Wikipedia

Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 17

< Talk:Gibraltar
Latest comment: 14 years ago by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick in topic Lead and Politics section (let's go for the last try!)
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

RFC Moving on

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

The version most people agreed with was Pfainuk's version, the exception being Gibnews, on that basis I propose the following:

Gibraltar (pronounced /dʒɨˈbrɔːltər/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar.[1] The territory covers 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) and shares a land border with Spain to the north. Gibraltar has historically been an important base for the British Armed Forces and is the site of a Royal Navy base. Gibraltar is self-governing with the UK retaining responsibility for foreign affairs and defence,[2], it nonetheless remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories due to the Spanish claim.[3]</

According to the Jane's Country Risk Ratings 2008, which measures the stability of 235 countries, territories and political entities in the world, Gibraltar is the 5th most stable territory worldwide, and the highest ranked British territory. The ratings are based on five fundamental categories: political, social, economic, external and military and security.[4]

The sovereignty of Gibraltar has been a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations. Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to the Crown of Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this, along with any proposal of shared sovereignty.[5][6] The British government has stated that it is committed to respecting the Gibraltarians' wishes.[7]

It contains nothing that anyone has objected to, I've subtly modified it to remove Gibnews' objection I hope. Justin talk 12:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As you know, I think that there are different POVs about the limits to self-government in Gibraltar. Some sources mention "defence and external affairs" like you said (e.g. BBC), but other sources also include "internal security" (e.g. the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, CIA, UK FCO, UK FAC, UN...), "public service/public appointments" (UK, FCO, UK FAC, UN...) and "financial stability" (CIA). It would be better if you could find a wording that included all those views and which were acceptable by you. I have proposed to use the words from the UK FAC "almost complete internal self-government", but maybe you can propose a different one if you don't find it agreeable. --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The difference has actually been explained, you have expressed agreement with Pfainuk's approach, this is no different. Now are you going to break consensus by withdrawing your agreement. Justin talk 16:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I have agreed with Pfainuk's approach 1) as a second option and 2) with the caveat about the wording and the content of the exceptions to Gibraltar's self-government. Please look at my comment here. You have proposed a slight adaptation due to Gibnews' comments. All I ask is that you think about my objection (which is pretty reasonable, given that different sources indeed support different exceptions to Gib's self-government) and either say that "almost complete internal self-government" is something you can agree with (something not unthinkable, given that in fact both "except external relations and defence" and "except ext relations, defence, internal security and the public service" do not contradict "almost complete internal self-government", even the first may fit better than the second with that wording) or propose some different wording that agrees with the position of all those relevant sources. I really think we are not too far. --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually your comments are exactly the same as you have previously asked, which have had a reply. In fact, you've had extensive replies and repeated attempts at an explanation about 156 kB. You've asked to define what exactly it is you don't understand, you have that opportuity. Now I've thought about your objection, explained why you're in fact incorrect, so unless you don't understand something and can tell us what you don't understand then lets move on. Because if another near consensus falls apart under tendentious wittering I have had it with you. Justin talk 17:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
"Tendentious wittering"? "I have had it with you"? Calm down, man. You insist that I completely supported Pfainuk's proposal. It seems that you have not read my repeated comments, so I'll summarise them: I supported Pfainuk's approach but stated two caveats, one of which was that many sources include the exceptions of "internal security" and "the public service" (one of them even includes "financial stability") besides Pfainuk's "external affairs and defence". I also said that it was only my second option (as many other editors). Let's summarise everybody's position and then let's move on (orderly). Come on, don't take it so hard, we are not solving Gibraltar's future but (nothing less nor more than) discussing about a wikipedia article...
One more thing: you don't mean that you are only considering Gibnews' caveats but not mine, are you? --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
OK you've had an answer to your "two caveats" about "internal security" and "the public service". Point of fact, the difference between written and unwritten consitutional matters has been explained more times than I care to count. So what exactly is it that you don't understand?
Because I'm not going through the arse ache of explaining it at great length again only for you to raise the same point again. Its the very definition of tendentious editing.
Now you did agree to the text, so are you now backtracking? Justin talk 19:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

Latest comment: 14 years ago18 comments8 people in discussion

I think that a straw poll could be useful, like Red Hat suggested. I will post below the different options that I have seen so far, but anyone can make modifications:

  1. Leave the lead as it is: "Gibraltar is a self-governing British Overseas Territory"
  2. Include the exceptions to self-government and the UN list of non self-governing territories
  3. Just mention the fact that Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory
  4. Add that Gibraltar remains on the UN list due to Spanish Government pressure at the UN C24 list or because of the Spainish Government's sovereignty claim
  5. Include the fact that the UN defines self-government according to an obscure and arcane definition so that people realise the comparison is akin to apples and oranges
  6. Noting that only Gibnews objected to Pfainuk's proposal work on that to remove the objection.

From what I've seen, most editors have a best option and a second best option. Therefore, if you want you can have two votes: one for "best option" and another one for "second best option".

Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple of options as it hasn't started yet, or alternatively recognise that there is an option that no one really objected to and work with that. Justin talk 16:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Noting option 6, perhaps consider that a straw poll is unhelpful. Justin talk 16:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
So what would your option be? --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
My comment relates to the fact that the RFC was launched because there is an assertion that certain options violate WP:NPOV. Unless all your options satisfy it, then its not effective. Omitting self-govening fails WP:NPOV, as apparently does failing to mention the UN C24 list (although the UN C24 list uses an odd definition as to what constitutes self-governing). So your poll as formulated was ineffective. I also note that you launched it after I moved to work on the only option to which there was a single objection, which could easily be modified to an acceptable standard. Now unless you're withdrawing your acceptance of Pfainuk's proposal there is a simple and clear route to a solution. Justin talk 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As a compromise solution, as I've told said, I support options 2, 3 and 4. That is, more or less, Pfainuk's proposal (although I favour the addition of "internal security" to the list of exceptions, as fairly argued by Imalbornoz). --Ecemaml (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC) strikethough and modification to correct grammar error Justin talk 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted previously, internal security is in fact devolved to Gibraltar through the Police Authority, with the Governor's sole responsibility to simply rubber stamp their recommendation, the comments on the 2007 incident reflect the transition to the new constitution. Please, lets not attempt to diminish the role of the Gibraltar Government with a semantic argument based around the unwritten elements of the 2006 constitution. Pfainuk is pretty close to a consensus and we only have to convince Gibnews and I think my wording might do it. Justin talk 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


3. Just mention the fact that Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory - by far the best option

2. Include the exceptions to self-government and the UN list of non self-governing territories - barely acceptable, though to my mind a clear example of lead bias. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd favour not mentioning self-government in the lede, but getting into detail mentioning "the exceptions to self-government and the UN list of non self-governing territories" within the Politics section. Don't know if it's the option number 2 or 3.
As for the latter 3 options added afterwards, I reject them as valid premises:
  • 4- "Add that Gibraltar remains on the UN list due to Spanish Government pressure at the UN C24 list or because of the Spainish Government's sovereignty claim". Don't know which reliable sources are used to substantiate such a claim, but I'd like to read them. Mostly to learn how has Spain managed to keep other 9 completely unrelated British Overseas Territories in that list (if possible, sources not consisting in speeches by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar).
  • 5- "Include the fact that the UN defines self-government according to an obscure and arcane definition so that people realise the comparison is akin to apples and oranges". Well, that's hardly a fact, since deeming something as an "obscure and arcane definition" is essentially a subjective assert and, as such, just another Point of View.
  • 6- "Noting that only Gibnews objected to Pfainuk's proposal work on that to remove the objection". WP:NOTUNANIMITY. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • From the RFC: Looking at the sources, there are two reliable secondary sources saying Gibraltar is self-governing, and one primary source saying the opposite. Now, secondary sources are preferable so I'd say this weighs toward saying that Gibraltar is self-governing. A further point in favour of this is that there appears a logical reason for the territory to feature on the UN list. A few more secondary sources saying the same would in my opinion close this deal conclusively. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Funnily enough Gibraltar is about the only BOT that has been suggested to be removed from the list and thats the only one they wouldn't remove and its the only one that Spain objected to. So lets not try and remove valid sources through ridicule shall we?
So the fact that the UN definition bears absolutely no relation whatosever to whether a territory governs itself is a subjective assessment. I call bullshit on that one.
And as Gibnews is the only person to object, if he agrees then there is unanimity and the straw poll was never necessary.
The indecent haste to move away from the consensus on Pfainuk's proposal to expunge self-governing is really telling isn't it. Speaks volumes it really does. Justin talk 17:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Remove valid sources through ridicule? You mean the speech made by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, don't you? Can you really affirm that's a neutral source without blushing?
As for your "call to bullshit": it is indeed a subjective assessment. But, more importantly, it's an unreferenced assessment. Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming that UN documents are always neutral sources. But are verifiable, at the very least. On the other hand, you are asking us to disregard a document produced by a highly notable international organization on the grounds of its definition of self-governance being absolutely unrelated to reality... according to whose opinion?
As a final note, I feel that you could really make your points -whichever they might be- without epitheting as 'fatuous' my arguments. That's not what edit summaries are for. Cremallera (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you find that the opinion of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar regarding Gibraltar is not reliable. Peter Cararua QC is also an eminent lawyer, look up Queen's_Counsel so whatever arguments he uses at the UN are factual. As regards the UN, They are hopelessly out of date now and due to Spanish pressure there has been no progress in the C24. That Gibraltar is on their list is a fact, it does not mean anything, but its a fact and deserves a mention later in the article. It is otherwise of no consequence and changes nothing about how Gibraltar operates. --Gibnews (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't said reliable. I've said neutral. The opinion of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar regarding Gibraltar is the opinion of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar regarding Gibraltar. No more and no less. Cremallera (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I was in fact referring to the UN document, where the Spanish Government official objects to its delisting. I only mention the word "Spanish", because the UN mentioned the word and the person who said it happened to be, err. "Spanish". So please don't feel the need to run off, pretend to be offended, telling tales and try and get me blocked again. As its less than 24 hrs since I asked you to stop misrepresenting my arguments all the time perhaps I should do that.
Neither did I say we should disregard the UN, again I never actually have done so, equally that doesn't stop us explaining to let the reader decide for themselves whether the UN C24 is a farce. The actual comment I made was to explain what the UN says and make it plain what you're comparing.
What can I conclude from this. Well it has only been 24 hrs since the last time I asked you to stop misrepresenting me. I generally don't react too well to this, point of fact it usually pisses me off something chronic and I do have a tendency to over react. So I pretty much guess you were being an arse to get a rise and then try to get me blocked. Am I close?
Second, there seems a rush to stop any explanation of what the UN position is to make it plain to a reader. Guess some people have realised it doesn't make such a good impression when the explanation is there and the apparent dichotomy between the two is explained. Am I close? Justin talk 18:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Justin, you don't allow me to write on your talk-page, so I'll do it here to try to stop you striking through my comments in the classification of sources. There is a third view, from people that (literally) say "self-governing except for..." or "almost complete self-government". Any of these words ("except" and "almost") mean "to some degree but not completely." That is different both from "complete" and "none". This is not "the pursue of a nationalistic agenda" (please, WP:AGF), but trying to classify things more logically. If you don't trust my opinion, then look at all the comments from outside editors above. In fact, it supports the option that Pfainuk proposed and you support (which is different from just "Gibraltar is self-governing". Let us not get too picky, come on... --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is another WP:RS (It's from Israel, I searched for a non-UK English language source) which says The territory has a large degree of autonomy with respect to government and law; only foreign affairs, and defense and security matters are in Britain's hands. The UN document is a primary source, which is less preferable for editing than secondary sources, see WP:OR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Now "autonomous" and "self-governing" in my opinion convey that the entity they're applied to is not "independent" or "sovereign" but that the degree of independence is less than complete. This source, however, has chosen to use "large degree of autonomy" and I would be OK with that in this article as well. --Dailycare (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, thanks for your contribution. It's refreshing to hear a new opinion after such a long discussion. I am not quite sure I agree that the United Nations is a "primary source". Spanish, British or Gibraltarian sources would be primary because those countries/ territories are involved in the dispute. The United Nations is clearly secondary because it is "at least one step removed from the event", as the definition quoted by you says. It is hard to accept anything except "non-self-governing" when such a highly respected source like the UN says so about Gibraltar. Perhaps the day-to-day issues are run by local politicians, and my opponents in this discussion have put forth some sources, but neither defense, security, nor foreign policy are run locally. After all, this is a British Overseas Territory, not a sovereign state. By definition, it cannot be entirely self-governing. My position remains that both pieces of information or POV's should be included in the lead (see point 1), or none at all and simply avoid the issue of self-government (see point 2). In the first case, I am also happy with the phrase "large degree of autonomy" which you suggested. I think this is the only way to achieve neutrality.

1) "Though Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government [or "a large degree of autonomy"] [1], it remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories".[8]
2) "Gibraltar (pronounced /dʒɨˈbrɔːltər/) is a British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking (...)

JCRB (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin's Suggestion

Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

[2] Works for me, but re the wording "nonetheless remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories due to the Spanish claim" needs a reference for the italicized portion (sorry if I missed that one has been provided for this above - this talk page is huge now). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a UN reference above. Plenty more where that came from. Justin talk 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Putting the blame on one of the parties (Spain) will not help. That's exactly the opposite of what we're trying to achive here: neutrality and objectivity. JCRB (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a matter of verifiability, JCRB, not blame. Which reference, Justin? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
[3] and as I said there are more. In answer to JCRB, its no different to the text you in fact proposed "as Spain maintains a territorial claim on Gibraltar." Your words not mine. I said nothing about blame. You've already pretty much agreed to this. Justin talk 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
That reference does not explicitly say that Gib is on the list due to the Spanish claim. It merely states that Spain opposes its removal. In terms of verifiability that is a very important difference. (Unless I've misunderstood, Spain does not have a veto over Gibraltar's removal any more than Britain has a veto over its inclusion). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with TRHPF. Spanish oposition is important since it's the party having a claim. But, as in the UEFA case, its mere oposition (and lobbying) would not be enough unless it gathered enough support. Spanish oposition is a necessary but not sufficient condition to achieve the permanence of Gibraltar in the list. --Ecemaml (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
No the statment is that it remains on the list due to the Spanish claim, I at no point stated it resulted from the Spanish claim. Do I take it that now people are withdrawing their affirmation of a text that they'd accepted? Because I for one am just sick of this. Justin talk 08:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Justin, please don't take this the wrong way. Any rewording needs to be explicitly supported by the references. The problem is not with the word remains, it is with the word due. The solution is very simple, so there's no need to get cross about it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
We'd actually agreed this text already so it had support. Now it seems some want to pick holes in sources and pick the text apart and you wonder why I might be feeling a tiny bit frustrated that we going into a spiral of nit picking again. How about helping to find sources and work in co-operation for a change? Because I for one am sick of people finding reasons to reject text, or finding sources to raise nit picking queries. Its also virtually impossible to get agreement when people are changing their minds all the time. It seems that some people don't wish to share in the graft of finding sources either. I'm also fed up of people finding excuses to run to AN/I trying to get the editors they disagree with blocked, or running to admins saying that Justin is being beastly again. Justin talk 12:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't blow your top, Justin. Remember, it's only Wikipedia! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this, this text de-emphasizes the contentious aspect a bit:

1) "Gibraltar has wide-ranging internal autonomy, while its foreign relations are controlled by the United Kingdom" --Dailycare (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion, I think we've got past that bit for a new roadblock to appear. Justin talk 12:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I thank you for the suggestion as well. I would support it if it included other different POVs about the scope of matters under control of the United Kingdom: some sources say that there are more matters controlled by the UK, such as defence, internal security, the public service and -this last one only supported by the CIA yearbook- financial stability (you can review them in the introduction of the RfC, and you can bring some more as you did with the one you found from Haretz -I have put that one in the introduction as well). --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Autonomy is very much a dirty word in Gibraltar, due to its use in the sixties by a group advocating autonomy within another state. I would also dispute that foreign relations are 'controlled' by the UK, although they are 'managed' by it. Although Jack Straw pronounced on television here he was "The foreign minister for Gibraltar" he was told to F..k off, left quickly and has never returned.

I agree with Justin, we need more sources and less argument.

eg:

Note by Imalbornoz: This source seems to have got its content from wikipedia itself:
The similarity (or rather identity) is pretty clear. The reporter should have given some credit to WP as a source, or have changed the wording a little bit... --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Gibraltar, identity and empire By Edward G. Archer
Describes the process leading up to the 2006 constitution, showing the intention of it was de-listing.
A committee, composed of politicians of all parties, was set up 'to review all aspects of the Gibraltar Constitution Order of 1969 and to report back to the House of Assembly on any desirable reform thereof'. This was to be a wholly Gibraltarian exercise reflecting Gibraltarian wishes and aspirations, evidence being taken from many sources.
The Committee reported in 2002. The objective had been not to write a new Constitution but to propose amendments to the current Constitution such as would maximise the self-government of Gibraltar by the people of Gibraltar retaining British sovereignty and close links with Great Britain'. In other words, what was looked for was 'both a suitable modernisation of the relationship with the United Kingdom, with consequential and enhanced powers of self-government and de-colonization in terms acceptable to The United Nations Committee 24.'

Sadly although charged with decolonisation of Gibraltar the C24 have not achieved anything and have not shown sufficient interest to even visit the territory on a fact finding mission. --Gibnews (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, I think this approach of "more sources and less arguments" is very good. The next step, given that it seems that many sources have different positions about the degree of self-government in Gibraltar, would be to agree in some wording that summarises all of those POVs. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly support more sources and less argument. How about simply "Gibraltar has wide-ranging internal self-government"? (would "self-rule" be awful?) The exceptions may be mentioned in the body of the article. Similarly, I'm not sold on the idea of having the UN list mentioned in the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I could agree with that wording (it summarises most of the sources POV). --Imalbornoz (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

YET ANOTHER PROPOSAL

Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments14 people in discussion

a) qualifying self government with internally. I see that most references say that after the 1969 constitution. This also eliminates any issues of Defence and foreign affairs.

b) Omit the reference to Spain and the UN. These are covered later in the article, and in any event make no difference to practical government of Gibraltar as sumarised in the lead. They are appropriate to the describing political situation, but when Mr Martinez in Gibraltar wants something done he does not contact the UN or HMG he talks to the elected Government of Gibraltar.

c) short sharp and totally factual. If we really MUST dissect Government then it should not be done in the introduction.

I think this covers a number of objections. However this argument has gone on for long enough and I sense a willingness to terminate it, so can I invite your comments on this proposal, LIMITED TO agree/disagree and ONE LINE ONLY. No rants no sermons and no repetition of previous argments please. --Gibnews (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note for those recommending Pfainuk's proposal, I modified it yesterday to addres Gibnews' objections but it seems that some editors have withdrawn their support for it. Justin talk 18:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

SUPPORT FOR THE ABOVE

It is a good compromise? Just because it adds the word "internal"? What an incredible concession by Gibnews. Sorry, I won't swallow that. JCRB (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
You were asked to vote once and you have already done so. --Gibnews (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar motto

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

As there seems to be a persistent attempt at changing it to Mons Insignia Calpe perhaps someone could comment on the providence of the existing one as the GoG website is a bit confusing. Note there are no sovereignty implication so it would be interesting to see how many editors are interested in this topic. --Gibnews (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with the dispute about the motto. What is the problem? I will help if I can. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The GoG website reads clear to me. Montis Insignia Calpe has always been the motto and is always displayed beneath the badge of Gibraltar (Castle & Key). The other motto - Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti - is the motto of the Gibraltar Regiment and WAS used in the old official seal of the Rock which actually had a picture of the Rock with this motto beneath. Thus that motto never was linked to the Castle & Key, only the 'Montis...' one ever has. Check this link and read what it says: http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/national-symbols
In particular this prargraph:
'In 1869, a Circular despatch was sent to all Colonies requesting that a sketch of the Arms or Badge to be adorned in the centre of the Union Jack used by the Governor should be supplied to the Colonial Office. The sketch which was submitted by this Government on the 1 st January 1870, depicted the triple towered castle with dependent key with the words "Montis Insignia Calpe" underneath. This design was approved by the then Secretary of State and concurred in by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.'
I think this makes it quite clear that the coat of arms of the Rock depicts the Castle and Key together with the 'Montis...' motto. They go together and any attempt to replace this motto with another goes against known practice and documented history.
This paragraph goes some way to explaining the provenance of the 'Nulli...' motto and where it was used:
'The origin of the device on the Seal of the Colony which consists of a picture of the Rock with a sailing ship in the foreground and the words "Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti" underneath cannot be traced but it has been suggested that it has been taken from a Commemorative Medal of the Siege, which is believed to have been designed under instructions from General Eliott. No record of such a model can, however, be traced.'
I think again that this paragraph makes clear thet this seal and motto is of much more recent design and not the historic motto at all.
One of the final paragraphs of the article makes a conclusion we should pay close attention to:
'The Secretary of State sought the advice of the Garter King of Arms as to whether the Arms granted by Ferdinand and Isabella could be regarded as the recognised ones without the necessity for a Royal Warrant and, if so, whether they could be placed on record officially with the addition of the motto "Montis Insignia Calpe". He was advised that this could be done without the issue of a Royal Warrant and it was suggested that a properly attested and accurate copy of the Grant of Arms in 1502 should be recorded at the College of Arms.'
I think this makes the whole discussion a lot clearer. Red dragon rock (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, but would like to hear the view of the other editors who have been reverting the change. I think the motto currently shown is that of the Gibraltar Regiment rather than Gibraltar itself, albeit a good one. --Gibnews (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree on the basis that we have no sources clearly stating which one is the motto of the territory of Gibraltar rather than just its coat of arms. I say this as at the moment we cannot be sure that that of the CoA is the same as that of the territory. If we cannot find any sources that clarify this I propose adding both mottos. --Gibmetal 77talk 23:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
To help illustrate my point, take the United States for example, its Great seal features the motto E pluribus unum whereas the official motto of the USA is In God We Trust. --Gibmetal 77talk 02:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Does this help at all? - [5] Hope it can be classed as reliable - it agrees that the "nulli..." motto is that of the Gib Reg. The Gib Reg site also shows their badge with "nulli..." underneath it.[6] Willdow (Talk) 09:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid it doesn't. We know it's the motto of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment but why would this stop it from being the national motto also? --Gibmetal 77talk 11:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
My two cents: The US has two mottos: "Motto: In God We Trust (official); E Pluribus Unum"(traditional)"[7] Could it be that Gib has two mottos as well? --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


That's basically what I said a couple of posts above : ). However, I think it's too early to assume this. Some further research is required. --Gibmetal 77talk 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry :-( (I saw it and then after some time the US popped up in my head again -probably 'cos I's already seen your comment but didn't remember it). Anyway what I wanted to stress is that not only the US has two mottos, but its WP article mentions them in a fashion that the Gib article could use as inspiration[8] (after due investigation of course). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"BOT" only Proposal

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments11 people in discussion

It seems we have missed a proposal which a majority of involved editors have supported, which is to mention "British Overseas Territory" only, and drop the issue of self-government. It would be useful to recap on this. I have taken the time to count those in favour. Please write your name below the appropriate heading: "In favour" or "Against". JCRB (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BOT is totally meaningless in relation to the exercise of Government as each territory is different. --Gibnews (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
"... to mention "British Overseas Territory" only, and drop the issue of self-government" -- does your proposal mean removing also the second sentence which concerns self-government too? ("It nonetheless remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories as Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from the list.") Apcbg (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In favour:

  • The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. Please see Wikipedia:Main_article_fixation: "Article leads get by far the most attention from editors, and especially if an editor has a political or religious agenda, he or she will insist that their point appear in the intro, where it will get more attention, sometimes without noticing that the same point is already present in the article body." - that is exactly the case here (on both sides). -- The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • JCRB -- JCRB (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Like many outside editors have said, it does not skew the lead to one side or the other: BOT status already means a great degree of internal self-government, and there's no need to include the UN list either; most "country profiles" (Britannica, UK FCO, BBC...) have exactly this description in the intro and then describe the type of government in the Politics section. This approach got undisputed consensus for 7 years until April 2009. Imalbornoz (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC) - PS: My second option would be Pfainuk's proposal but with "almost complete internal self-government" and a mention to the UN list (without entering into "whose fault it is", which I'm sure is not a simple matter)
  • Richard Keatinge We don't need to comment on this in the lead, if we do we should include some rather silly caveats to be entirely accurate, and with all due respect to other editors, this suggestion has nothing to do with opposing Gibnews' political agenda or supporting any Spanish claim. As a point of fact, Gibraltar seems to governs itself rather thoroughly. This is made suitably clear in the appropriate section. I don't think that the point is made any better by including endlessly disputable oversimplifications in the lead. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Moderately support Ecemaml
My first argument is that none of the articles on BOTs qualifies which kind of BOT they are (only this and the Falkland Islands; as both are subjects of a territorial dispute and its inclusion or not seems to have to be with NPOV... I recall that in every BOT where no dispute is in place, no mention to its degree of self-government is mentioned in the lead sentence). Therefore, I can't see any valid reason to include it in the lead sentence (BTW, Scotland does not include any mention to self-government in its lead sentence).
Having said that, I found the mention to "intenal self-government" much better than the previous.
Finally, as usual, I support strongly Pfainuk's first proposal.

Against:

  • Oppose Already indicated this is not acceptable, compromise has been offered but seemingly some people aren't prepared to accept it. As for lead fixation, not in this case it is a case of censoring the lead because some people wish to skew the POV of the article. Not helpful. Justin talk 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Totally. Let us recall why we are here - a small number of editors are in denial about Gibraltar being self governing because it impacts the Spanish territorial claim. To say that stating Gibraltar is internally self-governing is a concession to me is insulting, it is a concession to telling the truth, and that is what Wikipedia should reflect. Gibraltar was largely self-governing under the 1969 constitution - which upset Spanish sensibilities considerably, enough to close the frontier and impose other restrictions. But under that constitution there were two ex-officio members of the assembly appointed by HMG. In practice and certainly since the late 80's these members too no active part in parliamentary business and under the 2006 constitution their role was abolished making the parliament 100% elected and devolving any residual powers exercised by non-elected members to the legislature and Government ministers. The role of the Governor as nominal head of state, mirrors the Monarch in the UK and simply isolates some functions of the state, eg the judiciary from direct political control of politicians, which is considered a desirable thing in a democracy. That Gibraltar is both on paper and in reality self-governing no doubt upsets the sensibilities of the Gib bashers even more. But we are not writing these pages for them, Wikipedia exists to inform people, not pander to delusions. Tough, that's the way it is. Gibraltar is now internally self governing and to censor it is quite unacceptable. Indeed it needs to be prominently shown so there is absolutely no doubt about it. Here we can argue until the end of time about this but it will not make any difference to the way things are, and that is what we should describe not a convenient misstruth. --Gibnews (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Surely, self-government is important enough to be mentioned in the lead. Indeed, that is done in the Scotland article, and what is good for Scotland is good for Gibraltar I reckon, more so that Gibraltar enjoyes a greater degree of self-government than Scotland does. Apcbg (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The Scotland article says:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. Occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, it shares a border with England to the south and is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands including the Northern Isles and the Hebrides.

No mention to self-government in the lead. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Both articles have introductions (the text above the first section of the article) comprising few paragraphs each, and the Scotland article deals with self-government in the last paragraph of its introduction. While I wouldn't mind having self-government mentioned someplace near the end of the Gibraltar article's intro, the issue of Gibraltar's UN-alleged lack of self-government is brought up already in the first paragraph. Which means that's the place to mention self-government too.
  • Oppose - I see no virtue to this compared to the compromise above offered by GibNews. Can we please work on one proposal for a section of text at a time. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think self-government is important enough to go in the lede. That doesn't mean it has to go in the first sentence (I maintain support for my previous proposal). This goes to strong oppose if it is proposed that mention of the C24 list remain in the lede paragraph. Pfainuk talk 19:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

San Roque revisited

Latest comment: 14 years ago84 comments10 people in discussion

The discussion on whether to include a mention of San Roque on the main Gibraltar page has rather died down but we are left with the rambling remnants of a RfC and a POV tag in the main article.

We did, after arguing at much length come up with come consensus wording about the departure which needs to be left alone. BUT in order to move on and bury this issue I make the following proposal :

EXISTING
By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed.

PROPOSED
By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left peacefully. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with the many settling in San Roque, Cadiz.

Again lets have a VOTE on this, limited to one line and not sermons, lectures, invitations to rate articles, rants about 'most noble' etc. They went, its over lets see if we can settle this as well. --Gibnews (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Voting to include this wording (revised 31/01/10)

Comment - you saw my reference below which uses the term "most"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
'Most' would be 'more than half' I suppose; is there any specific data on the distribution of settlers? Apcbg (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Still Disagree It is picking one of many, why single one out? It is being given undue prominence due to the modern context of elements of Spanish nationalism and this misleads readers about the exodus of the population. Justin talk 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Moderate disagree. I agree with the reference to San Roque (although references provided above prove ad nauseam (see User:Ecemaml/Selected_quotations_about_Gibraltar#San_Roque) that most of the Gibraltar inhabitants settled down in San Roque, I found any wording as an acceptable compromise redaction). However, as Imalbornoz points out below, there's no reason to include an assessment so dubious as "peacefully". Is there any reason not to leave the first part of the sentence as it was? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC) PS2: the sources also prove that giving "prominence" to San Roque is simply given due weight to each settlement
  • Almost Agree. My main problem is with the word "peacefully": it is not in the current consensus sentence. What sources say is "took what they could carry of what had not yet been plundered, and then filed through the gate towards the ruins of ancient Carteia" (George Hills -ancient Carteia=San Roque), "a dejected procession filed out of the Land Port" (William Jackson), "transported themselves and their movables across the new frontier to the Campo de Gibraltar, and especially to San Roque." (Stephen Constantine)... But no relevant source seems to think that the word "peacefully" is appropriate for that exodus (and I sure agree with them, taking into account we are describing 4,000 people leaving their homes a few hours after rapings, desecrations, plundering and murders in retaliation took place, not a walk into the countryside for a pic-nic). Sorry for the verbose comment :-( but I thought those sources had to be mentioned. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Almost Agree. I too have a problem with the word "peacefully". Sources say the population left fearful of the abuses of the British soldiers. That is hardly a "peaceful" exit. JCRB (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Carteia was the Roman name for the Campo area, most certainly not just the town of San Roque, which anyway did not exist as such at the time. The Roman ruins spread far and wide. The municipality of San Roque is quite different from the town and has nothing to do with Gibraltar at all. --Gibnews (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked for a vote not a lecture. Yes, San Roque is a great place for a picnic, even today, providing the wind is blowing away from the refinery. --Gibnews (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry again for the "lecture". In the first sentence, we had consensus without the word "peacefully" and -theoretically- were only discussing for a new sentence to be added (or not) about San Roque. If you leave the consensus sentence alone (if it ain't broken don't fix it) and focus the discussion in the new sentence about San Roque, my "lecture" will not be needed (and I'll gladly either remove it or collapse it). Thank you very much. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Your lecture was unnecessary and its clear you didn't bother to consider what is being suggested. Read again, with the emphasis added to draw your attention. "We did, after arguing at much length come up with come consensus wording about the departure which needs to be left alone.". The English phrase you're looking for is "Sorry, my bad, I fucked up." Justin talk 17:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposition to solve the long running debate is on the table. Having altered the wording once, I do not intend to change it again. The additional wording is simply adding to what was there. As regards 'peacefully' that was indeed the way they went. Not being shot at as they left and not murdering further allied servicemen. No fighting at all. Lets recall there was a surrender with more generous terms afforded than were to the Moors when the Spanish invaded Gibraltar. But the question is shall we conclude the argument over something that happened 300 years ago, and get on with something new, or not? The consensus says YES. --Gibnews (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I want to end this discussion. IMHO, "Peacefully" is out of place (women "peacefully" leaving the place where they were raped, and families "peacefully" leaving their homes after they were plundered?) and would not add any qualifier to the consensus sentence. The sentence already says "after order was restored" so it already means that no shots and murders were happening at the moment of the exodus. Anyway, I can come up with a few other words reflecting that the sources do expressly mention: "departed dejectedly / sorrowfully" "carrying what had not yet been plundered"... but I won't insist in including them in the sentence. Come on, if you really want to finish, let's not start a new discussion around the sentence which we already agreed upon after long discussions-mediation-RfC... -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's try this: PROPOSED
By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with many settling in San Roque, Cadiz.Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Disagree Sorry I really can't see the rationale for singling out San Roque out of a number of places they went. Why not pick Algeciras for example and San Roque only became significant years later. Justin talk 09:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This variant follows comments from editors, above, and it is demonstrably more defensible and unambiguously sourced. Per Imalbornoz "peacefully" is inappropriate, and "most" is not universally agreed by the sources; I also beg leave to doubt if anyone was actually counting at the time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Did that need to be bolded? Whether we even mention San Roque still has to be agreed. Justin talk 13:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree Q: Why give prominence to San Roque and not Algeciras? A: Because the vast majority of reputable sources do give prominence to San Roque over other destinations, even sometimes it's the only destination they mention (e.g.: Maurice Harvey: "Gibraltar. A History" page 68, Frederick Sayer: "The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe" page 117, Allen Andrews: "Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar" page 54, Edward G. Archer: "Gibraltar, identity and empire" page 34, George Hills: "Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar" page 176, William Jackson: "The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar" page 101, Stephen Constantine: "Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704" page 15,... and 90 references more in English -there are quite a few addtional ones in Spanish as well). That should be enough for Wikipedia. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

- Where you pervert UN resolutions to claim the UN supports the Spanish position and where you lost any trace of credibility. Sources do not mention San Roque to the exclusion of all of the places where the population went, the only reason there is a significant push for inclusion to the exclusion of others are related to Spanish nationalist claims that the people of San Roque are the real Gibraltarians. Your "answer" only justifies its inclusion in the History article, where no one disputes it, whereas there are numerous example of overview articles which don't feel the need to include it. Thats the test that really counts, not misrepresenting sources. Now I am perfectly entitled to hold the view that I do, your constant hectoring merely convinces me I'm correct in that view. Justin talk 16:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Justin, you may be entirely right about Spanish nationalist claims; the point is that this view simply isn't relevant to the task of building a good encyclopedia article. The facts are notable and referenced and more notable to the sources than many other items which are non-contentiously in the article. Your points may be very annoying to many people, but the facts are still notable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Richard, in case you haven't noticed my position has been consistent, I accept that mentioning it on the history article is fine but I don't see the need to mention it here. Facts that are notable and referenced that receive due coverage for the article. So a) please do not imply that I'm trying to suppress facts and b) please don't adopt Imalbornoz's tactic of misrepresenting my position, because I am starting to get really irritated by both. From what I've seen above, the arguments on both sides are finely balanced but I don't seem them tipping in the favour of mentioning San Roque in this article. What I really don't appreciate is the constant questioning of my motives, when its clear that at least some of the editors making these accusations have their own agenda and it isn't about writing a quality encyclopedic article. Justin talk 17:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The views expressed above Imalbornoz are not facts, its just his or a Spanish nationalist view of things. The UN resolutions in queston were passed in the sixties, and are of no consequence. The referendum to which one refers was the referendum organised by HMG, not the two subsequent ones organised by the Government of Gibraltar. One which resulted in a change of policy by the Labour Government and the second which is taken to be an act of self-determination by the people of Gibraltar.
The mere fact that we are now discussing sovereignty shows that the agenda to include a mention of San Roque derives from that and not to record what happened to the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar, who in practice occupied the territory for less time than the Gibraltarians have. The principle of territorial integrity has no application to Gibraltar excepting the attempt by Spain, which does not dispute the grant of the sovereignty of the territory under Utrecht, but does complain about the Isthmus which is an integral part of Gibraltar today, and the argument of territorial integrity applies to the airport, sports field and housing estates built thereon very well.
Now you see the can of worms that opens up - whereas the previous small concession in mentioning a Spanish town which is quite irrelevant to Gibraltar achieved almost complete approval albeit some were grudging about it and would like more. NO the article is not about imaginary claims and tribes of lost imaginary 'Gibraltarians', defectors, cowards and murderers, its about the history of Gibraltar and San Roque has no place in that, it is a mere curiosity that it was founded by those leaving Gibraltar of their free will.
Further most of the references are taken from Spanish primary sources, and simply repeated and garbled by authors of secondary material. --Gibnews (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, Justin, nobody mentioned sovereignty in this discussion until you brought it up, and the whole point is that it has nothing to do with the reasons for including this fact in the article. If I were you I'd leave that can of worms un-opened; to change metaphors, there is no purpose in tilting at windmills. I appreciate that your positions are well-entrenched, but they are just not relevant to the point at issue. The facts should be included, as above, because they are well-referenced and more notable than many facts already uncontroversially in the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard where did I mention sovereignty? It seems you are we going down the same route of making assumptions about people's motives and misrepresenting their opinion. I really do not appreciate having my comments twisted out of all recognition and if you're going to go down that route then you lose my respect. Justin talk 22:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Justin, what is all that with the UN about? We are talking about the exodus of pre-British Gibraltariards (or call them X) to San Roque. I am afraid that you just missed (or avoided) the topic. The lack of valid arguments does not justify using this last resort of citing posts out of context and crying "Spanish nationalist!" (which I am not) or -as Gibnews has done- talking about some conspiracy to claim the sovereignity of Gib for Spain (which I haven't, but even if I had it would not invalidate my arguments). The game in Wikipedia is about sources, not about the personal views of other editors. By the way, I find the way you cite my posts (off topic, out of context and trying to paint yours truly as a hard-core nationalist) very offensive and I beg you not to do it again. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC) PS: I'm just kidding with the term Gibraltariards, as some editor raised the topic of "who are the real Gibraltarians". No offense intended.
Really, you're not a Spanish nationalist? So why are you spouting the same Spanish nationalist interpretation of UN resolutions, which is also nonsense? Thats why I consider you have no credibility. I find the nationalist nonsense you've posted and the opinions expressed in them to be highly offensive. They're not cited out of context or off topic and the fact you're trying to defend them, or as previously laugh them off, or some other diversion tactic doesn't cut the mustard.
I neither missed nor avoided the topic, you seem to think endlessly repeating the same argument to browbeat people into submission is effective. You've had an answer, you simply choose to ignore it or as usual misrepresent it; you offer nothing else. I'm fed up with taking the time to explain things to you, you just ignore it and repeat the same nonsense.
You've never once actually addressed the topic or even accept that people can have a valid reason to disagree with you. Justin talk 23:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I was just explaining a commonly accepted interpretation of the UN resolutions, but never personally supported the arguments behind that interpretation. Why don't you focus on sources like you are supposed to here, and stop meandering about the (supposed) POV of other editors? You are right about me repeating my argument: "sources, sources, sources". And I'll keep doing it unless you engage in a reasonable dialogue and prove that most sources don't consider San Roque as a notable episode -much more so than many other issues in the same section of the article- in the History of Gibraltar (that's the procedure here in WP; it's a bit embarrassing to have to remind this to a much more experienced editor like you, so please don't make me do it again). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I don't believe you anymore, you have utterly lost credibility with me. I don't defend or present arguments I don't believe and I don't find your explanations credible. Equally people have expressed a counter argument, the arguments for and against are more finely balanced than you'd have people believe. And you're sadly misinformed on how wikipedia works, its about consensus. Simply because you can source something doesn't mean you can force undue coverage of events into an article. Neither is brow beating anyone who disagrees with you an effective tactic. As regards your patronising comments, grow up and stop behaving like a small child. Justin talk 00:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Steady on Justin - please don't use language like that. Consensus absolutely does not trump verifiability (== sources). We can all agree that the sun is blue but that doesn't mean we should put it into Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
And where did I say that consensus trumps verifiability? Answer I didn't. Here we go again. Consensus is still about what constitutes due coverage of the subject and relevance to the article. How about actually listening to the argument for once, instead of always trying to make it into something it isn't. Justin talk 08:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets' try again: PROPOSED WORDING: By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with many settling in San Roque, Cadiz.

  • Agree; these facts are agreed in multiple sources, and receive more notice than other facts which are already uncontroversially in the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree - Yes, sources mention San Roque but they also mention many other places within the provinces of Cádiz and Málaga. If we had figures for the distribution of these people, that would be another story but unfortunately we don't... --Gibmetal 77talk 19:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree - if we have to mention San Roque we need to make the point the inhabitants who did not remain left peacefully and were nor driven out. I really can't see a problem with that and indeed there was grudging agreement on my wording, so why do we need to change it again and endlessly repeat arguments. They left, its over. Unless their descendents want to buy property in Gibraltar, which they can under EU law. --Gibnews (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree Agree with Gibmetal77. Justin talk 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree: For the nth time: San Roque is given prominence as the main destination of the exodus of pre-British inhabitants of Gibraltar by an overwhelming majority of British reputable sources writing about the History of Gibraltar (for example: User:Ecemaml/Selected_quotations_about_Gibraltar#San_Roque). Their exodus was not exactly peaceful (the article currently says with the support of several sources: "they felt that staying was too dangerous"; adding "and left peacefully" is quite a shocking oxymoron). In case some editors think these sources are not enough and keep disagreeing, what would the next step be? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. Here is a reference (yet another to add to Ecemaml's): [10] "Of the 4,000 inhabitants, all but 70 fled across the isthmus into the hinterland of the Campo de Gibraltar, many settling temporarily (or so they thought) in San Roque." ps I cannot believe that such a large amount of time is being wasted by so many people for such a trivial matter The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah but then some want it to be their way or nothing, they have no though of compromise and if they don't get their way they tie the page up in reams of tendentious argument. How many articles have multiple simultaneous RFC going? Justin talk 08:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You know, that's the way things go in these articles. You can have 90 sources giving prominence to one thing and some editors will still disagree... (I don't know anything about behaviour or motivations, but the effect is that changes in one direction take so long that many times editors get fed up and change just doesn't happen). BTW, I have a question (as a not too experienced editor in WP): is there a point when systematically opposing edits in spite of overwhelming evidence can be considered disruptive? (I don't necessarily say that we have reached that point here, I am just asking). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Which actually bears no relationship whatsoever to the matter at hand but you just carry on making false allegations again. Typical really, don't address the point, make offensive allegations about people and blame everyone else for deadlock. Thats considered disruptive, so you go right ahead and report me to whoever the hell you like. Go on, in fact I actively encourage you to make an ass of yourself doing it. Justin talk 11:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Fearful of what? Future conflict? Justice for their murders of soldiers, having signed up to a peace treaty after being soundly beaten. Whatever they left and they never came back. Except looking for employment, food and to steal things as they still do today. --Gibnews (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Ask the guy who wrote the book. Probably fearful of the usual plundering and rapes that followed an invasion. JCRB (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

San Roque, the coda

Perhaps we could go back to what I hoped would be a process for achieving consensus on this subject? My apologies for leaving it so long, but I was hoping that delay would let tempers cool. (Instead feelings seem to have become even more inflamed.) Here I copy (and slightly edit) from the above discussion.

The Rfc by Atama was:

Should the main Gibraltar article include information about the town's population founding San Roque, Cadiz following a mass departure after the town was surrendered to British forces? One suggestion is to include that detail of the exodus, and other details, in the History of Gibraltar article and leave it out of the main article. But others feel that the information is too important to leave out of the summary in the main article.

Arguments for inclusion

1. The facts (as drafted above, hereinafter just "the facts") are verifiably included in several reputable English-language histories of Gibraltar. No such history has been produced which omits the facts. They are found to be more notable to reputable historians than several points which have been included without controversy.

This seems unequivocally relevant and important. Indeed, on its own it seems quite adequate to justify inclusion.
Disagree merits inclusion in the article dedicated to a detailed history, it doesn't follow that it belongs in an overview. Especially when you acknowledge it as a peripheral issue to the actual history of Gibraltar. Justin talk 14:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

2. The town of San Roque has, because of the facts, some legal and demographic continuity with Gibraltar. It is within the former territory of the Campos de Gibraltar. Many of the previous inhabitants of Gibraltar settled in San Roque, which kept Gibraltar's historical standard, granted by the Catholic Monarchs, its establishment privilege, its coat of arms, its records, its city council. Thus it has some legal and demographic continuity with Gibraltar. This is notable to anyone with an interest in Gibraltar.

This is at least mildly interesting and does tend to establish notability, not only to Spanish nationalists and Gibraltarians, but also to anyone with an interest in Gibraltar.
Establishes notability and relevance to the Campo de Gibraltar, the history of San Roque and even the History of Gibraltar but it does not follow that it is relevant to an overview of Gibraltar itself. It relates to the legal and demographics of the Gibraltar of over 300 years ago (emphasis added). Justin talk 14:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against inclusion

1. The town of San Roque is no more than a fairly close neighbour of the modern British territory of Gibraltar, the actual subject of the article.

On the basis of past practice, this article is indeed about the area of the present British-occupied territory. However, it also makes reference to matters which affected or were affected by that area. The destination of many of its inhabitants and of its council is peripheral, but may seem relevant enough to justify brief comment in this article.Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You argue it is peripheral, but may seem relevant which is not a strong argument for inclusion. If it is peripheral, the inclusion in an overview does not follow - and that is one of the arguments against. Justin talk 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

2. San Roque is described as the most important settlement to result only because the administrative functions were transferred there, but many of the residents dispersed elsewhere into the Campo de Gibraltar, founding Algeciras and San Roque, some going even farther afield.

Historians say "many" or "most" of the inhabitants went to San Roque. The number was clearly notable.Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The relevant words being Historians, this is an overview and not intended to provide detailed historical information about peripheral information. Justin talk 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

3. The people who left Gibraltar played no further part in the history of Gibraltar, nor were there any significant repercussions from their departure.

Again true, but the destination of many, perhaps most, of the inhabitants may seem relevant.Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
may seem relevant ie not a strong argument negating the point. Justin talk 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

4. The article is too long already and the facts surrounding the founding of San Roque could be trimmed for brevity in what is an overview article. Other encyclopedias do not mention the facts.

True and relevant. However, argument 1 for inclusion seems to address the same issue but with somewhat more weight. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Utterly disagree about weight, you acknowledge it is peripheral, therefore it is one of the facts that can be trimmed for brevity. The two don't follow from the other. Justin talk 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

5. The facts belong in the History of Gibraltar article not necessarily an overview article.

An arguable position rather than an argument in itself, but based on a sound understanding of the role of overview and detail articles. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
And points one way to a compromise but one I note that was never actually considered when it was suggested. Justin talk 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

6. The facts are only notable to people who want Spain to have sovereignty over Gibraltar.

Not actually quite correct. They are mildly notable to me, and to historians of Gibraltar.Richard Keatinge (talk)
I draw your attention to the fact that the point is not reported correctly yet again. Not that I actually consider this to be a valid argument either way but the point is that under Franco, the people of San Roque were portrayed as the real Gibraltarians and the people of Gibraltar mere squatters. It was merely pointed out as a motive for pushing for inclusion by one side not an argument against inclusion. I am rather disappointed that you have not thought to revise the comment, given that has previously been pointed out. Justin talk 15:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

7. San Roque's claim to be the real Gibraltar is irrelevant to Gibraltarian, UK, or international law. Such claims can be offensive to Gibraltarians.

Here we come to the nub of the matter. I suggest that this argument is not relevant to our task of building a good encyclopedia article. Many very offensive facts are highly notable. Indeed, it could be argued that their very offensiveness makes them notable and worth inclusion here. We are not here to settle the world's problems or even take a view on them. We are here to write really good encyclopedia articles about them. We have wasted an immense amount of time on arguments on this point; further comment seems likely to justify administrative intervention. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No its not the nub of the matter, its not an argument either way on encyclopedic matters. It appears to have been seized upon to justify ignoring more valid arguments against inclusion. It is not something I have ever argued as the basis for not including it; though I have noted that some editors push for inclusion for reasons related to it and are unwilling to compromise on that basis. Lets actually follow the argument rather than falling into the trap of making assumptions about people and misrepresenting what they have to say. Justin talk 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary of my response to the request for comments

There are still editors who object to any mention of San Roque on grounds which I find not relevant to Wikipedia. I suggest that the arguments above should be decisive on the matter. To repeat, the destination of many, possibly most, of the previous population of Gibraltar is verifiably included in several reputable English-language histories of Gibraltar. No such history has been produced which omits the facts. They are found to be more notable to reputable historians than several points which have been included without controversy. It may help certain editors to note that I am British and I find the idea of a modern Spanish claim on Gibraltar on the basis of San Roque's history absolutely laughable. But, I repeat, neither this claim nor any supporters it may have are of any relevance to this article.

To add fuel to the flames, the word "peacefully" has been added to describe the exodus. Appreciating Apcgb's point that we may need to take this one word at a time, nobody has produced any appropriate reference for this word and it seems clearly inappropriate to describe people trudging away from their homes after a riotous military conquest. It should not be included.

I responded to a request for comments. I suggest strongly that the only arguments legitimate for our task here are on the side of inclusion.

I repeat the proposed wording from above.

PROPOSED WORDING: By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with many settling in San Roque, Cadiz.

Some editors may feel that my comments are unfair. I believe that they are thoroughly defensible. Unless anyone can come up with some new arguments I intend to change the article to the proposed wording in a week or so, and in the event of any further repetition of invalid arguments, or unjustified reversion, I will call for administrative help. In my view such help might well include censure and even blocks of certain editors. Valid comments will be welcome, of course. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Very Strongly Disagree Your comments are unfair and your stated course of action is not acceptable; you are declaring a revert war and threatening admin action on anyone who dares to disagree. Absolutely not and if you attempt to bulldoze it into the article I will also call for administrative help. I will also not accept having a comment misrepresented again. I don't accept your assertion that the argument tips in favour of inclusion, it is more finely balanced than that. Justin talk 12:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ADD I also note you fall into the trap of declaring that editors oppose all mention of San Roque. Frankly this is bullshit and I am utterly and completely hacked off that this false and malign assertion is repeated time and time again to discredit anyone who disagrees with one side of the discussion. Enough already, this is not the case at all. The position has been clear from Day 1 that they consider it undue coverage to add it to this article but that it very properly belongs in the History article. So not unnaturally I find your comments about "repetition of invalid arguments" to be more than a little hypocritical. Justin talk 13:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I hope that I am addressing some of your underlying concerns by saying that San Roque needs to be mentioned in this article partly because it forms the basis (for modern times, a thoroughly feeble basis) for certain claims over Gibraltar. Those claims are a matter of ongoing relevance to Gibraltar, and a casual reader should, I suggest, find some reference to their factual basis. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No Richard you're not, quite frankly that is certainly no argument in favour of its mention; its giving undue coverage to fringe material.. You accept my point that the issue is peripheral, in which case shoving it in anyway is giving it undue coverage. Neither have you acknowledged you were incorrect to assert that people are seeking to avoid any mention of San Roque, that clearly isn't and never has been the case. Justin talk 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
NO JUSTIN. San Roque is not fringe material. It has much to do with the history of Gibraltar, and this has been widely demonstrated. Denying this is rejecting verifiable sources and common sense. Some editors try to avoid mentioning San Roque to keep readers of this article in the dark about the original Gibraltarians and how they fled the rock following its occupation. Any historian would argue this deserves mentioning. JCRB (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Whatever happens in San Roque stays in San Roque and has nothing to do with Gibraltar. The people were not Gibraltarians they were Spanish cowards who ran away from their crimes and future conflict. Not very nice Spanish people who failed to defend the territory they occupied, surrendered broke agreements and murdered soldiers. There again, the peace of Utrecht was broken, the Treaty of Seville was broken and Spain failed to honour the agreement to move out of Olivenza. --Gibnews (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

From my talk page, moved here where it seems better placed:

Refactoring comments on Justin

Great do you also plan on refactoring your comments? Justin talk 14:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel that too many innocent electrons have already been squandered. I'll probably leave it for a bit. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Right, so you'll leave that offensive and untrue allegation that I'm suppressing mention of San Roque at all costs? That is just great, so....objective and even handed of you. Justin talk 16:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you provide a diff where I've said anything so specific? I'll be glad to remove anything that was incorrect. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
[11] "There are still editors who object to any mention of San Roque on grounds which I find not relevant to Wikipedia." which happens to be a) untrue and b) not objective or even handed. If you redact I will do likewise. Justin talk 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you are still objecting to any mention of San Roque in the Gibraltar page? The page that we were discussing? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
No I don't object to mention of San Roque per se in the right context and that is misrepresenting my position. That is what I object to, if you want to play semantic games about it, then I really do lose any respect for your opinion. Justin talk 17:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
To get this clear, are you now happy to agree with mention of SR on the Gib page as per recent discussion? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You know that I've made my position clear plenty of times and it isn't reflected in your comments. I don't agree with your edit and I have a reason that is entirely in line with wikipedia policies see WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. You acknowledge its a peripheral issue, your words, but still suggest giving it undue coverage. As a peripheral issue I consider it entirely appropriate to be mentioned in History of Gibraltar. So your comment is misrepresenting my position and if you're persisting with it, then you're not being objective, even handed or fair. Justin talk 17:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
So you do object to the much-discussed mention of San Roque in the Gibraltar article? I believe that we have discussed the arguments for and against this at length and repeatedly, but I do not see the need to change my comments, nor to repeat them here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
No I disagree with your edit proposal and the rationale for it and there is a big difference. The difference between us is that I don't feel the need to characterise your opinions in terms couched to denigrate them. Justin talk 18:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, one last try. What mention of SR on the Gib page would you find acceptable? Richard Keatinge (talk)

Achieving a consensus

Latest comment: 14 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

PROPOSED By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left peacefully. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with the many settling in San Roque, Cadiz.

Achieved more votes in favour so IMHO that is the wording that should go in. Wheras I appreciate your efforts Richard, you have failed to grasp what this is all about, and unilaterally imposing YOUR personal view, which is not supported, against one which is, cannot be correct. The only reason I have not done this already is that I have waited for others to comment on it, having been chastised by someone for reminding people to vote in a neutral manner. However, its cooked for long enough. If we have to have a mention of San Roque it needs to be qualified with the fact that the people left peacefully.--Gibnews (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have waded through the mountains of verbiage on this subject in the archives. I feel that this point has gone on for far, far too long. This has been achieved partly by the introduction of endless minor changes as we seemed to be on the verge of consensus. I feel that the addition of the word "peacefully" was yet another of these, in addition to being a bizarre and unsourced description of the event. The archives come close to justifying their inclusion in WP:LAME and that includes the attempts at mediation and at administrative action. Indeed I note that I arrived here in response to the efforts of an un-involved administrator.
You may be right that I have failed to grasp what this is all about. I will accept the verdict of an administrator in this matter and will strive to act on any comments that an administrator may choose to make on my own conduct. But I feel that we need a resolution. Think what all this effort could have produced if it had been directed at improving Wikipedia in other ways. Perhaps moving on is the best solution, even if it has to be imposed? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Richard, there has been way too much utter crap wasted on this. This is solely because those pushing for it will accept nothing but what they demand. Getting close to an agreement for it to fall apart is a negotiating tactic, if you look just as agreement seems about to be reached, it always going back to an earlier demand and it falls apart. Another tactic is making a series of posts to raise tension and then pretending to be reasonable. What you don't seem to grasp is this isn't about improving wikipedia, its about using it as a platform to advance an agenda. And they'll wear anyone who disagrees with that down by tendentious argument. An imposed solution? What might have helped would have been some admin intervention but everytime you ask for help its dismissed as a "content dispute", or a smokescreen is applied where I'm blamed for something I didn't do. I've had 4 AN/I threads making empty complaints about me, not to mention the posts on admin's talk pages calling for censure. If the solution you propose is imposed, then we might as well just give up, it'll only embolden them to push for more. Justin talk 22:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It is neither bizarre or unsourced. Article I of the terms of surrender specifies that the Soldiers etc could march out within three days or remain.
"Some four thousand people left the city only about seventy of the original Spanish inhabitants took the risk of staying behind in the town that at the time had twelve hundred dwellings. As the procession reached the windmill on the isthmus, de Salinas made a moving speech to the refugees vowing not to rest until they could all return to their city. Then they dispersed into the Campo seeking temporary homes." - Sir William Jackson, The Rock of the Gibraltarians P101.
They left willingly under the terms of the peace treaty, so it was was peaceful nobody 'drove' them out. So whats the problem? Anyhow in the straw poll only one editor objected, indeed the thing you objected to Richard was changed. So yes lets bring this to a close, with the wording people have agreed to. --Gibnews (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually that reminds me, the sources claims 6000 settled at San Roque, all of the comtemporary counts put the Spanish population of Gibraltar at 4000. Given that a significant chunk of the population settled in Algeciras, Medina Sidonia, Ronda, and Malaga something doesn't quite add up. Justin talk 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I really does not matter, the important thing is that they left as the above excerpt from Jackson (a reputable British historian who based his book on Spanish accounts) says, they marched out. Nobody counted them, and the numbers and location vary. The article on algeciras says it was founded by fishermen from Gibraltar, so a number went there. Some went to San Roque, but there was sustained objection to saying 'the Campo' Again, the wording I propose only had one objection to its use (from Justin) and acceptance or grudging acceptance from others, so whats the problem with including that and calling it a day. Its clear that there are some people in Spain who hold the view that 'we was robbed' in 1704 and can't get over it. But its not really a pressing matter in relation to Gibraltar which is the topic of the article, and frankly the new leisure centre, which is not mentioned at all, is more important that a bunch of squatters who left three hundred years ago and are immaterial to the future of Gibraltar from the point they walked away from defending the territory against invaders. --Gibnews (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Richard, with each one of his words. It is clear that everyone has tried very hard. It is clear that no consensus has been reached. It's time to go and ask for some outside arbitration and get over with this dispute. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Back in June last year, whilst doing some research on the Economist website I came across the following unpleasant post of Imalbornoz's:


He also wrote:


Of JCRB, Willdow observed, completely independently, unfortunately it got buried in tendentious argument:


This is the editor that Imalbornoz portrays as "defending" the "UN POV". Both advance a single minded agenda and that isn't to improve the article. Justin talk 00:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, hopefully he has learnt that the views expressed in the economist forum, based on the nonsense in the Spanish wikipedia are false. Mainly because the English version is more truthful. I did manage to get rid of the line that Gibraltar was occupied by 'British pirates' though. The accusations of being the largest polluter on the planet remain (I think) which is a joke. But really we should focus on the Gibraltar page here and not nonsenses elsewhere. --Gibnews (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Justin? What was the point of that? Do you really think those off-wiki quotes from me are relevant for deciding what reputable sources say about Gibraltar? Really, although you make me feel extremely flattered by your citing me (wrapping up a discussion in a forum in The Economist, just for fun, after some cocky translator kept putting other people down for their bad English; those comments were not intended for anyone here in WP -in fact I had not yet began to edit here- but I have already apologised for it about four times here in WP), I have to say that I don't deserve so much attention: there are much more reputed sources (you can see a few ones brought by Ecemaml, Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Dailycare and myself). On the other hand, you were not trying to launch some implicit ad hominem attack, were you? Justin, Justin... -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
[12] Just to draw attention to how comments were refactored and in particular the terms redacted. Justin talk 12:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Those references to comments at the heat of the discussion are somewhat irrelevant now. I also thought we had left behind personal criticisms. Have we run out of arguments? I think arbitration is necessary at this point. JCRB (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it would help if you said what you want, If you 'almost agreed' to the wording I proposed, but are only unhappy with it saying that the Spanish left peacefully in accordance with the articles of surrender, then we don't have to argue about anything else. Does almost mean yes or no ?? --Gibnews (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Gibnews, if you are asking me, I am glad to answer:
  • "yes" I agree with the second sentence as you propose it
  • "yes" I agree with the first sentence as we agreed after Atama's recent mediation (the one that is currently in the article)
  • "no" I don't agree to add any more qualifiers to the first sentence. In any case, what the sources say about the moment when the previous inhabitants of Gibraltar were leaving is that they did it in a "dejected procession" (William Jackson) and "carrying what had not yet been plundered" (George Hills). I am sure that a proposal to add those two texts would be rebutted by some editors, causing another long discussion (even though they are sourced, much more sourced in fact than the word "peacefully"). That's why I will not propose any more additions to the first sentence as it is: it just explains the facts without any further positive or negative decoration. I hope that, eventually, you will realise that doing the same is the reasonable thing to do.
Thanks for asking. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually I was trying to get a view from JCRB however if you are basically agreeing to put that wording and move on, I think we have a consensus, whatever JCRB's opinion might be and despite Justin's objection. I take the point about the redundant 'the' and trust its removal will not generate another 100k of disputes. Perhaps some may think including the word 'peacefully' is wrong, but they left under the terms of a peace agreement, were nor driven out at gunpoint and to their credit marched out in an orderly fashion. Re-reading your earlier message, there is some confusion about San Roque the municipality and San Roque the town. If Hills refers to the Roman name that referred to the Campo and not the settlement now known as San Roque. However, for the avoidance of another long argument about inclusion or not, I propose of you accept the peaceful aspect of the departure and I accept the mention of a town in Spain which played no future part in Gibraltar's history we can all move on and stop waffling about it. --Gibnews (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both Gibnews and Imalbornoz. This is great, could I just point out that in Gibnews' second sentence, the word "the" is redundant? We should have "many" rather than "the many"... hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am basically against the word "peacefully" because it is utter misrepresentation of the facts, according to sources. The Gibraltar population left because of fear of plundering by the British and Dutch forces. That is hardly leaving "peacufully". Rather, it should be "fleeing". JCRB (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

One more go

Latest comment: 14 years ago30 comments8 people in discussion

PROPOSED
By 7 August 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and left peacefully. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with many settling in San Roque, Cadiz.

ACTION
The wording has been proposed and the majority of editors who responded were in agreement. Alternative wordings received less support. I really do not think we can please everyone SO Unless anyone can come up with a really good reason NOT to use the above, I propose that after three days Richard Keatinge applies this wording to the article, and we all breath a sigh of relief, and kick s..t out of anyone who tries to resurrect the topic again. It is not necessary to vote further. --Gibnews (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Very delicately and tactfully, may I suggest "without further violence" rather than "peacefully"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that if RK's wording change is included. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with the word "peacefully": 1) it is not sourced, 2) it contradicts the first part of the sentence that staying "was too dangerous", 3) it would be more reasonable to add the qualifiers that reputed sources do support as notable instead of peacefully ("dejectedly", "carrying what had not been plundered", 4) it is redundant, because the sentence already says "after order was restored", 5) the current wording of that sentence was agreed after a long mediation. This is just ridiculous, what's the point of adding that?
I thank RK very much for looking for a solution half-way. I am afraid it might be redundant as well: what's the difference between "without further violence" and "after order was restored"? Anyway, I will keep an open mind and see if someone comes with a reason to include that text (a reason I don't manage to find by myself). Richard, what would be the "encyclopaedian" argument for adding "without further violence"? Are there any other arguments that we should take into account? Which ones? Thank you very much and sorry for pushing this discussion a bit further. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree We have acknowledged that San Roque is a peripheral issue to the departure of the population. It is only one destination out of many and I don't see the need to give it special attention. If we give extra attention to one place out of many we are giving undue attention to a peripheral issue. The motivation of those seeking to give undue attention, with such persistence, to San Roque are related to the extreme Spanish nationalist position that the people of San Roque are the real Gibraltarians and the current population mere squatters. Thus, in giving attention to a peripheral issue we are giving undue attention to a fringe issue.
To make it plain I have no objection to the mention of San Roque in the right circumstances. San Roque may be a peripheral issue but in the History of Gibraltar we do have the time and space to devote to it. It may also be worthy of mention in the Disputed Status of Gibraltar. What I really do object to, is the people who mischaracterise my opposition to this edit proposal as "suppressing mention of San Roque at all costs" or "on grounds not acceptable to wikipedia" I have put forward a perfectly acceptable policy based rationale for my disagreement. A perfectly acceptable compromise for an overview article is to avoid mention of peripheral issues and delegate that to the more detailed article. This is within the guidelines of wikipedia for an overview. That compromise suggestion was rejected out of hand by the editors who demand we must mention San Roque in this article.
What isn't acceptable grounds for wikipedia are the rationale put forward by JCRB "Some editors try to avoid mentioning San Roque to keep readers of this article in the dark about the original Gibraltarians and how they fled the rock following its occupation." because wikipedia is not a soapbox to advance such an agenda. Nor is it a soapbox to proselytise constantly about "rapings, desecrations, plundering and murders in retaliation" that happened 300 years ago. Because that is simply using emotionally charged language to try and close down the debate and paint the opposing viewpoint as unacceptable. I note that a perfectly reasonable compromise by Richard is rejected purely because we have to continue with the language that the people were forced from their homes.
We have wasted too much time and effort to such a peripheral issue, that many times I have thought to simply "let the babies have their chocolate" so to speak. I am utterly fed up with having my position mischaracterised and labelled as "unacceptable" when I have tried to discuss the subject in a reasonable manner and really for me the last straw was having someone who claimed to have set out to be a neutral arbiter to choose to repeat the same baseless allegations made by disruptive editors who are using wikipedia to advance an agenda. The question about when I would find acceptable to mention San Roque in this article are a loaded question. So Richard "When did you stop beating your wife?" I answered that a lot time ago, when it gives due coverage to a fringe issue.
I also object to the bad tempered disusssions, largely prompted by the constant bad faith accusations of censoring or suppressing "the truth". I haven't seen one person come up with a valid policy based reason why the argument I put forward is incorrect. I'd be perfectly willing to listen or be swayed by such argument, what I'm not prepared to accept is to be bludgeoned into accepting an edit by reams of tendentious argument and constant bad faith accusations. Maybe I'm just a stubborn old git but my position had hardened solely because no one has thought to advance an argument why I'm wrong or mistaken. Neither do I respond well to editors making demands or threats of admin action.
So whilst I might be persuaded to accept the compromise suggested by Richard, I probably will find the amendments suggested by Imalbornoz unacceptable. Justin talk 11:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Imalbornoz, you are correct that there is no "encyclopedic" necessity for including the phrase "without further violence". Reasons for accepting it are that it appears to be a tolerable summary of the sources, who describe a deeply dejected procession but not one that was being helped on its way with further blows. And that, if there's one idea central to Wikipedia, it is respect for other civilized and informed minds, even those we feel to be extremely annoying stubborn gits. A compromise may be reasonable, even a compromise using nobody's preferred wording. Indeed I suggest this particular phrase with the hope of finding an acceptable compromise which may enable us all to turn our attention to more profitable endeavours, not because I particularly want it in myself. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
With fervent hope for unanimous acceptance, I have inserted the text "without further violence. They relocated to nearby areas of Spain, with many settling in San Roque, Cadiz." Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you but no I still disagree and no one has actually come up with a convincing counter argument. I would prefer you to remove it yourself until we do have agreement. Justin talk 20:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's see how many others oppose all mention of San Roque first, thanks. Would those who really can't live with the present wording (and, I feel compelled to say with loathing, would prefer to return to the previous argument - it really starts to hot up about Archive 14) please stand up and be counted? Justin, I hope that I can ask you in the meantime to reconsider the arguments above, the opinions of our peers, and your position on this point? I very much hope that you will come to share my conclusion that the current wording, like so many other things in life, may not be ideal but is actually reasonable and tolerable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I have considered those opinions, it would be nice if they were to do the same in return rather than simply making bad faith accusations. Sorry but it is far from ideal and no I don't see imposing it as reasonable and tolerable. Justin talk 09:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
"oppose all mention of San Roque first", is unhelpful and given the previous comments hardly conducive to convincing me to agree with you. Justin talk 12:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your point of view here Justin, but could we please give other editors the chance to turn their thumbs up or down before we re-enter the arena? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but that isn't good enough, specifically this has NEVER been addressed. There is an undue haste to ignore it and just give in. Well no I'm not prepared to accept it simply being ignored. Justin talk 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I think "peacefully" is too much. "Without further violence" -IMHO- is not encyclopedically justified, but I am ready to accept it for the sake of consensus (in the hope that other editors will act in reciprocity in other parts of the article). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

There isn't a consensus to introduce that text is there, so lets not edit war to keep it. Justin talk 12:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the plea to avoid edit wars was ignored. I see, so thats how its going to be, tag teaming to force it into the article. Thats how consensus is achieved is it? Justin talk 18:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
. To repeat, the destination of many, possibly most, of the previous population of Gibraltar is verifiably included in several reputable English-language histories of Gibraltar. No such history has been produced which omits the facts. They are found to be more notable to reputable historians than several points which have been included without controversy. The present text, to which I have just reverted, is a hopeful compromise after much discussion. Please try to achieve consensus before removing it again. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
My question is this... Does anyone but Justin object to the inclusion of the text proposed by Richard earlier? I don't ask this because this is a "majority vote", but out of curiosity. Scanning this talk page, I don't see anyone else opposing it. -- Atama頭 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Richard, so rather than actually formulating a response you repeat the same arguments. To summarise, yes detailed treatises do mention San Roque, overviews strangely enough find it a peripheral detail that they do not include; Encyclopedia Britannica being a prime example. As I pointed out it is giving undue attention to a fringe issue.
To Atama, there isn't a consensus for this, Gibnews doesn't actually agree with it but has been bludgeoned into submission by the reams of tendentious crap that has plagued this article for month. I say crap because it is crap, you can paraphrase the argument as SAN ROQUE MUST BE MENTIONED, YOU ARE SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH etc but not responding to the counter argument.
Now it seems Richard sees his mission as imposing a solution, a supposedly neutral arbiter has chosen a side and is edit warring to impose a solution. Richard you get a consensus before imposing a solution, I disagree and have formulated a reason why. You haven't even bothered to come up with a decent counter argument. I refuse to be bullied into submission. Justin talk 22:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Concensus is supposedly about strength of argument, seeems it isn't. Consensus is now about bullying editors from editing a page, then imposing your preferred solution. Justin talk 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC) I won't be reverting again, yes you can beat me on 3RR because there are 3 of you. But you're just bullying an edit into the article, you don't actually come up with a rebuttal of reasons not to include it. Seems thats the way to go now, tie a page up with tendentious argument, drive away the productive editors and then bully a solution into the article or revert war it in. What a great day for wikipedia, fuck it I quit. The facists bastards win it seems. Justin talk 00:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Justin, please remember that noone has a veto here in order that they claim "lack of consensus". That aside, I really do not see why you have such a bee in your bonnet about this! The supporting sources are numerous and clear. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that I have no issue with the proposed wording as it is at the top of the previous section. That being said, I do not believe the way it has been put in is perfect, that is the methods used for its inclusion. Justin's point, while it may be disagreed with, is that there are issues over whether San Roque should be included. I believe part of his fear is that if, for the sake of peace, he agrees to this, it will be used as a wedge to further de-rail this article into an article on San Roque etc and were these fears addressed rather than tag team reversions, we would likely see a great deal more peace. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The "bee in my bonnet" is that the article has been held hostage for months by tendentious argument and there is a rush to pander to that editor rather than back up the productive editors. You give an inch they take a mile. No one has a veto? Seems they do actually, the moment a solution was imposed, thats vetoing the argument against rather than addressing it. In fact its never been addressed, not from day 1, its been an attempt to wear opposition down. Anyway fuck it, doesn't matter anymore does it. The lunatics are taking over the asylum. Hope you're all proud. Justin talk 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The entrance of new editors to this article is something to be celebrated. There is a healthy flow of ideas from all sides now, rather than just the "BOT Gang". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Entrance of new editors and new ideas would be welcome, its not a healthy flow at all thats the problem. Fuck it I don't know why I'm bothering. Justin talk 00:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You know, considering how long this has dragged on, maybe it's best to let it go. Consensus is a tricky thing; there's no real metric determining when consensus has been reached. Consensus doesn't mean a majority vote, but it also doesn't mean that everyone has to agree. It is usually somewhere in-between, and when you have a handful of people who agree with one person disagreeing, that's a pretty good consensus right there. Gibnews has accepted the proposal (whether or not he was bludgeoned into it), at least one outside editor who has joined the discussion supports it, and I honestly don't see any new arguments for or against including mention of San Roque. Frankly, I still think that saying that the people who left had "relocated to nearby areas of Spain" would be a decent compromise, but it seems that as good of a consensus as can be expected has been reached here. -- Atama頭 01:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Atama's compromise. "Nearby areas of Spain" is acceptable, however, without linking it to Campo de Gibraltar as I've already pointed out some settled further afield. I suggest "within the neighbouring Andalusian provinces of Cádiz and Málaga", or similar wording? --Gibmetal 77talk 21:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Where are your sources? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Gibmetal, I understand that you have not been in the long and tiring discussion previous to the current consensus (if it is consensus). You can go through it for more detail, but I'll summarise some of the most important arguments and sources (sorry for boring you if you already knew them, but just in case). You can see some sources here and some more below (notice that all of them mention San Roque over other destinations):
  • Maurice Harvey: "Gibraltar. A History" page 68
  • Frederick Sayer: "The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe" page 117
  • Allen Andrews: "Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar" page 54
  • Edward G. Archer: "Gibraltar, identity and empire" page 34
  • George Hills: "Rock of contention: a history of Gibraltar" page 176
  • William Jackson: "The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar" page 101
  • Stephen Constantine: "Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704" page 15,...
  • and in googlebooks you can find 90 references more in English (there are quite a few addtional ones in Spanish as well).
We have seen that many other events in the History section don't get nearly as much coverage as the exodus "to San Roque as the main destination" in History of Gibraltar books (you can see the comparison here). Therefore, is there any encyclopedic reason to avoid including San Roque and including those other events? In any case, if you want to say that there were other secondary destinations besides San Roque and include them, it is fine with me (you can find info about that in some of those sources). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that too (listing secondary destinations). I'm all for including anything sourced. I also agree that it's rather silly to be mentioning, say, a Polish general who by a quirk of fate happened to die in Gibraltar during WW2, but to censor mention of San Roque during the exodus. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

Latest comment: 14 years ago58 comments5 people in discussion

May I point out that we have quite possibly the worst opening to a Wikipedia article imaginable.

Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. It nonetheless remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories as Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from the list.

Any sane individual not involved with the silly debates on this talk page would think that the authors of this article are unable to properly structure their sentences and are inadvertently using the "nonetheless" in the second paragraph to refer to the final clause of the first sentence. Which means that we have wording to the effect of "despite being located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar, Gibraltar remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories". I hope everyone here can see how utterly ridiculous this state of affairs is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should put San Roque to bed before restarting this, however this:


Achieved approval from the majority of editors involved, sufficient to change the intro. It answers you complaint about 'nonetheless'. The matter of the Spanish objection is mentioned later in the article where it is appropriate. Although the Spanish government objects to a lot of things, it has little effect or importance. --Gibnews (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Whilst I have no objection to changing the wording, the argument against it seems a little contrived. Cerainly I do not agree with removing certain terms. Justin talk 20:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing contrived about it, Justin. It's a simple matter of writing good English. There should not be a clause on a different topic in between the two clauses that "nonetheless" is being used to contrast. The present wording is something that only a bunch of squabbling Wikipedians could come up with. What Gibnews writes above is fine by me. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Its fine by me too. I'm just waiting for the howls of protest. Justin talk 20:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Not a howl, but if anyone wants to make any constructive comment on the text of User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar do feel free. Also edit it if you like. I'm fairly sure it's better English than the present version. I would like it to be a first stage towards an improved and agreed lead to this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Richard. I would add internal security as an additional exception (see several sources in the list above). --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
For the body of the article I'd agree. For the lead I'd suggest that we need "some powers such as" followed by one example only. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I implacably oppose such a suggestion. Its a deliberate attempt to mislead by taking advantage of the fact that many elements of British constitutional law are based on custom and practise rather than a written constitution. I have explained this at length to Imalbornoz but he still comes back with the same line again and again. I've asked what it is he doesn't understand and he doesn't reply. The edit would be misleading and it is designed to play down the 2006 constitution. Wikipedia should be about explaining things to readers not using semantic arguments about sources to produce an article that misleads. That is POV WARRIOR territory. Justin talk 09:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I like Richard's proposal even better: defer mention of Gibraltar's political status to the last paragraph of the intro, where everything relating to it can be sensibly summarised. This way we avoid the "I MUST GET MY POINT INTO THE OPENING SENTENCE!" and "WELL, IF HE GETS HIS POINT IN THE OPENING SENTENCE I HAVE TO GET MY POINT THERE TOO!" wars. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Not needed Red Hat, I oppose removing self-governing from the lede, removing it is pandering to those who would edit the article to say Gibraltar is a colony. It is a necessary qualification as not all BOT are self-governing e.g. South Georgia. I've also explained repeatedly to Imalbornoz why what he demands is inappropriate, I have asked dozens of times what exactly is it he doesn't understand and he is still pushing the same line. Justin talk 09:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


judiciary

Removed the comment about the judiciary. Its misleading; the judiciary may be appointed by the Queen but only on the recommendation of the Government. It is a matter of custom and practice as is much of British constitutional matters; see Page 6 of [13] for example. The text implies the judiciary is imposed from London, which is simply untrue. Justin talk 09:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep on playing with User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar. We may get somewhere useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I admit I am no expert in the interpretation of British or Gibraltarian law (as I suppose most people in this discussion). Therefore, we have to look and see what reputed sources say.
Many sources define the areas of self-government in Gibraltar as the matters that do not fall under the Governor (e.g. Chief Minister explains that the new Constitution maximises "self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor")[14]pg 4). This is an important point in order to know how to judge in which areas is Gibraltar self- or non self-governing.
A strong case can be made to say that the Judiciary and internal security are de iure and de facto managed by the Governor (with some collaboration and advice by the GoG, to be fair), looking at reputed sources (anything else would be WP:OR and, sorry Justin, but you and I can be wonderful persons but not necessarily reputed sources on the interpretation of Gibraltar's Constitutional law). Therefore let's take a look at what the sources (not you or me) say:
  • De iure, the Constitution says clearly which matters are attributed to the Governor:
  • De facto, we can see that several sources support that internal security and/or the public service/judiciary are exceptions to Gib's self-government:
  • Gibraltar's Chief Minister's comments emphasise "the GoG’s complete distance from the process" of suspending the Chief of Justice, which was carried out by the Governor.[15] (pg 80)
  • The Chief Minister also says: The new Constitution "maximises self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers."[16](pg 4)
  • PriceWaterhouseCoopers says: "Constitutionally, Gibraltar is a British dependent territory with internal self-government, the United Kingdom being responsible for defence, foreign affairs, financial stability and internal security."[17]
  • The CIA says: "the UK retains responsibility for defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability"[18]
  • The UK FCO says: : “The Constitution thoroughly modernises the UK-Gibraltar relationship. Key elements include limiting the responsibilities of the Governor to the areas of external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service”[19]
  • The UK FAC says: that the responsibilities of the Governor are in the areas of "external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service"[20]
  • The Secretariat of the Commonwealth says: "The governor represents the British monarch who is head of state and retains direct responsibility for all matters not specifically allocated to local ministers: principally external affairs, defence and internal security"[21]
  • The UN says: “The Governor is responsible for the conduct of external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police, in conjunction with the Police Authority for Gibraltar) and for certain appointments as conferred on him by the Constitution. The Governor, together with the Council of Ministers, constitutes the Government of Gibraltar"[22] (pg 3)
  • The Gibraltar Police Authority says: "a. Accountability: to be accountable to the Governor on policing aspects of national security including internal security (section 12); to be accountable to the Government for those parts of the Annual Policing Plan which do not relate to national security (section 15)." and "The Authority has 7 members. The Chairman is appointed by the Governor acting on the advice of the Specified Appointments Commission. One member is appointed by the Governor, one member is appointed by the Chief Minister and the remaining four members are appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Public Service Commission." [23]
I hope these sources help clarify the matter. My conclusion is that many sources (including the Chief Minister of Gibraltar) say that the Government of Gibraltar does not have the main responsibility/power/self-governance in the area of internal security. A few others also include the public service and, as a matter of fact, the Chief Minister himself admitted that the GoG had nothing to do with the suspension of the Chief of Justice (which I would say is a significant power in the area of the Judiciary public service). --Imalbornoz (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Excellent work Imalbornoz. I too know very little of UK constitutional law, but can you produce a form of the lead which summarizes the situation with suitable brevity? I have put a fork of the lead on a user subpage, User_talk:Richard_Keatinge/Gibraltar, feel free to edit it. The purpose is to give us all the chance to play around with wording and try to produce a consensus. Or at least, following recent precedent above, something that almost all of us can live with. I hope for a minimum of personal insults too. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Justin's and Richard's copyedit summarises very well the role of the Governor in certain appointments. I have added internal security to the matters controlled by the UK, rearranged the references (adding a few ones), and have tried to summarise (in the words of the UK HoC FAC) the common denominator of all sources about the level of self-government of Gibraltar: "almost complete internal self-government" (I think no source contradicts this text). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
How many times do I have to tell you that internal security is NOT controlled by the UK ? --Gibnews (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

FFS here we go again and again. No, no, no that isn't how it works. There is a fundamental difference between what is written and what happens in practise. I've explained it till I'm blue in the face and you still come back with the same thing again and again. Now either explain what it is you don't understand or just stop it. This is just a blatant example of tendentious editing, where you ignore the explanation to state a position again. Its also abusing WP:V to try and bludgeon a misleading edit into an article when you are fully aware that isn't how it works. If this is how it is going to go, then lets just take this straight to arbcom now and be done with it. Wikipedia should be explaining how it works in reality, not trying to weave in a misleading edit to deliberately understate the amount of self-government enjoyed by Gibraltar because that is what is happening here. I have had it, really I have just had it. Enough. Justin talk 18:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that the Spanish constitution says that the King does all sorts of things, that does not mean that he governs the country. Similarly the Governor is acting on behalf of HM the Queen. Certainly the last Governor was under no illusions as to his role, and the current one was told in no uncertain terms at his swearing in ceremony what to expect. The CIA factbook is out of date. If you look at its map, it still shows a 'neutral territory' between Gibraltar and Spain. Its also ahead of its time as it refers to the Cervantes institute which has not opened yet. I could find lots of references to Spain being a fascist state - Google gives 105,000 hits for 'spain fascist state' but it is not, today and neither is Gibraltar governed by the UK. --Gibnews (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Try this wording: "Under its 2006 Constitution Gibraltar has for almost all purposes complete internal self-governance. Defense, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the United Kingdom; as within the UK, certain powers such as appointments to the judiciary remain with the Crown via the Governor but by custom and practice are only used on local advice." Any progress? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
NO WAY Gibraltar has internal self Government. Full stop. Internal security is NOT the responsibility of the UK. It is provided by the Royal Gibraltar Police, answerable to the Police Authority. The Gibraltar Police Authority is an independent body that is responsible for securing that the Royal Gibraltar Police operates as efficiently and effectively as possible within available resources; providing information on police issues to the community; operating and supervising a procedure for handling complaints against police officers; and generally for ensuring high standards of policing in Gibraltar. www.gpa.gi
The Home office, the Foreign office and the baked potato office have no say in internal security. The CJ is appointed by the Crown, as he holds a Royal warrant. Recent history shows that the CJ upset the locals and is no longer in office. I'm told the last time that happened in the UK was 1650 and the CJ then was on the take, wheras ours was most certainly not.
"Under its 2006 Constitution Gibraltar has internal self-government. Defence and foreign policy remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom; as within the UK, certain powers such as appointments to the judiciary remain with the Crown." --Gibnews (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Because the judiciary and internal security have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the UK. They are not controlled from London, I would even object to what Gibnews suggests because it isn't telling the full story. We should be explaining to the reader how it works, not pandering to a POV warrior who seeks to diminish the progress of self-government in Gibraltar. Justin talk 21:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
"Composition of the Gibraltar Police Authority.
The Authority has 7 members. The Chairman is appointed by the Governor acting on the advice of the Specified Appointments Commission. One member is appointed by the Governor, one member is appointed by the Chief Minister and the remaining four members are appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Public Service Commission." " [24] It seems fairly clear to me that we need some form of words that expresses the indisputable reality of self-governance and the framework of constitutional monarchy, where certain lines of responsibility do go outside Gibraltar. Unless we want to argue the constitutional theory with the FCO, GPA, and a lot of others. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Where does it say that they're appointed by the UK Government? Which is what you just reverted to. So is that how we explain things to readers now, by reverting to a version that you know to be incorrect. This is a great day for wikipedia isn't it, edit warring to add a none consensus text, ignoring a policy based rationale to impose a none consensus edit - one it seems you don't have an answer to as you've ignored it twice and the people who edit warred to get what you gave them never answered and now reverting to something you know is wrong. Seems that informing readers and building a quality encyclopedia isn't high on the agenda at all. Why don't we just replace the article with Gibraltar Espanol and be done with it. Justin talk 22:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
They appear to be appointed by the Governor, who is appointed by the Monarch on the advice of the UK's government. He is not elected by the people of Gibraltar. Yes, I have a good idea of the reality, which I am sure is indeed of effective self-governance, but I hope you can agree that there are lines of responsibility for the internal affairs of Gibraltar which go outside Gibraltar. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office should know what they're talking about in this context, and so should the Gibraltar Police Authority. It seems to me that the present wording expresses this rather well. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Except the Govenor doesn't do the decision, no more than the Queen picks your local Chief Constable; though that is a crown appointment. And the edit you've reverted to says specifically its the UK, WHICH IT ISN'T. Its within Gibraltar, by Gibraltarians for Gibraltarians and executed by Gibraltarians; democratically elected. The present wording does not express it well at all but I'm not going to indulge you in an edit war. Whats the point of inviting input if you just ignore it. I still haven't had any sort of rebuttal to my earlier argument, other than you ignoring it. Seems like a pattern is emerging. Justin talk 22:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Justin: first, calm down please. Second, Imalbarnoz has provided a series of references to substantiate his claims. That 2007 Government of Gibraltar press release is about as clear cut as clear cut can be: "(the constitution) maximises our self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers. All other matters are the competence of the Gibraltar Government, the Gibraltar Parliament or other Gibraltar legal institutions.". No matter what you might think, that is what the Gib government itself states, and the only proper response if you disagree is to find sources which contradict that statement. You can't "argue" it away on the basis of logic or your own opinions - that is not how Wikipedia works. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes he provided references, but they are OUT OF DATE. Now read This which makes the process clear. To be a member of the authority you have to apply to the Government of Gibraltar Human resources department. That is a pretty big clue that its NOT anyone in London who decides. Note the wording of the press release issued by the Governors office that the head is appointed on consultation with the CM.
The structure is like that so the police are answerable to the Police Authority, appointed by the Governor on the recommendation the GoG, the idea is to provide a level of separation, so neither the Governor or the GoG have DIRECT control of the police. If, as a wild example, a bunch of armed foreigners land on a beach firing their guns, the RGP arrest them, who do you think the chief of police calls ? a) Chief Minister, b) Governor c) Ghostbusters? and who gets the apology? --Gibnews (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Not only is Imalbarnoz's reference of far better quality (a Government of Gibraltar press release vs the privately maintained gibnews.net), not only is its wording directly relevant to the wording here, but it is dated 2007 whereas your reference is 2006. Out of date? Please, Gibews, pull the other one - it has bells on. (Not wishing to bring up past grievances but I must remind you and everyone else that you once attempted to portray the British Overseas Territories Act of 2002 as "out of date", without providing any evidence that it was. You're doing something similar again now.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The press release was from the GOVERNORS OFFICE. If you want to defame the reliability and reputation of gibnews.net in reproducing it 'as is' can I ask that you do so in another place under your real name (redacted Text) I believe it makes the actual situation quite clear. Here please refrain from snide comments as they do not help. --Gibnews (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
If you make any more "legal" threats like that I'll file a report at WP:ANI. Gibnews.net is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia policies go, and you can quote me on that until you are blue in the face. ps I'm well aware that this site has something to do with you, as a prior version of your user page attests to [25] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Listen very carefully, I shall say this once. The words quoted have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with me. They comprise a press statement from the Governors Office. If you feel they have been tampered with, contact the FCO and ask for a copy. Gibnews.net is a reliable source, (redacted text) You may have a grudge against me personally, that is your problem. --Gibnews (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the Chief Minister's quote is the most relevant one (especially, given its context: an address to the UN defending Gibraltar's status as self-governing - anyone can see that he would not be downplaying Gibraltar's self-governance so it clearly sets a minimum limit to the exceptions). Now, for the detail of to whom does the Police Authority report to, it is clearly explained by the Police Authority itself, if one cares to read the reference: it claims "to be accountable to the Governor on policing aspects of national security including internal security (section 12)" and "to be accountable to the Government for those parts of the Annual Policing Plan which do not relate to national security (section 15)."[26] It is so clear that I don't know how to explain it without repeating the same words: the Police Authority admits it reports to the Governor in some issues; the fact that it admits at the same time that it reports to the Government in some other issues only makes it clearer that the Governor has some real direct responsibilities which the Government of Gibraltar does not have.
That's what sources say: The Chief Minister of Gibraltar claims that, under the new Constitution, the GoG is self-governing except in defence, foreign policy and internal security; and -not surprisingly if it is to be consistent- the Police Authority claims to be accountable to the Governor and not the GoG in certain matters. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I too don't know how to make it any clearer, and so I suggest some alternatives for consideration. One would be the wording currently at User_talk:Richard_Keatinge/Gibraltar, leaving out the references this is: "Under its 2006 Constitution Gibraltar has for almost all purposes complete internal self-governance. Defense, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the United Kingdom; as within the UK, certain powers such as appointments to the judiciary remain with the Crown via the Governor but by custom and practice are only used on local advice. It nonetheless remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories; Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from the list.[13]". The other would be to leave all mention of self-governance out of the lead altogether, for consideration in the body of the article, for which on balance I have a weak preference. Comments please, here or on the subpage. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
"certain powers (...) by custom and practice are only used on local advice": In fact it seems that 1) the advice does not come from locals (not from local judges and not from the GoG who claims to have nothing to do), but from judges in the British Islands (in 2007 it was "three eminent UK judges chaired by Lord Cullen -of the House of Lords) and 2) it could be that the UK Privy Council is the one that can evaluate Gib's Chief of Justice if the Governor decides to do so (advised by UK judges). See points 235 to 238 here in the HoC FAC report 2007-2008. Some excerpts:
  • "In September 2007, the Governor decided to suspend the Chief Justice on full pay while appointing a Tribunal to advise on whether he should refer the question of whether to remove the Chief Justice to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the highest British court for Gibraltar."
  • (The leader of the opposition)"was concerned about the head of Gibraltar’s judiciary being based outside the Rock and suggested that the constitutional changes might have been made to address issues of status." (Note: I suppose that he means that the head of Gib's judiciary is in practice the Privy Council)
  • (The Chief Minister) "explained: A tribunal, on which three eminent United Kingdom judges sit chaired by Lord Cullen, has to advise the Governor whether he should even refer the matter of the judge’s possible removal to the Privy Council in the United Kingdom. Only if the tribunal advises the Governor to refer the matter to Her Majesty the Queen through the Privy Council does the Governor do that. The Privy Council then makes the decision."
  • (The Minister for Europe) "told us: The established process is that this is not a decision for London; it is a decision for the Governor. Under the constitution, it is for the Gibraltar Judicial Services Commission to address these very points on whether to suspend the Chief Justice."
Therefore, it's clear that in the only post-new constitution practical example (not written law) the advice was not local. Also, it's clear that the decision of whether to refer to the UK Privy Council or not is up to the Governor. Finally, it seems that the Privy Council and/or the Gibraltar Judicial Services Commission can under certain circumstances address some issues related to Gibraltar's Judiciary. But I am not sure about this last point. What do you think? Should we change some text in the part about the judiciary? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the word "only" in accordance with the above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No its wikipedia not a treatise on constitutional law. With respect you really do not understand the role of and process of removing a Chief Justice. Very few people do and they disagree about it. Its out of the scope here. --Gibnews (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a very interesting point, Gibnews. I admit I don't understand the process very well (and I presume that none of us here does either). Therefore, we can only say what the sources say. In this case, what they clearly say is that "three UK judges sit chaired by Lord Cullen give advice to the Governor." As far as I know, Lord Cullen is a Scot and the other three were from elsewhere in the UK. Therefore, the sentence "certain powers such as appointments to the judiciary are only used on local advice" is not true. Is it? So far, this is clear, and Richard's correction is right (to be picky -sorry-, it would not be enough to remove "only", but to change it for "usually", "often" or "sometimes", given that "certain powers are used on local advice" gives the impression that there are no exceptions to local advice).
Given my ignorance of Anglosaxon constitutional law, I will not discuss about the role of the Privy Council or where the head of Gib's judiciary is actually based (although I have my own opinion -very much in line with Bossano's and Caruana's and less with the Minister for Europe). But facts are facts, and it's clear -according to the sources- that the advice has not been local in the most important case related with Gib's post-new constitution judiciary. --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I just found new evidence. Finally, it seems that it was the Privy Council who decided whether the Chief Justice of Gibraltar can keep his job: [PRIVY COUNCIL PONDERS THE CRITERIA FOR REMOVING A JUDGE]. The Privy Council (in this case including the Chief Justice of England and Wales) is surely NOT a Gibraltarian institution but a UK one. I think that it is totally justified to say that in theory and in practice, the UK keeps very significant powers in Gibraltar's Judiciary (and that's exactly what PWC, the Secretariat of the Commonwealth, Chief Minister of Gibraltar, etc. say). --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
New evidence my arse, half of the Caribean Commonwealth Members appeal to the Privy Council as an ultimate authority, are they not independent countries. No, the UK does not keep significant powers in Gibraltar's judiciary, Gibraltar uses a UK authority as an indepenent check on its judiciary. And you admit you're ignorant of Anglosaxon constitutional law but feel compelled to simply ignore people when they attempt to explain. Really? Sod this, please can we just take this to arbcom now. This is going nowhere, you explain things they're ignored or out of date sources used to justify a misleading edit.
Still haven't seen any rebuttal of my concern over San Roque either, Arbcom now please. Justin talk 12:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


UNINDENT

And we're even ignoring what the sources say, Under the constitution, it is for the Gibraltar Judicial Services Commission to address these very points on whether to suspend the Chief Justice. ie it Gibraltar not London that decides. Justin talk 12:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Justin, in the first place, I suggest that you please calm down. I have only said that the text "only on local advice" is not correct. The Privy Council and the 3 UK judges + Lord Cullen (Scot like yourself) are not local, therefore the advice was not local. In the second place you seem to only look at what one of the sources says and cry "Indisputable evidence!" I recommend you a bit more of humility. Myself, I have said that it was not clear. In fact, Bossano says "the head of Gibraltar’s judiciary being based outside the Rock" (his own words in 2007) and Caruana says that "The Privy Council then makes the decision." Admittedly, it contradicts the Minister of Europe, that's why I said it's not clear. In any case... calm down. It's not worth it. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I apologise: I messed up internal security with the judiciary (the Secretariat, Chief Minister, etc. talk about internal security as an exception to self-government, not the judiciary). I have struck through the erroneous part of my previous comment about the judiciary. In any case, it was not local advice (but from UK judges and the Privy Council) what the Governor received in order to decide about the Chief Justice. --Imalbornoz (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Try "normally follow" local advice? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a bit of a minefield, and although its an interesting discussion it does not really impact the Gibraltar article. Its misleading to use the term 'UK Judge' yes he is from the UK but he is not answerable to its Government when he forms part of an inquiry constituted in Gibraltar, or forms part of the Gibraltar court of appeal. Its the same as a Spanish doctor working for the Gibraltar health authority, he is accredited by another country but he is employed by the GHA.
You might want to read the wikipedia article on Judicial_Committee_of_the_Privy_Council and as recently as 1986 it was the final court of appeal for Australia. But really none of this is related to whether Gibraltar is self-governing or not. These days the final court is the ECHR but you cannot apply to that until all other remedies are exhausted. --Gibnews (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I wouldn't feel the need to qualify "self-government" on the basis of where top-level legal appeals go, it's too minor. However I'd like to repeat that the legal authority by which the Governor appoints or dismisses important members of, for example, the judiciary or the Police Authority, does require some qualification to the term "self-government". Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree: no source says that Gibraltar is "self-governing except (...) the judiciary". Therefore, I wouldn't think it'd be reasonable to say so in the article. On the other hand, we have seen many sources that say "self-governing except foreign relations, defence and internal security" (even the Chief Minister of Gibraltar in an address defending the self-government of Gibraltar at the UN) or "foreign relations, defence and internal security are the responsibility of the UK". Also, some qualified sources say "except some appointments." -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It might be if the Judiciary was a function of Government. Its not there is a necessary separation. A commonly held view is Independence of judiciary means a fair and neutral judicial system of a country, which can afford to take its decisions without any interference of executive or legislative branch of government see [unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/.../apcity/unpan020065.pdf This paper].
I think this argument is tending towards the ridiculous 'angels on a pinhead' level. We are talking about a sentence in the lead which encapsulates the current state of Government in Gibraltar, not a discourse on independence of the judiciary in a democratic state. lets put the damn thing to bed and concentrate on updating the HUGE list of broken links which follows this section. --Gibnews (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Q. Why aren't we explaining the Government of Gibraltar instead of pandering to an obsessive editor who is focused on diminishing the description of self-government in Gibraltar to an absolute minimum he can get away with? Justin talk 22:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Myself, I don't need to keep talking about it. If we want to mention the level of Gibraltar's self-government in the lead, I think that Richard's paragraph pretty much summarises what almost (if not all) reliable sources say about it. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't but that isn't the point is it? Congratulations, Franco would be so proud of you. Justin talk 00:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Justin, I request that you immediately apologise for that offensive comment. Franco was a fascist dictator who killed thousands of people, put to jail many other thousands for political reasons and kept democracy out of Spain for 40 years. This is absolutely out of place. If that was a joke, it was of incredibly bad taste. If it is not, then it enters the category of disruptive editing. I ask you to apologise. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The policies of the current Spanish Government and the views expressed by some wikipedia editors are no different to those of Franco, as detailed in the book 'The Spanish Proposals for Gibraltar' by Fernando Castiella. (1966) The contempt and disregard for the people of Gibraltar remains the same and cyber genocide although it has the same detachment as an aircraft pilot bombing villages is still repugnant, and frankly I have had enough of reading it here. Part of the difficulty of explaining the way Gibraltar is governed and the separation between the state and the judiciary is that Spain is a recent democracy and has a primitive and ineffectual justice system, wheras Gibraltar has had both for a long time. --Gibnews (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Gibnews, those comments (did you just intentionally mention something like "cyber genocide" and "an aircraft pilot bombing villages"?) can be interpreted either as very offensive or of extremely bad taste too (like Justin's reference to Franco). An apology would help return your side of the discussion to a more mature level. About the Spain judiciary: as I am not a nationalist, I have no problem in admitting that -among many defects- Spain probably has a primitive and ineffectual justice system, but that is out of the question here. It looks like a couple of editors have reached a point similar to when my children call each other names: "you bad", "no you badder".... I hope it's not that they have ran out of arguments and they are trying to end the discussion in a crossfire of personal attacks. Well, let each one qualify oneself by his/her style of discussion and the level of the arguments provided.
Does anyone have any comments about content and sources in the lead segment about self-government? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
My referrence to Franco? My mother and grandfather were refugees from Franco's Spain, never knew my grandmother or uncle as they were murdered. You have single mindedly set out to minimise the legitimacy of the Gibraltar Government and using wikipedia as a propaganda weapon for a Fascist irrdentist dream and wounded macho pride. Don't pretend for one second that it was about improving the article, it never was. You're clever about it, I'll give you that but I don't see any difference between you and that Fascist fuckwit. Enjoy your little victories but don't pretend there is anything but a fascist racist agenda behind them. Justin talk 14:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest we do not continue this sorry thread any further. It does noone any credit. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, mentioning Franco, particularly to Spaniards living in the UK is quite unpleasent. We should concentrate on Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Gibnews, I don't live in the UK, but the fact that Justin started to compare people with Franco has been indeed unpleasant and out of place. Nonetheless, I really feel sorry for Justin and the way that he has lost his temper, and I hope (in fact I am sure) that he will return with a more balanced attitude.
His personal attacks and mentioning "fascist irredentist dreams", "a fascist racist agenda" and -especially- "I don't see any difference between you and that Fascist fuckwit" have been completely unjustifiable. I have thought about what to do about that (take some action in WP, give silence as the only answer,...) Finally I've decided that I won't take any action because I want to encourage him to return to WP. But I want to make sure that he realises that the kind of behaviour he has undertaken is very offensive and unacceptable (my silence could make him think that it is acceptable and lead him to further abuses).
It would be very good indeed if he understood that I have only proposed edits so that the article mirrors what the UK FAC or UK FCO or the Secretariat of the Commonwealth say in their Gibraltar profiles or things that the overwhelming majority of History of Gibraltar books written by British authors mention (I really don't understand why this can be considered POV warrioring, much less some of the bizarre things that he has imagined).
I repeat: I hope that he returns, if only with a more balanced attitude. I am sure a project like WP would miss a motivated editor like him. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Self-governance and the lead paragraph

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I agree with Gibnews' suggestion of putting this issue to bed and Imalbornoz's call for comments. I think we have had most of the relevant arguments. I'd like to call for a choice between:

1. the present text for a lead paragraph, which stripped of references is "Under its 2006 Constitution Gibraltar has for almost all purposes complete internal self-governance.[2][3][4][5] Defense, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the United Kingdom; as within the UK, certain powers such as appointments to the judiciary remain with the Crown via the Governor but normally follow local advice.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] It nonetheless remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories; Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from the list.[13]"

2. omitting all mention of self-governance from the lead, keeping a thorough and suitably-nuanced discussion for its own section

and

3. some form of words better than 1, feel free to make suggestions on User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar.

For what my opinion may be worth I'd probably go for 2. In any case I hope soon to free editors from this particular conflict and its associated strong feelings and unpleasantness, so that we can move on to, for example, improving the dead links. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


Achieved a 9:4 support from active editors at the time. Its short its sourced and to the point.
If we really have to we can go into more details later of the composition of the judicial services commission, and how the CJ is appointed and sacked, but I really tire of the attempt to portray Gibraltar as a colony. Because of that the style of government absolutely must not be omitted. Anyhow we already voted on this and achieved a consensus. --Gibnews (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I vote for number 2, and -in a second position much behind- number 1. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I vote for number 2 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I wondered how long it would be before mentioning expunging self-government from the lead would be brought up again. Less than 8 hrs, what a surprise - NOT. Seems that settling old scores and minimising the legitimacy of the Gibraltar Government for a POV agenda is more important than writing quality articles. Removing it is making the article peddle a fiction, its not about improving it, you should be defending its incorporation because all you're doing is pandering to a fascist notion that national pride is more important than people. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Justin talk 14:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What Justin said, plus it took 10 years campaigning and an ECHR judgement to establish the right to vote in European elections, bitterly opposed by Spain at every turn. It took less time to get a new self-governing constitution from HMG. If anyone thinks they can hide these things to pander to 'spanish sensitivities' they are in for an equally long dispute. --Gibnews (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
What about "Largely self-governing" for the lead? Brief and to the point. I'd still leave it out of the lead entirely, in which case we have a useful summary for the main text.
Would it help to consider the situation if by some bizarre misapplication of the Salic law someone like Franco started running the UK? What powers would they have and how could they misuse them? Under the present arrangements, if they could muster the practical power and sufficient alcoholic quislings, they could actually appoint tinpot fascists first to the Governorship, then to the police authority and the judiciary, from which they could make a strong attempt at a semi-legal golpe. I don't imagine the UK's government doing anything of the kind, nor do I imagine they'd find enough people to cooperate, but we need to recognize that in some theoretical sense the UK / Crown retain significant powers in Gibraltar. And a neutral commentary on Gibraltar's self-government needs to recognize both that theoretical fact and the reality of self-government. I have no interest in pandering to fascist notions or any notions of irredentism, I am suggesting that in order to counter crackpot narratives we need to be clear exactly what the theoretical and real situations are, and overstating/oversimplifying our case is about the most harmful thing we can do. Among other things it is a brilliant way of irritating people who could be persuaded to support us. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I apologise in advance for repeating myself. The UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in its 2007-2008 Report (a public secondary source of sorts, since it analyses UK BOTs, summarises some events and quotes Gib's Chief Minister etc.) explains it in a very accurate manner: "almost complete internal self-government." It's sourced, it's very simple and it's very accurate. Please give it a thought before rejecting... -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Support Imalbornoz's idea: "Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government.[10]" for the lead and the rest to go on the end of the paragraph in the Politics section on the 2006 constitution, which would then read:

"In March 2006, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw announced that a new Gibraltar constitution had been agreed upon and would be published prior to a referendum on its acceptance in Gibraltar that year.[11] In July, in a statement to the UK Parliament, Geoff Hoon, the Minister for Europe, confirmed that the new Constitution affirms the right of self-determination of the Gibraltarian people.[12] On 30 November 2006, a referendum was held to approve a new constitution. The turnout was 60.4% of eligible voters, of whom 60.24% voted to approve the constitution; 37.75% voted against. The remainder returned blank votes. The Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, welcomed the result as a step forward for Gibraltar's political development. Under its 2006 Constitution Gibraltar has almost complete internal self-government.[13][14][15][16] Defense, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the United Kingdom; as within the UK, certain powers such as appointments to the judiciary remain with the Crown via the Governor but normally follow local advice.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23] It nonetheless remains on the UN list of non-self-governing territories; Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from the list.[24]

I support that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI, [27] Hopefully Gibnews will heed the "support continuing block until the threat is very clearly recognized and retracted" words there and hence be able to rejoin the editing fold (my intent was certainly not to get him permanently blocked, just to get him to realise he'd massively overstepped the line). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Police Authority

Latest comment: 14 years ago31 comments6 people in discussion

There seems to be an attempt to prevent the following press release, issued jointly between the Government of Gibraltar and the Governors office from being seen. It impacts the discussion on who appoints the Gibraltar Police Authority.


--Gibnews (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify where the "censorship" attempt is? Tan | 39 14:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe construing the attempt to discredit an archive of press releases banned as censorship was excessive, so I've changed the heading. However the content of the press release is highly appropriate to the discussion about the appointment of the Gibraltar police authority and how it impacts the claim that the territory is governed by the UK. --Gibnews (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Possibly. Find a reliable source that quotes the press release, and I'm sure it can be used. Of course, that's an entirely separate discussion, as I'm sure you're well aware. Tan | 39 15:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, there no online record of that press release, apart from the one I originally gave, and the text is presented here for discussion rather than as a reference. You can assume its not written by me. But not all things referenced in Wikipedia are online and the above exists in printed form. However seeing as its a joint press release with the GoG one might expect to find it on The Government archive page but the documents listed return 404 - Not found. Which is a pity as 198/2006 deals with the New Police Ordinance, which defines the various roles and concludes The new Ordinance enshrines the UK principle that the Government may not interfere in day to day, or operational, policing matters. --Gibnews (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you contact the website to tell them none of the links in the 2006 press releases archive work Dab14763 (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews - am I right in thinking that you want to use this source to verify that Gibraltar enjoys self-government with respect to internal security, and therefore that we should not say otherwise in the article? If so, and this is a serious question, not an attempt to wind you up, what do you have to say about the multitude of sources which say otherwise, linked to above [28]. The list of sources includes: a quote from the Gib Chief Minister, Price Waterhouse Coopers, the CIA, the UK FCO, the Commonwealth and the UN. (Please do not simply say that these are out of date or inaccurate, without providing evidence that this is the case. The Chief Minister's comment came after this press release.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Subsection (4) of section 47 of the constitution says the UK government has overall responsibility for external affairs and defence. It does not say the UK government has responsibility for internal security Dab14763 (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding the point and the Constitution, I think.
  • Subsection (4) indeed says the Governor will "(exercise) his responsibility for external affairs and defence...without prejudice to the overall responsibility of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom for these matters."
  • But subsection (1) says "The Governor, acting in his discretion, shall be responsible in Gibraltar for the conduct (subject to this Constitution and any other law) of the following matters – (a) external affairs; (b) defence; (c) internal security, including (subject to section 48) the police..."
The point being, the Governor (not the UK government) has responsibility for internal security, and because (s)he is not elected by the residents of Gibraltar and is instead appointed by the Crown (which is of course in turn guided in its choice by the British Government), it therefore follows that Gibraltar does not have full self-government in these areas. This is why the Chief Minister said in 2007 "(The new Constitution) maximises self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
If you read the material more carefully, you can see an alternative view, that there is a deliberate separation between control of the Police and Government. In selecting the head of the Police Authority, formally appointed by the Governor, it was demonstrably on advice by the head of the elected Government of Gibraltar and not a UK entity. The Governor, as the representative of the monarch - NOT the UK Government - makes a number of appointments, including the Chief Minister after an election. Now as the Governor has that role, although it can be said he has responsibility for the Police and thus internal security, you cannot assert that Gibraltar is lacking in self-government on that count as it is not DIRECTLY a role of Government in Gibraltar - or for that matter, as stated, in the United Kingdom. Like the Judiciary there is a deliberate separation in democratic countries. This is to avoid conflicts of interest between politicians and the good running of a country. ---Gibnews (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
My words were: "lacking in full self-government". I fully understand the idea behind the separation of powers, but that is not the point here. In Gibraltar's case, certain powers have been separated and given to an individual who is appointed to his job by the British Government on behalf of the Crown. Even with regards to policing appointments, section 48 says "The Commissioner of Police shall be appointed by the Governor acting in accordance with the advice of the Gibraltar Police Authority, provided that the Governor may disregard the advice of the Gibraltar Police Authority in relation to any person where he judges that accepting that advice would prejudice Her Majesty’s service."
I also fully accept that the Governor may be a hands off kind of guy (or gal) and allow a (very) large degree of autonomy in the day to day affairs. That is exactly why Richard's proposed wording fits the bill. It covers both angles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You miss the point. If you claim that Gibraltar does not have full self government because its politicians do not directly control the Police, you are by implication stating that the UK does not either. The point is that it is not relevant in the Gibraltar or UK systems of government. --Gibnews (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I may well be missing your point Gibnews, in fact I can't quite see what your point is. I hope it is agreed by now that there are responsibilities for the internal governance of Gibraltar which rest with the Crown or with UK authorities such as the judiciary? As you say these do not directly affect the situation on the street, but I also hope that the wording we have thrashed out, above, is accurate and balanced. Could I ask if any other editors disagree with the suggested text (in the previous section, and also on my user subpage)? I think that we may have enough of a consensus to make the edit, which I propose to do in a few more days if we have no new objections. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Gibnews, once you start straying into "if p then q" style of logical argument, rather than "here's a source which says q" you need to stop yourself because you have firmly landed in OR territory. But to address your point, I'm not saying anything about politicians. It's a matter of government. The UK's branches of government are all in the UK. We are self-governing. Gibraltar has an arm of government (the Guv) that is appointed by another government in London, whose interests it has the legal power to uphold in conflict with local interests. That is a very big difference. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard: The point is we are discussing Government. Gibraltar has internal self-government not partial self government. Those things the elected Government does not control, are simply not the role of Government, either in Gibraltar or the UK. People are assuming governance and Government are the same thing when they are not. The Governor may be appointed as the Queen's representative but in practise the appointment is made in consultation with the Government of Gibraltar.

In some places in the US the judges and police chief are elected, but nobody is foolish enough to asset America is not self governing because their elected Government does not make these appointments.

RH: You are wrong, the Governor is not 'appointed' by HMG but by the Queen and exercises powers on her behalf. The press release from the Governors office shows that he acts with the approval and advice of the elected Government of Gibraltar. His role is the same as HM but with the difference he can be asked to leave, the UK has not done that with its head of state for some time.

Anyway these days all the UK parliament (and that of Gib and other EU countries) does is transpose EU directives from the unelected Council of Europe so Gibraltar can be described as self-governing as much as anyone.--Gibnews (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A genuine point but it bears on the degree to which the UK governs itself and has little to do with the present issue. Fortunately we aren't engaged in an argument over whether and how the word "self-governing" should appear in the UK article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Well, I do see your point, but I suspect that it is based on an unconventional, even unique, definition of self-government. To my understanding, things like appointing Governors and judges are precisely part of government, and for Gibraltar they are the legal responsibility of someone who isn't Gibraltarian, Monarch of Gibraltar, or elected by Gibraltarians. That is a limit on self-government, in legal theory if not in practice. (In the American case the authority is of the local electors, who are American citizens.) It may be perverse, but I think that if Gib were to become part of the UK in the same way as overseas departments of France are part of France - I've never quite seen why Gib can't help to elect Westminster MPs - the description of Gib as self-governing would be as true as it is for the UK in general, without actually doing much for the ability of any Gibraltarian to affect anything to do with the government of Gib. Yes, I'm quite prepared to believe all that you say about the way things work in practice, and why, but I still hope you will support my wording above. Or correct my understanding, or come up with some better formulation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Replace Under its 2006 Constitution Gibraltar has for almost all purposes complete internal self-governance.
With Under its 2006 Constitution Gibraltar is internally self-governing.
And the man from Gibraltar says YES.--Gibnews (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The man with the red hat says WOW. I can live with this. I would also suggest, to correctly reflect the Constitution, to make the following change: "Defense, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the United Kingdom Governor". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
excellent you are on. Subject that Richard agrees, and I think he is pretty close, lets go with his proposal PDQ, put the whole thing to bed and get on with something more productive. --Gibnews (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry (really) to disagree. I will accept anything that the majority says (I don't want to be a problem), but let me point out that "internally self-governing" contradicts two very relevant sources: the Chief Minister ("self-government except... internal security") and CFA ("ALMOST complete internal self-government") no matter what we might infer ourselves from the Constitution (myself, I infer the same as the CM and the CFA, but I respect and understand that Gibnews may have a different interpretation). Sorry, but I had to remind what the sources say. I could agree with a text that says the same as those two sources. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The PWC reference [29] says "Constitutionally, Gibraltar is a British dependent territory with internal self-government, the United Kingdom being responsible for defence, foreign affairs, financial stability and internal security." Therefore, I don't see this wording as a problem, Imalbornoz. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Three cheers for Saint Valentine, but Imalbornoz has a point. The problem for me too is the mention of "self-governing", unqualified, in the lead. I could live with "Constitutionally, Gibraltar is a British dependent territory with internal self-government, the United Kingdom being responsible for defence, foreign affairs, financial stability and internal security." Apart from being exactly what a definitive source says, it rolls up the bald statement into one sentence - and concept - with the qualifications. I've put that in the lead on my subpage. If this represents a possible consensus perhaps we could make the edit after a few days, say next weekend, to give other involved editors a fair chance to comment. If Saint Valentine can bring about a genuine consensus I'll burn a candle for him/them and maybe even give up some of my evil ways! Justin, if you're reading this, you might want to email me with comments. If so I'll read them with care. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
My reading of the text on your Gibraltar subsection of the talk page, Richard, saw no mention of self-governing in the lead. It has been moved to the politics section. It was on this basis that I agreed. I'm presuming Gibnews has also read it and was proposing changing the politics section too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I've evidently got confused, please feel free to change the subpage to the text you have in mind. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] I thought it was too good to be true. Looking at the PWC reference,[30] its utter nonsense. Britain does not have 'dependent territories' the term is legally obsolete and the site goes on to say:

Other matters are dealt with by the Gibraltar Council, which consists of the Governor, the Chief Minister, four other Ministers, the Deputy Governor, the Attorney General, the Financial and Development Secretary and the Commander of British Forces.

NO - The Gibraltar Council in that format was abolished under the 2006 Constitution, and in any event did not meet since Joe Bossano was elected in 1988 as he did not accept its format.

The current constitution says:

Council of Ministers and Government of Gibraltar

45.-(1) There shall be for Gibraltar a Council of Ministers, which shall consist of a Chief Minister and such number of other Ministers (not being less than four) as may, subject to subsection (2), be prescribed by the Chief Minister; and such Council of Ministers, together with Her Majesty who is represented in Gibraltar by the Governor, shall constitute the Government of Gibraltar.

The PWC wording will no doubt change and cannot be relied on today. --Gibnews (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than squabble, can you please change Richard's subpage to reflect the wording you suggest? I too am now confused about what I thought you had agreed to, as I thought we were agreeing to the same wording which at a high level was to remove all mention of self-government and the UN list from the lead, and discuss in the politics section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Go for it Gibnews. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Richard has updated it with the proposal. Gibnews can you comment? [31] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
He's just emailed me to say he's got other problems at the moment. Let's leave it until next weekend before making the edit - St Valentine won't get his candle but we may yet have a consensus. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
OK. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead and Politics section (let's go for the last try!)

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I agree with waiting for Gibnews to try and write a new text for consensus (and I completely subscribe Richard's "go for it!"). At the risk of being boring now, but trying to help better aim this try (and avoid much more boring future discussions), I only want to say that:

  • We have a variety of sources which explain different perimeters of self-government in Gibraltar.
  • Some of the sources -like PWC or the CIA- may misunderstand some of the issues.
  • On the other hand, we should take into account the information from the Chief Minister of Gibraltar: he surely in his address to the UN wanted to maximise the level of self-government and therefore set a maximum perimeter (according to the GoG) when he said "the new Constitution maximises the self-government except in the areas of foreign affairs, defence and internal security"[32].
  • We should also take into account the position of the UK FAC (which is an involved party -it is an institution in the UK who supervises the Foreign Office which negotiated the new Constitution with the GoG- but also a secondary source of sorts -as it summarises and analyses several reports and statements from Gib, the UK, etc.) who said that Gibraltar has "almost complete internal self-government"[33].

In fact, this is what some experienced outside editor recommended when this issue was raised in the RS Noticeboard (see here: "The official statement of the two governments involved is the best source.")

Thanks everybody (and especially Gibnews, I hope your other problems get solved soon - so this WP (hobby-time-not-actually-a-real-life-) problem is the most worrisome thing you have :) ). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just begin the article, "Gibraltar is a territory located etc...." then mention its status under British law, its constitution, its UN status and Spanish claims? The first sentence would then be factual and neutral. Most articles about states do not have the same level of detail about their constitutional status in the first sentence. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I've had another go at User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar, removing PWC as a source and using wording from the House of Commons report instead. I propose to change to this wording this weekend, unless someone comes up with something really good. :-) Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

When this is all agreed we also need to ensure Politics of Gibraltar is consistent. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Another observation - the lead says "The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians strongly oppose this". I've underlined the problems.
  • Written in the present tense, it's unverifiable. There is no way of proving right now what everyone thinks. You can only reference the results of referenda or polls, which by definition are in the past.
  • "Overwhelming" is not a neutral word. Is 65% overwhelming? 80%? 95%? Who knows. Let the facts speak for themselves, and the facts we have are the results of the 2002 referendum.
  • "Strongly" is also not a neutral word. The referendum was a yes/no response.
  • The cited sources do not in fact verify any of the three issues above as they stand.
You don't see this kind of language in, say, the CIA Factbook or FCO country profile, and we don't need it here. Again, the facts speak for themselves and don't need these embellishments. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ ref
  2. ^ ref
  3. ^ ref
  4. ^ ref
  5. ^ ref
  6. ^ ref
  7. ^ ref
  8. ^ http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gaspd422.doc.htm
  9. ^ http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gaspd422.doc.htm
  10. ^ [34]UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 2007-2008 Report, pg 16
  11. ^ "Statement to the House of Commons". Gibnet. 27 March 2006. Retrieved 2007-12-20.
  12. ^ "Press Release: The UK Government states that the forthcoming referendum on the Constitution will be an exercise of the right of self-determination by the people of Gibraltar in the context of the UN Charter (attachment)" (PDF). Government of Gibraltar. Retrieved 2008-10-17.
  13. ^ [35]UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee 2007-2008 Report, pg 16
  14. ^ [36] 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
  15. ^ [37] David Blair, Gibraltar makes plans for self-government, Daily Telegraph, 28 February 2002 "GIBRALTAR'S parliament approved an ambitious package of constitutional reform yesterday designed to give the colony almost complete self-government."
  16. ^ "Gibraltar". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 18 August 2009. Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defence.
  17. ^ [38] The Secretariat of the Commonwealth: "The governor represents the British monarch who is head of state and retains direct responsibility for all matters not specifically allocated to local ministers: principally external affairs, defence and internal security"
  18. ^ [39]PriceWaterhouseCoopers "About Gibraltar"
  19. ^ [40] Gibraltar Police Authority, About the Gibraltar Police Authority - Other Duties and Responsibilities - Accountability: "1. to be accountable to the Governor on policing aspects of national security including internal security (section 12); 2. to be accountable to the Government for those parts of the Annual Policing Plan which do not relate to national security (section 15)."
  20. ^ [41] Gibraltar Chief Minister’s address at the United Nations Committee of 24 on 5 June 2007: The new Constitution "maximises self Government in all areas of Governance except defence, external affairs and internal security which, under our own Constitution vest in the Governor as a matter of distribution of powers."
  21. ^ [42] Regions and territories: Gibraltar "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy."
  22. ^ [43] Regions and territories: Gibraltar "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy."
  23. ^ [44] Page 6, "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in the House of Lords are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, but the Lord Chancellor's opinion is generally sought. This method of appointment is a matter of practice and convention, not of written law."
  24. ^ [45] Special Committee on Decolonization hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from 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 decolonization"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar/Archive_17&oldid=1143537022"