disagree with underlying objective of unilaterally rewriting article

I most certainly agree that secondary sources (in both English and Spanish) should, overall, be the basis of the article as per Wikipedia Policy. However, the situation here warrants some thought and context. I believe the heavy presence of primary sources may be a result of years of protracted edit disputes following a familiar pattern whereby editor A will outright deny or find other reasons to filibuster the inclusion of a relevant historical fact supported by secondary sources and editors B, C and D have been forced to prove It by presenting the exact wording of the primary source.

Furthermore, (and more importantly) adding secondary sources does not require a rewrite of the article. It simply requires adding secondary sources to statements which are already correct, rather than using the excuse of requiring secondary sources to eliminate facts possibly considered undesirable by one party to an edit dispute – An example of undesirable facts (see above) might be that the Spanish position is based on the UN Principle of Territorial Integrity and resolutions which call for Gib’s decolonization on the basis of that Principle. Eliminating references to this fact supported by both | Primary and Secondary sources, I suspect, is the fundamental purpose of this RfC.

There are three further points which are pertinent regarding this proposal to rewrite the article without consensus:

Firstly, the article has been consistently, over the past years, been subject to serious politically-fueled disputes. The imposition of a unilateral re-write by two editors (WCM and Kahastok), who have been participating in those disputes in what appears to be full co-ordination since as far back as 2009 and who were both topic-banned under current and/or past usernames for aggressive politicized POV pushing, would run contrary to Wikipedia policy requiring consensus differing sides for significantly modifying article content. I only bring this up because it is of direct relevance to this matter, not as an act of incivility. I was not editing these articles back in 2011-2012, but perhaps those involved in arbitration proceedings such as User:Timotheus_Canens or User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise would be better placed to judge whether these two editors should be allowed to perform a unilateral rewrite, in the light of recent disputes.

Secondly, the RfC rationale itself is misleading. I am not aware of anyone suggesting that the article as a whole should be based on Primary Sources. It has been argued that a section meant to summarize the position of one of the two parties of the territorial dispute (namely the Government of Spain) include the actual position of that side since it is widely available through multiple sources. The alternative is one editor attempting to construe a re-interpretation and re-evaluation of such a position, through cherry-picking sources of his liking, which may omit certain core elements of that position (namely General Assembly Resolutions) and present it according to the author’s POV. An English language summary of the Spanish position can be found on the Spanish government website, for example http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/gobierno/news/Paginas/2016/20160511--visits-gibralta.aspx The most NPOV source for a summary of a political position by a specific party is the position itself as expressed by the party involved. It would be equally wrong to present the British position from the optic of a politicized pro-Spanish source.

Thirdly, the current version of the contentious section which has sparked this RfC (Spanish Position) actually is fully aligned with this summary in a number of Secondary Sources addressing the issue directly: (See for example, BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23617910 , La Tercera http://www.latercera.com/noticia/gibraltar-las-dos-caras-de-un-viejo-conflicto-territorial/, or SetisMexico http://www.sitesmexico.com/noticias/2013/08/posicion-espana-reino-unido-gibraltar/ in a quick Google search) . The sources proposed by WCM on the basis of which to rewrite by himself the entire article (!) are: 1) a Paper which is entirely dedicated to arguing that Gibraltar should not be Spanish and has the right to self-determination (Simon J. Lincoln 1994) 2) a single page in an off-line book which is not even about Gibraltar or its sovereignty dispute (p.239, Musgrave 2000). Two sources which can hardly be categorized as apt for a unilateral re-write of an entire article which aims to fairly present two sides to a dispute. I am not saying these sources should be written off, but they may certainly not be the most valid for the section summarizing (not judging) the Spanish Position on a two-sided conflict nor for rewriting the entire article. To conclude, I agree with (and will participate in) including secondary sources in the article. However, this deficiency should not be used as an excuse to unilaterally annihilate its balance and existing consensus version with a rewrite, regardless of whether such consensus has been achieved through compromise or through attrition by one side - the latter being more likely, considering that numerous former editors such as User:Discasto or User:Asqueladd, have given up altogether on all Gibraltar related articles after bitter disputes following the lifting of sanctions on the sponsors of this RfC.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I was not that much involved to start with. After being witness to some nasty stonewalling tactics on user Asilah and doing some minor talk-page contributions in the morisco nonsense (filibustering at its finest) and the paripé about Minorca ( A : surely there are mentions about Minorca in secondary sources B : Look for your confirmation bias A: Yes, but even the already cited bibliography mentions the detail several times B : 'but you need a dissertation on why to include it in the fucking body (not even the lead) of the article above these lines, I have abandoned the tangential interest I had in those entries.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose on the basis of the age and English bias of the two sources proposed. A proper entry regarding this matter would require a wide ranging list of sources in English and Spanish at least, and certainly more recent ones. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be useful if you could delineate how you concluded that the two neutral academic sources are biased. One of the reasons for starting an RFC was to get community input on suitable sources to use and of course for suggestions of additional sources to use. Do you have any suggestions? In addition, what does the age of the source matter, it's not like positions have shifted in the last 60 years. WCM_email 15:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It appeared to me that you were limiting it to those two non-Spanish sources. Why would any reader think anything else given the wording of the RfC? Why did you suggest only two and only non-Spanish sources? There was no request for alternative sources or request for suggestions. If you had listed an equal number of Spanish and other sources, I doubt I would have responded the way I did. Age of sources does matter, as does the context from which they are drawn, and the academic work that has been done on a topic in the recent past. So, this was a poorly worded RfC for starters. If you want a neutrally written article, and I assume you must, then both the Spanish and British views should be given appropriate weight. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I made it clear the two sources I was proposing to use but I didn't limit it. There is no requirement to use none English language sources to be "neutral", the two are in fact written by an Australian and an American academic respectively. I really don't see why I cannot use English language sources, written by independent academics to reflect both views with due weight. In this case, age doesn't really matter for the legal arguments, no new arguments have emerged and the dispute moribund since the 1960s. By all means criticise my wording of the RFC but dismissing sources as biased on the basis of language isn't a policy based argument relevant to wikipedia. WCM_email 13:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support the principle of re-writing using English-language secondary sources, but I'm puzzled why you are limiting yourself to those two. Just a quick search on Google Books gave me what looked like usable books: [5], [6], [7], [8]. Balanced writing requires a broad range of sources. And of course care will need to be taken to avoid bias due to using British or Gibraltarian authors. Might it be wise to first write it as a user subpage, linked to from here? Scolaire (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not proposing to limit it to two sources, I just happen to have those two. Part of the reason for starting the RfC was to gain input on additional sources to use. FYI T.D.Musgrave is Australian, Lincoln is American, I've tried to use neutral sources to avoid accusations of bias. WCM_email 08:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose A sweeping proposal to rewrite an article would have to prove, to my satisfaction at least, that the article is grossly unbalanced, poorly written and badly sourced. None of those conditions apply here in my opinion, and certainly not all three. I don't agree with the presumption behind the wording of the Rfc that a rewrite is needed to "base this on neutral academic WP:SECONDARY sources, rather than the WP:PRIMARY sources it is currently based upon." The article contains plenty of secondary sources, and no one would oppose adding more. I do think, however, that the large quote blocks should be considerably cut down, or even integrated in much abbreviated form into the prose. I do sense a battle of the quote blocks.

I see some "failed verification" ("not in source") tags, and those should be remedied immediately. It's either in the source, or it's not. If not, change the text to match what the source does support.

Below are two examples of contested text (by editors, not primary sources) that need either explicit sourcing to support them as written, or if that's not possible, even tighter writing that can be explicitly supported by sources. That same kind of discipline should apply throughout:

"Spain insists that the Gibraltar dispute is a purely bilateral matter between the United Kingdom and Spain."[clarification needed]

"Gibraltarians argue that one cannot claim to be acting in the "interests" of a population, while at the same time ignoring its wishes and democratic rights."[undue weight? – discuss]

The editors need to focus like lasers on what the sources--whether secondary or primary--are explicitly saying and be extremely careful not to slip into synthesis when attempting to summarize what the sources say.

More generally, it makes a certain amount of sense to me that primary sources play a notable role in the article, which is attempting to present the divergent political positions in this controversy. Secondary sources set the scene and offer summary information. Quotes tell you explicitly what the political reactions are among the principals (three governments/entities and the UN) to the votes or findings and opinons of the other principals. My view about quotes is that they are somewhat analogous to photographs or illustrations of historical matters. Especially in an article like this, which is all about competing political positions, quotes should not be systematically suppressed. This article is not very much about movement and overt action that has to be reported; it's mostly about ideas, opinions and policies being formulated and expressed by the principals. Use their quotes in moderation, or even a little more than that; don't be prejudiced against them.

And lastly, think it's a poor idea to separate the Sources into British and Spanish sections, as if this were some kind of unreformed, unmodernized house of worship where males and females sit apart. The separation gives me the impression that editorial conflict is spilling into the presentation of referencing; the sections should simply be joined and alphabetized. DonFB (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid commenting, seeking to get as wide a range of views as possible and trying to avoid directing the discussion. However, you appear to be inviting comment. The issue with using solely WP:PRIMARY sources here, is that we only see positions stated (indeed as you've noted quotes are being used to do so). What we don't see is a neutral academic discussion on the pros/cons of each position. Any attempt at improving this has been reverted with the statement we're must only use WP:PRIMARY sources and academic discussion is "undermining" whatever national position is being presented. I don't see the reasons stated for reverting as valid ones to use on Wikipedia, hence, as part of DR I'm seeking wider community input. WCM_email 08:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well of course I would never agree to using only primary sources, and that's against policy, but I think it's a serious exaggeration to say the article is doing that now. DonFB (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as premature. Given the previous debates, you should prepare a draft of material that you will be adding to the article, and then holding an RFC on that material. Here, we see misrepresentations that the article is only based on primary sources, a proposal to only use English language sources published in the UK, and an RFC asking for a carte blanche to rewrite the article. Without seeing what the proposed addition is, it's hard to support this. Of course secondary sources should be used. But if used properly, primary sources are also acceptable to show what their authors are saying/doing (e.g. An official Spanish government website could be used to cite what the Spanish position is). The significance of included primary sources should generally be supported by the secondary sources. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Neither of the two sources proposed is from the UK. One is American, one is Australian - please note this is already discussed above. I have not and am not asking for Carte Blanche to rewrite the article (again I've made this plain above), merely asking the community to re-inforce wiki norms that we prefer secondary sources to primary sources. Noting above we have an editor insisting we can only use PRIMARY sources. WCM_email 02:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Striking that part. The rest of the post still stands. As WP:PRIMARY states: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This could include a Spanish minister's speech for his party/government's position on the Gibraltar debate. I think you are misinterpreting the IP (possibly a language issue, since they geolocated to Kabul) saying that primary sources are required to mean that only primary sources are allowed. The IP is talking about a section which summarizes the position of various parties, where primary sources are explicitly allowed, provided they are backed up by secondary sources. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No it wasn't the IP, it was a named account who reverted this:

“ The proposal was rejected by the British Government and by the Gibraltarians, which overwhelmingly voted to remain under British sovereignty in a referendum held in 1967 (12,138 to 44). Spain was given the opportunity to explain its proposals but declined to do so[24] but it was widely covered in the Spanish media (available in Gibraltar), so the proposals were well known. The Special Committee on Decolonization was informed in advance of the referendum and invited to observe.[24] The invitation was declined and instead the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 2353, which requested that the United Kingdom enter negotiations with Spain and criticised the United Kingdom for holding a referendum. Resolution 2353 (XXII) was supported by seventy-three countries (mainly Latin American, Arab, African and Eastern European countries),[25] rejected by nineteen (United Kingdom and the countries of the Commonwealth of Nations), while twenty-seven countries abstained (Western Europe and the United States).[25] ”

Regards, WCM_email 17:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, this does not look like a summary of the Spanish position, rather a commentary (bordering on WP:SYNTH) on why the Spanish and UN positions are not legitimate. Such information (barring the geographic location of each country involved in the vote, which is irrelevant) could be included elsewhere in the body of the article, certainly not within the "Spanish Position" section. What is relevant to the Spanish position section is the Spanish position and the grounds on which it is based: (UN Resolutions requiring decolonisation of Gibraltar on the grounds of territorial integrity, among others). This position is available in Primary and Secondary Sources as has been mentioned above. Asilah1981 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Request for Comment: Spanish Position Section of Article

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

---

This article describes the territorial dispute between the United Kingdom and Spain over Gibraltar. Within it there are three sections. The Spanish position, the British Position and the Gibraltarian Position. They each objectively describe the official position or Point of View of each party regarding this conflict.

It has been consistently argued by an editor that the official Spanish position summarized in English on the Spanish government website should not be included or referenced as a source because it is a Primary source and because it is POV. A secondary source from the BBC summarizing the Spanish position and mirroring the Primary source has also been consistently deleted by the same editor. I strongly object to the validity and underlying logic of both arguments. As has been mentioned in the prior RfC by other uninvolved editors, Primary Sources can be used in such cases. Secondly, a section which aims to describes the Point of View of X party can hardly be written off as Point of View. We are describing the Spanish position, which IS inherently a Point of View, as are the British and Gibraltarian positions.

The two sources which are considered unacceptable by the editor in question are the following:

• http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/gobierno/news/Paginas/2016/20160511--visits-gibralta.aspx (Spanish government website official position)
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23617910 (BBC online feature summarizing respective British and Spanish positions)

The question is: Should their content be excluded from the section and on what basis?

Asilah1981 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Invalid RFC, an RFC is not about forcing your edit into the article, you have not even tried to discuss this. And there has already been an RFC above, which is currently awaiting an experienced editor to close. RFC should not be about arguing another editor is WRONG. WCM_email 15:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Please note RFC was refactored after my comment. WCM_email 15:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it is noted you decided to requested the prior RfC closure by one uninvolved editor to be refactored and then simply reverted another closure by a second uninvolved editor yourself long after it had been delisted, on both counts because you disagreed with the closure summary.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar&diff=762471439&oldid=762455981 However, this is unrelated to the current RfC.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Carry on with the unnecessary point scoring personal attacks and misleading accusations - that is sure to deter any comments on your biased RFC. [9] The first RFC closure was reverted by Lemongirl942 following a request [10] for a review of the RFC closure and reverted as it had been done prematurely; the RFC had not completed the requisite 30 day period (in fact less than half that). I did revert the second closure, as the person responsible is clearly inexperienced and in their closure referred to personal attacks of "POV editing", reasons which flatly contradict established policy and are based on personal opinion only. The closure was invalid for that reason. WCM_email 18:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Additional Comment The RFC question is biased and does not accurately reflect what the issue is. The reference to primary sources is used to source extensive quotations turning the article into a poster child for the Spanish Government's claims. What is required for a NPOV article is not only to state the Spanish position but to also include commentary from neutral academic sources that discuss the claims. The more recent edit [11] is an example of abusing WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to simply cram in as many Spanish comments from many different angles as possible, that denounce Gibraltar as a "colony". This is a perfect example of giving WP:UNDUE coverage, which does not reflect the WP:WEIGHT of opinion in the literature. It is not simply enough that something can be sourced, or that it is an opinion expressed by Spain, we simply do not give it undue prominence but coverage commensurate with the weight of coverage in the literature. Denouncing the Gibraltar status six times in one edit is an example of undue prominence. Further the edit violates presenting a NPOV by citing Spain's interpretation of what the "UN position" is. There is no mention of any academic opinion on the matter, for example Klaus Dodds' comments that the British has modernised its relationship with its dependent territories fostering self-government so that the relationship is no longer colonial in nature. WCM_email 18:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. First, the RFC summary is biased and unnecessarily personalises the issue. The RFC is very premature, on a topic that has basically not yet been discussed on talk. It does not even tell us even what the edit proposed is. No attempt whatsoever has been made by the OP to find a solution to this point through the normal channels. The RFC was opened less than 40 minutes after the first time the topic came up on talk.

As WCM notes, the loaded language (such as the repeated use of the word "colony") in the text that Asilah has been edit warring in (which I assume is the text that he wants) clearly biases the text. I note with interest the vast prominence given to decades-old non-binding UNGA resolutions. This text is clearly POV. So the question here is whether WP:NPOV allows sections like the section on the Spanish position to be POV, or not. I contend not. This article is flawed in any number of ways - among them issues with POV balance - but that is not an excuse for adding further flaws to it. Kahastok talk 19:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

ReplyIt is not for us to judge, distort or dismiss the basis of the Spanish, British or Gibraltarian positions. If Spain argued that Gibraltar should be returned on the basis that the monkeys of the rock look Spanish, that would have equal validity and should be given due weight since it would be the basis of their position according to sources. The relative prominence of "decades old" General Assembly resolutions or the centuries old Treaty of Utrecht is not relevant to a section summarizing the rationale of the Spanish position, which are provided in Primary and Secondary sources.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Kahastok/WCM So your points are that 'the section which is meant to describe the Spanish position is NPOV and gives undue weight/excessive prominence to the Spanish position because it covers the Spanish position rather than other people's criticism/negative assessment of what you consider to be an unfair position? o_0 All I can say is that the RfC very much accurately describes what the issue is here. There are three positions on this conflict being described in this article, and a consistent attempt for one of them to be made disappear. :-) Asilah1981 (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with the fact that this article - all of it - badly needs to be restructured and rewritten. You opposed that.

But the fact is that not every change is a good change. The current text is far from perfect, but your proposal to add a whole load of POV in there - significantly increasing the emphasis on UN resolutions in the 1960s (that were already mentioned prominently in the text before your changes) and finding as many angles as possible from which to refer to Gibraltar using the loaded word "colony" - does not improve it.

But here's the rub. You're accusing people of bad faith again. And you are declaring that your text is non-negotiable. This continual insistence that you are so perfect that anyone who disagrees with you on even the smallest point must be acting maliciously is precisely why we have failed to make any progress on other points in previous discussions. It is your behaviour - and nobody else's - that caused those discussions to go nowhere.

You started this RFC less than 40 minutes after your first talk page message without even bothering to wait for others to engage on talk. In the process you broke almost all of your mentoring conditions. This certainly looks just another tactic to try and force your text into the article without discussing the objections to it a reasonable manner. Kahastok talk 18:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Taking a quick look I saw part of the deleted text in dispute:

According to the Spanish government, the colonial situation of Gibraltar is an historical anachronism in the midst of the United Nations Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2010-2020). This colonial vestige destroys the national unity and territorial integrity of Spain and is incompatible with Resolution 1514 (XV), from 1960, on Decolonisation. It cites various United Nations resolutions whereby, the General Assembly has clearly stated that, in the process of the decolonisation of Gibraltar, the governing principle is the restitution of the Spanish territorial integrity, which is incomplete by the presence of the colony on its territory.

I don't disagree with Asilah1981 that primary sources can sometimes be used judiciously and that they can be used to described the position of that source, but it seems to me the paragraph should emphasize that terms like "colonial" and "Decolonisation" are part of the opinion of the Spanish government and not undisputed. I think the paragraph should be made up more of quotes of the government's position or read something like:

According to the Spanish government, the situation of Gibraltar is colonial and an historical anachronism in conflict with the United Nations Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2010-2020). They believe UK sovereignty is a colonial vestige which destroys the national unity and territorial integrity of Spain and is incompatible with Resolution 1514 (XV), from 1960, on Decolonisation. The government cites various United Nations resolutions whereby, it believes the General Assembly has clearly stated that, returning Gibraltar to Spanish sovereignty would be decolonisation of that territory and that the governing principle of Gibraltar should be the restitution of the Spanish territorial integrity, which is incomplete by the presence of the colony on its territory. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC) (editor is a volunteer with Wikipedia:Feedback request service assigned this article more or less at random)

• responseBoogaLouie I'm fine with using quotes. It would avoid disputes on exact wording. But, to avoid confusion, there is no controversy or conflicting interpretations regarding the content of the UNGA resolutions. They are crystal clear in textually calling for a decolonization of Gibraltar on the principle of Spanish territorial integrity. The controversy is on whether it is fair for the UN to classify Gibraltar as a colony (it does as uninvolved editors can check in relevant wikipedia article United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories) and on whether these resolutions which call for decolonization are just/relevant/fair. Thus, if we don't go for quotes (I agree we should so no issue there), then there is no need to write "the Spanish government believes the General Assembly has stated that...". It has. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The UN does not classify Gibraltar as a "colony".

Obviously, if we were to expand on the UNGA resolutions from the 1960s in this part, we would need to make other alterations to maintain neutrality. For example, the paragraphs immediately following that also introduce exactly the same resolutions already would have to be removed or radically reduced, and the wording would need significant change, which the OP has made it clear he is not willing to accept. And it would still leave the section as a whole very badly-structured, jumping backward and forward through the chronology in a way that is more likely to confuse the reader than inform them.

This is part of the problem with the text that the OP is attempting to force in here. It's lede fixation because it's not the lede, but it's the same principle.

There clearly is a place for events around the 1967 referendum, but it is best placed in a history section in a more widely-restructured article. But we cannot have that because Asilah insists that any attempt by other editors to improve the article is necessarily malicious. Kahastok talk 17:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Kahastok, you still have not explained why you think a section describing a political position to a dispute has to "maintain neutrality". None of the three "positions" sections have to maintain neutrality, none of them are neutral. They 'inherently' describe non-neutral positions in a dispute and the legal, political and historical basis of these positions as per sources. We may strongly disagree with one of these positions or have an aversion for the grounds on which it is based, but wikipedia readers have the right to know the details of all three of them (British and Gibraltarian included) for the sake of having a balanced article.Asilah1981 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That argument is astonishing. Yes, of course WP:NPOV applies. As always. All of Wikipedia has to be neutral. Not just some of it, and we're not aiming for neutrality as a whole while allowing some sections to be biased. All of Wikipedia has to be neutral. Kahastok talk 18:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I can't see why this is an RFC. From looking at the edit, it seems the editor was abusing quotes to make some sort of WP:POINT - and I'd strongly agree with the revert. Whether this is an example of a strong nationalist POV I think the debate is still open but it certainly seems that way. In any case, there was no attempt to discuss and starting an RFC to get their way is simply WP:POINT. Is there not a case for simply making a bold close here? BedsBookworm (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

BedsBookWork, in the light of your editing history, I find it ironic and slightly disturbing that three editors primarily editing (on similar lines) articles related to the British Empire/Armed forced/British territorial disputes with Spain and Argentina, are using this RfC to launch personal attacks of "nationalistic editing" rather than providing arguments of substance. It would be good if we had some opinions from uninvolved editors. So far we have had only one (User:Boogalouie). Hopefully, we will get more over the next weeks. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The Gibraltar point of view seems to be that of the government of Gibraltar, which is effectively the British position, as Gibraltar is a UK territory anyhow. I would consider that undue and be able to be merged into the UK's position. Secondly, the "differing views" section could probably be cut down significantly on all sides of the issue. It's long and unwieldy and detailed analysis should be split off somewhere else in the article. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Not News

[12] Wikipedia is not a news site, we report the bare facts and we certainly don't report the silly things that politicians say to get attention. Shall we start the RFC now or will you not be a silly ass and revert war about it? WCM_email 17:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to edit war about it but, pardoning my French, it is a pretty big fucking deal which has made the international news and has direct repercussions on brexit negotiations and Gibraltar's place in them. It is not every day that a former leader of a ruling party of an EU country threatens another with military force. In fact,I don't think its ever happened before. The PM has had to react and so has the Spanish foreign minister. Its embarrassing for sure, but its relevant as hell and gives context to how the EU statement was received in London. Note my edit says that it was dismissed by Theresa May so I'm not being hyperbolic about it.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh its terribly relevant is it, feel free to waste the communities time with yet another frivolous RFC. As written the article gives enough for now. FYI Michael Howard was never leader of a ruling party and WP:NOTNEWS exists precisely to stop adding too much trivia like this. He didn't and couldn't threaten military force, since he is in no position to do so and we don't report such silly stories; they'll be forgotten tomorrow. WCM_email 17:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok do as you wish.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong title

The title of this article is wrong. The status is not disputed: the article even mentions this explicitly. The status of Gibralter is clear and accepted by the international community, and also by Spain itself. It is the future that is disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5E94:400:882B:9B71:8B52:CB30 (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

UN designation for Gibraltar is a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT), perhaps Asilah might care to explain their insistence on the POV laden term used by one side in the dispute over the use of a term that whilst not particularly accurate is nonetheless used by a body that tries to be neutral(ish). Gibraltar doesn't see itself as a colony and we should not ascribe a description in wikipedia's voice to it that does. I would request a polite response, without resort to personal abuse if at all possible. WCM_email 20:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The United Nations report dated 29 February 2016 uses the words colony and decolonization so these words appear in the Differing positions section. It matters not what Gibraltar sees itself as in the section Differing positions because this section uses the UN's terminology. The opinion of the Government of Gibraltar is clearly set out in the Gibraltarian position and elsewhere in the article. To explain differences one must set out both sides of the argument. Quote On 9 October 2015, addressing the Fourth Committee, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar said, inter alia, that it remained the last colony in Europe. - therefore the term colony stays in - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you tell me which UN report you are using, the version I have uses NSGT. My comments ref a polite response were not directed at you, you have been doing a good job of cleaning this mess of an article up. I am just rather fed up with abuse from another party. My apologies if I did not make that plain. WCM_email 22:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

As a further comment, please be wary of citing committee reports as the "UN position". There are two bodies that can express an opinion on matters, these are the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. Whilst its tempting to see UN committee reports as neutral, they rarely are, since they are often dominated by the politics of the nation states that make them up. E.g. the UN decolonisation committee the C24 is dominated by countries whose position is hostile to that of the UK, US and France and this is reflected in their reports. Best. WCM_email 22:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

WCM that is your personal opinion. Every single UN body is "dominated by politics of nation states that make them up". That nonsensical argument could apply to every single position made by every single UN body (not just the positions you want censored because they go against your sensibilities).Asilah1981 (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Although I do give it to you that the Decolonization Committee does have members which are historical arch-nemesis of the UK such as Papua New Guinea, East Timor, Tunisia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominica, Grenada, East Timor, Tanzania and Fiji. OF COURSE they are going to be biased against poor old Britain. Never mind that it has more members in the British-dominated Commonwealth of Nations than Spanish-speaking countries. :-DAsilah1981 (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course it isn't my personal opinion, this is well documented in neutral academic works. I see you couldn't resist either edit warring or resorting to abuse again. Really can't you find a better way to communicate? WCM_email 07:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WCM is quite right here. The only bodies capable of reaching a UN position are the General Assembly and the Security Council, and of those only the Security Council can make decisions that are binding on members. The word "colony" is very loaded, and thus best avoided. The UN does not use the word "colony", it refers to "non-self-governing territory" - which is a bit of a misnomer in itself in that it has nothing to do with the degree of self-governance the territory has. Kahastok talk 17:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)