Wikipedia

Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 21

< Talk:Gibraltar
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Richard Keatinge in topic More territorial disputes
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Territorial dispute with Spain

Latest comment: 13 years ago72 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

Relations with Spain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A general response to the above, if I may:

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

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

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

Richard's proposal:

Relations with Spain

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

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

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

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

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


I suggest altering several paragraphs:

The second should be changed to:


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

I suggest the next paragraph is amended as:


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

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

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

Appropriate title

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

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

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

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

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

Territorial claim by Spain

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

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

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

Comments?

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

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

UNINDENT

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

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


About the isthmus and territorial waters:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

I would only propose to include official positions of noteworthy sources. If the ICJ has a position about this dispute, tell us and I will support its inclusion. Please notice that for the sake of brevity (and consensus) I have not included the EC position about the territorial waters aroun Gibraltar [1]. If you consider it relevant, we can include it. Imalbornoz (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not able to see any "judgement on merits of claims" in the proposed text. Can you list them all? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You have set up an irrelevant strawman with that comment. The ICJ is only able to state a position if a case is filed, as Spain refuses to have the matter referred there it does not. However, the ICJ is the only UN body capable of delivering a definitive and binding judgement on the merits of the case advanced by both parties. It is therefore relevant when one party in a dispute is prepared to refer the case for judgement, whereas the other declines. I propose to simply mention that. The source supplied supports the claim made.
Secondly, you state that "I would only propose to include official positions of noteworthy sources." Tell me do you not consider the official position of the Government of Gibraltar as stated by its leader a noteworthy source? Justin talk 23:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Or:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, massed response again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard, the Ministry of Spain says in "La cuestión de Gibraltar"[2] that: "La controversia sobre los límites del territorio cedido afecta al Istmo, a las aguas territoriales y al espacio aéreo." = "The controvesy about the limits of the ceded territory affect the Isthmus, the territorial waters and the airspace." All those points were not mentioned in the Treaty and only were taken into account later on (with continuous occupation and the evolution of modern international law). Therefore there doesn't seem to be any differences of interpretation on the limits of the Treaty (especially taking into account Spain's insistence in always mentioning the points it does not accept). If anyone has any source that says otherwise, it will be welcome. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC) (added after Justin's comment below)
Patronising doesn't help, perhaps that was intended as humour but it comes across as patronising. A point made before when someone wrote a 2000 word essay on "incompetence" on the basis of a light hearted remark "Patience Grasshopper".
Text propoal is:


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

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


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

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

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


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

Going by parts in response to Imalbornoz:

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

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

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

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

Third point has already been answered by Justin.

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

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

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

A proposal to find consensus in a more orderly way

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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

Straight question. Why won't you allow content to stand on its own merits, supported by sources and allow community to decide what best represents wikipedia's policies? Mmmm. Why not?
I'm quite prepared to offer a suggestion and let it stand on its own merits. You're clearly not. And I think think the community here is entitled to ask why. Justin talk 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Very simple: the issues we are dealing with are not too simple, so I think that a brief explanation is better. Otherwise, outsiders may not understand what's going on, or may not even bother to comment. Of course, I think all sides should have the same (brief) space to explain their case. (You seem to be of the same opinion: you have been the FIRST to comment below each editors' proposal[3][4][5][6][7]).
Would you agree to ask for MedCom's help? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Text should stand on its own merits, with supporting references. Explanations are not brief and deter outside comment. Clearly I'm not of that opinion, because I responded to an attempt to spin the motives of other editors and to denigrate their contributions. The text wasn't there to justify content, it rubbished other suggestions, pretty much as you did to my suggestions.
So effectively you are saying you have no faith in the community to judge text on its own merits unless you explain it to them? Yes/No. Justin talk 12:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll give you an example: I just posted two alternative texts without any explanation (at the NPOV noticeboard). The response was: "I don't see any issue of NPOV there, ¿what're the complaints?" Then we had to give explanations (me, Pfainuk and you), cluttering the noticeboard. If each text had had a short explanation (from its defenders) from the beginning, no question would probably have been made, we wouldn't have cluttered the page, and we would have obtained more outside comments without ourselves getting in the middle.
It's not me having faith or lack thereof, it's just the evidence. I just wanna be practical. Does this answer your question? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
No it doesn't answer the question, if those two texts are judged to be equal. Then for an overview we'd go with the shorter one, if we accept community input, the shorter being best for an overview. So on the basis of that feedback would you agree to go with my proposal? The feedback so far says its neutral and by far the most compact.
The comments from Pfainuk and myself relate to the fact of your demonstration of bad faith by failing to follow the accepted protocol of notifying users that you'd made that post, that you were not accurately presenting proposals and you'd omitted to mention a factor in the discussion. The discussion that follows relates to your conduct. I'm happy to allow the case to be considered on merits but I do take exception when its misrepresented - and it is a recurring theme that my proposals are not accurately portrayed. They're not explanations, they're comments on disruptive behaviour.
Although you poisoned the well with a post stating the text I proposed was POV, I still accepted the outcome from the NPOV noticeboard and withdrew a proposal previously. Text shouldn't need an explanation if you want an outside opinion when it is sourced and cited properly. What your comments say to me is you've no confidence that your proposal would have community support. Aside from anything else, if you've no prepared to accept community input unless you can lobby first then not unreasonably I ask what hope does MEDCOM have. Justin talk 14:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I doubt if the NPOV noticeboard is the right forum for this particular issue. But, sorry, text does need some comment for outsiders. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Good Work All

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Sorry to disturb you, but I wonder if you feel able at this stage to give substantive advice on our present problem? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Listening to all opinions would be a good start and not threatening to impose your solution as you have done previously - I observe that there is some support for my position now. Justin talk 15:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Territorial disputes

Latest comment: 13 years ago50 comments5 people in discussion

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

1.

Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock and its port, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cession outside those limits.[51] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar, arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control.[52]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[53][54]

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

2.

"Spain accepts British sovereignty only within the limits of the Rock.[55] The UK claims sovereignty of half of the isthmus that connects the Rock to the mainland and on the waters surrounding Gibraltar, arguing that continuous possession of the isthmus should be taken into account and the modern concept of territorial waters is applicable.[56]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[57]

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

3.

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

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

4.

Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has repeatedly requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response[58].

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

And less is often more:


.

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

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

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

5.

Britain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more expansively than Spain, disputing Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Spain to territorial waters around the Rock. Spain is helping the European Commission fend off a legal challenge by Gibraltar over a decision designating most of Gibraltar’s territorial waters as one of Spain’s protected nature sites under EU law[59].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.

.

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

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

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

5bis.

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

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

1 bis.

Spain claims that British sovereignty is only acceptable in the areas explicitly mentioned by the Treaty of Utrecht[60] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also claims the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar, arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control.[61]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[62][63]

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


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

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

  • The fact of the dispute, together with the basic positions of the three sides on the dispute as a whole. That means:
    • Spain: territorial integrity; British sovereignty restricted by Utrecht
    • UK: self-determination restricted by Utrecht; unrestricted British sovereignty
    • Gibraltar: unrestricted self-determination; unrestricted British sovereignty
  • The independently relevant fact of the UN list, and the positions of Spain, and the UK and Gibraltar, on it.


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

Thank you. I will accept this proposal as-is, but would suggest that the second sentence of the first paragraph might be better off worded in such a way as to not appear to be a definitive list? While the isthmus and territorial waters are the main points of contention, Spain's position on airspace and land Gibraltar has reclaimed from the sea - along with, I believe, other matters - is similar (on that latter point, this is linked to territorial waters: Spain believes that land reclaimed from the sea was originally in Spanish waters).
One other thing, the adjective form of "Gibraltar" is "Gibraltar". "Gibraltarian" explicitly refers to people. So, "Both the British and Gibraltar governments" and "Gibraltar self-determination" would be more appropriate. Pfainuk talk 19:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree mostly, but I suggest a couple of precisions. I think they should not be controversial:
  • "Additionally, Spain's position (...) or over any territorial waters." -> "Additionally, Spain's position (...) nor over any territorial waters or airspace." That way, we cover all the significant territorial issues (why give a sample of two issues when the universe of relevant issues amounts to three?)
  • "(...) over all the territory of modern Gibraltar." -> "(...) over the Rock and the southern part of the isthmus, and the right to control its territorial waters and airspace." I'm not sure what "modern" Gibraltar is according to each POV... Let's mention the objective geographical places and avoid the controversy. Besides, I'm not too sure that Britain claims sovereignty on territorial waters and airspace (I think it always talks about "control").
  • "Gibraltar remains in (...)" -> "Gibraltar is in (...) since 1946." The word remains seemed (to me) a bit awkward. If we try to say that it was included long ago, I think it's better to say it this way.
  • Let's solve the first (and larger) part of the text and we will discuss about the last paragraph later on. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the isthmus, water and airspace are necessarily the sum total of what Spain disputes. If they are, I don't believe that such a list is necessarily accurate in implication, given the issues with land reclamation. Better to treat territorial waters and the isthmus as examples IMO.
The territory of modern Gibraltar would be the territory on which Gibraltar exists on the ground. In the same way, we use a map of modern Gibraltar, based on the realities on the ground. Spain disputes the legality of British control of the isthmus, but does not dispute the fact of it.
You state that Britain doesn't claim to have sovereignty over territorial waters and airspace. Could you give us an exceptional source to demonstrate this exceptional claim please? We already have sources cited on this page that make the opposite point, and logic would seem to support them: it would seem distinctly strange for the British to argue that they were infringing Spanish rights by exercising control over territorial waters and airspace, as you seem to be suggesting.
Your last point I can accept, given a grammatical correction. The word "since" in English, unlike in French and Spanish, always takes the past tense. Gibraltar has been... is better. Pfainuk talk 20:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, "has been..." then, thanks.
Regarding the words "control" or "sovereignty", I was only talking about the "preference" of the UK Gvt, not its official position. Most importantly, I think this is a side issue (and I'm sorry to have got us sidetracked with it).
Regarding the term "modern Gibraltar", I don't think it is uncontroversial and neutral: it's not clear that the isthmus -the airport and everything- is Gibraltar (or "modern Gibraltar"). Most papers refer to the Rock and the isthmus, not to the territory of "modern Gibraltar". I would ask you to look for a less controversial term. Doesn't the UK Government talk about "the Rock and the isthmus"? (look here in page 58, for example).
Regarding the list of issues in the dispute, let's look at the Spanish and British official positions:
  • the official report by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2008: "La controversia sobre los límites del territorio cedido afecta al istmo, a las aguas territoriales y al espacio aéreo." ("The controversy regarding the limits of the territory affects the isthmus, the territorial waters and the air space").[8]
  • a memorandum submitted by the UK FCO to the Parliament in 2008: "Sovereignty is also an ongoing issue for Gibraltar, where Spain recognises British sovereignty over the Rock, but not over the isthmus, waters surrounding the Rock (with the exception of the port), or adjoining the isthmus, or airspace over the entire Territory."[9]
According to what they officially say, these are the issues that UK and Spain consider noteworthy. Have you found any other official position regarding this issue that says otherwise? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, try this:


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

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


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

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

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

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

Here's a wording of mine:

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

Significant points:

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

Sadly we may need to proceed with a consensus that doesn't include Justin. We await further comment, but for the moment the proposal is to remove the present comments:

More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.

And replace with:

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also argues that the extent of British sovereignty is limited by the Treaty of Utrecht, and disputes the location of the border.

Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its existing borders.

Gibraltar, for its part, argues that its people have an unrestricted right to self-determination, otherwise agreeing with Britain.

Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".

As you'll see, these are almost exactly the same length, and the second seems very clearly better on all criteria relevant to an encyclopedia. I propose to make a bold edit soon, unless anyone can come up with any relevant comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  • OpposeAh, we see an obvious double standard here. I make a reasonable content suggestion and my comments are ignored time and time again. Richard is already talking of imposing his solution again. This is not acceptable, nor is it consensus. To achieve consensus requires addressing my comments.
I oppose this text as too verbose and unsuitable to an overview. I have proposed a more compact alternative, which has been ignored, for no good reason whatsoever. So I remain implacably opposed to this suggestion. The only way you can then impose it is by tag team edit warring as you did previously but don't pretend this is "consensus". Are you announcing this as your intention? Justin talk 13:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Minor query, the text says that Britain states the Gibraltarians should have self detirmination, then the text says that the gibraltarians believe they have self detirmination but otherwise agree with the British - implying the British /don't/ agree with self detirmination. I do agree that the old text is far too casual and open to bias, I remain convinced that a less verbose solution is preferable. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I suppose there is a possible ambiguity. What about

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also argues that the extent of British sovereignty is limited by the Treaty of Utrecht, and disputes the location of the border.

Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.

Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.

Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".

Alternative texts would be welcome, of course, and if they're shorter and still fulfil all other criteria for a major issue in Gibraltar's current politics, that would be great. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this suggestion as too verbose and request again an explanation for ignoring suggestions for much briefer texts that cover only the pertinent issues appropriate for an overview. Justin talk 20:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Suggested texts would naturally be welcome. Or an alternative list of the pertinent issues might move matters forward. Pfainuk's list seems to have achieved a good measure of acceptance.
I suppose we could abbreviate the present proposal slightly by removing the remark on the way that Gibraltar appeared on the NSGT list.
I have made a couple of minor changes to the last version above - de facto limits rather than borders, in case anyone either nitpicks about airspace and waters not having conventional borders, or gets upset about any hint that there is an international land border with Spain. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Both sides do agree that there is an international land border with Spain. They don't agree on where it is, but no significant viewpoint disputes the fact that it exists.
More to the point, Spain does not dispute the fact of British control of the isthmus. Or are you seriously suggesting that the Spanish government think there's a whole line of border controls at the southern end of the isthmus that no-one has noticed? This notion makes no sense at all and has no basis whatsoever in sources. So, I oppose this change. Pfainuk talk 11:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Again Richard, I have proposed a text, which you're studiously ignoring providing a criticism relevant to wikipedia's policies and your only response has been a rather poor attempt to construct a rather pathetic strawman to criticise by comparison with a clear partisan text. That is not relevant and so I reject it. The more you ask for a proposal to be provided, when one already has, the clearer it appears to me that you're not seriously engaged in trying to build a consensus.
Worse to my mind is continuing to push your own text, which being more verbose introduces further problems by requiring additional text to counterpoint its tendency to favour a particular position. Its been criticised as too verbose but rather than addressing the point you continue pushing it. My preference is to focus on and discuss a content proposal but a) pushing a text I've already indicated my opposition to and b) pretending that my proposal doesn't exist doesn't leave much room for discussion. And again I oppose this change. Justin talk 14:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I note what you've written, Justin. An alternative text with some credibility would really help. So far you haven't given us one, and I'm sorry that you can't see the rather obvious flaws in your suggestion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Pfainuk for constructive comments. I see your point and no, I wasn't trying to rewrite reality. What about this version?

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and other adjuncts, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.

Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.

Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.

Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".

Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Too verbose, and I note the editor responsible doesn't appear to be listening, a somewhat vital part of the consensus building process. Again you have not given a reasonable reason to reject my less verbose suggestion; I give you my reasons for rejecting this and you simply persist with more of the same. Not helpful Richard, not helpful at all. Justin talk 21:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

San Roque and reasons to leave Gibraltar yet again

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Yet again the mention of San Roque as the main destination (with current implications for at least one national narrative) of the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar has been removed. So has the main reason for the evacuation, namely fear after riotous invasion and atrocities committed under guarantees of safety. A passing allusion and a minor speculation replaces this. I appreciate that these facts do not sit well with the other national narrative, but they are multiply-referenced and have achieved a consensus.


I have therefore reverted from: "During the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar on 4 August 1704. Attempts to win over the population to the Imperial cause were frustrated by the disorder that followed. The effects of this, combined with the expectation of a Spanish counter attack led most of the townspeople to leave."

to

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


Those coming new to this issue may wish to check the quotations currently available at User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar. Those who wish to reprise the arguments so far may wish to trawl the archives. The specific issue here is a major theme from October 2009.

Justin, you suggest administrative involvement as the best course to solve this issue. I find it quite refreshing to agree with you. It's very nearly a year since I joined this discussion, responding to one of the requests for comments. I came in at Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 16, and from well before then the archives record acrimonious and ultimately vain attempts to include you in the consensus. As I have previously argued, I do not feel that you have sufficient competence to contribute usefully to this page. We have had many months of filibustering and disruption, with good editors and wellmeaning mediators being driven away and those who stay the course wasting huge amounts of time. Short of decisive intervention, I see no reason to anticipate improvement. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't appear to be the person feeling the need to angrily resort to personal attacks again; attacking another editor with a bad tempered bad faith attack for the umpteenth time. How many times do you propose to drag up the past?
We asked for outside comment, I asked that walls of text were not used as a means to deter outside comment but the same tried and true technique was used and, guess what, we didn't get any.
If anyone is incompetent Richard, that person is you. You have made this your personal crusade, you have personalised this and you're obsessed with my edits to a point that is completely unhealthy. You have long since ceased to be objective, you see the person and you reject the edit, you don't consider the content. You obsess over my edits, yet when other editors misrepresent their sources or resort to bad faith attacks you defend them.
The claim of concensus is disingenous, there was dissent about this, Pfainuk objected but was driven away by a group of editors who responded with bad faith to his objections.
I would be quite content to allow my content suggestions to stand on their own merit. I'd happily stand back and let the community decide on content, without feeling the need to bombard editors with walls of text to make sure they select the right one. I asked if you were prepared to do that and your answer was no. That says to me you have no confidence in the community to decide content or in the neutrality of the text you propose. Justin talk 23:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Justin, your edit has repeatedly been found to be controversial. To include it once and twice (after Richard Keatinge's revert) again in the middle of a very hard process of building consensus is very annoying and does not contribute to build a better encyclopedia. Please, restore the previous consensus as per BRD and do not disrupt this page (even more taking into account the measures that were approved by the ArbCom after your topic ban). Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I agree that at this point WP:AE would seem to be required in order to make any progress on your issues on this page. Do you want to make the request for help, or leave it for someone else? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We aren't here to put the national narratives of either side. They belong in Disputed status of Gibraltar, not here. Nor are we here to expound on how evil either side is or was in the past - that doesn't belong anywhere in a neutral encyclopædia. This section is here to give a summary history of Gibraltar.
Richard. Why? Why make this comment, full of personal remarks? The fact is that nothing at all, but bad blood and acrimony, will come of this discussion. And that was true from the moment you pressed the save button. Don't blame Justin for it - from my perspective I find your comment quite extraordinarily ill-judged.
Yes, we've discussed this issue before. But the RFC was filibustered, remember? And you can hardly blame Justin for that filibuster - he was the one who wanted strictly-enforced rules to prevent it. Everyone - including you, Richard - needs to accept that all of us have a responsibility to keep the peace here. All of us needs to make a conscious effort to avoid inflaming tensions. That means bringing contentious edits up here, but it also means not making derogatory personal comments about other people. Pfainuk talk 19:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Justin / Wee Curry Monster has interrupted a year long discussion (about the text mentioning the atrocities during the capture and the exodus to San Roque) and gone directly to completely remove this episode from the article. Even though he has been reverted to the previous consensus text (by Richard) and asked to return to the discussion before making an edit he obviously knows is very controversial (as per BRD), he has reverted Richard back. And he has not even responded when he has been warned that this is against the measures approved by the ArbCom!!! I understand perfectly Richard's desperation. I am not going to enter into an edit war with this person.
Pfainuk, could you please tell Justin / Monster to behave, self-revert, and stick to the discussion? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Justin / Monster (please tell us if you prefer that we call you your new or your old name), you have unilaterally removed some text from the article not once but two times during the last days: [10][11] (the last one even after one other editor told you to return to the talk page). This makes it already 5 times that you have unilaterally changed the text[12][13][14] since your return from your topic ban.
You know that this text has been under discussion for over a year, and that the last consensus was to include the text (although it is true that the consensus was reached while you were topic banned). In any case, according to what the ArbCom reminded all of us, you should try to build consensus by discussing in the talk page and using other dispute resolution tools, not edit warring like you have.
I am not going to edit war with you in order to return to the previous consensus text while we discuss with you about a new one. I kindly ask you to do it yourself, as a sign of your good will to build consensus through discussion and not to impose your POV through edit warring. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Given the lack of response, I have returned to the previous consensus text as per BRD. I hope this time Justin / Wee Curry Monster does not revert, like he did when Richard Keatinge returned to the previous consensus text. I suppose Pfainuk will agree as he has repeatedly stated that this is the right procedure [15][16][17][18]. Let's "make discussion, not edit war" ;) . -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Repeatedly throwing around 9-month old diffs does nothing of benefit here. Rather, it serves to significantly reduce my confidence in your willingness to assume good faith because you seem to feel the need to try and force me to agree with you rather than allowing me to come to my own conclusions in good faith. Your threats in the previous thread to go through the article creating hassle if I don't accept your position have a similar effect. As such, I suggest you don't do it again.
As I've said before, the point where WP:BRD broke down here was when Richard launched into a series of derogatory personal remarks instead of actually attempting to discuss the edit. I note that even now, no editor - including you - has bothered to give any substantial objection to the edit in question. If you want to operate WP:BRD then you have to be willing to discuss the edit rather than the editor. So far you have not demonstrated any willingness to do so here. Pfainuk talk 19:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
As I've said previously, policy wins over strong feelings. The text I have replaced has several POV problems. These include WP:CHERRY, cherry picking facts to create a misleading impression, and WP:COATRACK creating a hook for POV edits. I have also indicated a willingness for San Roque to be included, provided it was suitably qualified to indicate that it resulted from the exodus and was not its destination thereby avoiding said WP:COATRACK. I note that any qualification to that statement has been rejected and so I have removed mention - for now. My edit includes details of the violent disorder but also includes other relevant facts that the text replaced did not. I would also draw attention to the fact I have been prepared to compromise over my edits, including qualifiers that were redundant to satisfy certain editors but they have not been prepared to reciprocate. I am prepared to discuss content but will not respond to personal attacks. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Addedendum: If you're going to revert by the way, do a complete revert and restore the NPOV tag as well. Otherwise your intentions may well be miscontrued. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


WP:Arbitration Enforcement

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A request regarding Wee Curry Monster has been filled by me here. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the amicable discussion re content underway currently I believe this complaint is unfounded and ill-advised bearing in mind the series of bad faith attacks launched by you. Please respect my talk page in future. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have full protected the article for 2 weeks. Sort out what sorts of information you agree to include and what presentation. Keep in mind that you should stick to the sources and cite reputable references. If sources conflict, reflect that in the text. If you need some help sorting out content issues, get some help. Other matters are being sorted out in the enforcement thread linked above. All editors of this page are notified that this article and related topics are subject to discretionary sanctions. See: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions. Cool it down and sort it out. Vassyana (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

More territorial disputes

Latest comment: 13 years ago92 comments7 people in discussion

We have been working on Pfainuk's suggestion, which seemed to attain widespread support:

This section, IMO, should deal only with the very basic points on each side of the dispute. That will mean leaving out points that people here consider significant. It will mean not mentioning even rather large details. The basic points I refer to are:

  • The fact of the dispute, together with the basic positions of the three sides on the dispute as a whole. That means:
    • Spain: territorial integrity; British sovereignty restricted by Utrecht
    • UK: self-determination restricted by Utrecht; unrestricted British sovereignty
    • Gibraltar: unrestricted self-determination; unrestricted British sovereignty
  • The independently relevant fact of the UN list, and the positions of Spain, and the UK and Gibraltar, on it.

Attempts to put this into grammatical English, with one point added at Justin's insistence, have so far led us to:

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and other adjuncts, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.

Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a prov,ision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.

Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.

Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".

This would replace the present text:

More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.

We have a less verbose counter-suggestion from Justin:

Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.

This is clearly unsatisfactory, as can be seen from its mirror image from the other side of the dispute:

The UK disputes Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting the Rock with the rest of Spain or to recognise any right of Spain to its territorial rights.

Both prejudge the relevant claims.

We are not in a hurry, but this change has now received a lot of attention. It's about time to make the edit. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Too verbose, and your attempt to rubbish my suggestion with a deliberately POV text is not helpful; this isn't grounds that are relevant to wikipedia nor a reasonable means of discussing content on wikipedia. Nor does my content suggestion prejudge claims in any manner. Again I ask is it your intention to tag team edit war your content into the article. You're refusing to discuss this in a reasonable manner or to take criticism on board, you keep talking about imposing this edit and you have a track record of doing so. I will oppose any attempt to do so and will seek admin intervention. Justin talk 09:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh lord. False equals. I may agree on many points but you lost me on the 'We can just switch it around and it is all the same'. NPOV is not viewing both situations as equal, because they are not. The claims we should not prejudge, correct, but the situation itself is not the same. Both Spain and the UK claim Sovereignty over the disputed area. The difference is that the UK exercises sovereignty over it while Spain does not. My issue with the reverse is it implies the opposite. That Spain has the land over which it claims sovereignty and Britain does not have it. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
My point exactly, worse still is the deliberate use of POV terms to make the second sentence deliberately POV and claiming the two are equivalent. This is simply obstructive. Justin talk 20:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, given the situation on the ground the two comments aren't quite precisely symmetrical. The point is that in a disputed area we need to write for the opponent. By this criterion, sorry, both of these fail badly. I've recently read through the entire talk archives of this page and I'd really like to avoid the wounded feelings that have resulted from good-faith, but ill-judged, attempts to make this a better encyclopedia. I'd really, really like to obtain a consensus on a clear, NPOV text that outlines all the major issues. I think we're very close. Kudos again to Pfainuk for his outline of the main points. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
That is nonsense, the two texts aren't remotely symmetrical. Your argument boils down to this: compare apple with orange and claim that apple is biased. No, those aren't grounds for deciding content on wikipedia. It doesn't fail and lets get down to it, its not the text, its the editor who wrote it. You've personally vetoed each and every content suggestion I've made. This is not about NPOV its about ownership.
We're not even remotely close whilst you continue to ignore reasonable objections and continue to push the same text, which editors have already indicated clearly and concisely what is wrong with it. Justin talk 08:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's see if we can agree on a few facts and then we'll try to agree on a text as neutral as possible:
  • Isthmus: Britain holds de facto control over the southern part of the isthmus since the mid 19th century. Britain claims its sovereignty based on its continuous occupation. Spain claims its sovereignty arguing that the ToU didn't include the cession of the isthmus and, although it has allowed the UK its temporary use (to treat some epidemy in the mid 19th century), it has never ceded its sovereignty and has periodically asked Britain to leave that territory.
  • Territorial waters: Britain holds some de facto control over the waters nearer (I'm not sure at all that up to 3 NM, does anybody have some info?) Gibraltar (periodically interrupted by Spanish fishermen, Security forces...) Britain claims the sovereignty of the waters up to the 3 NM limit, arguing that both conventional (the UN convention) and customary international law support this position. Spain (I'm not sure that it doesn't hold some de facto control over some of the waters inside the 3 NM limit, anybody? ) claims the sovereignty of all the waters around Gibraltar (except inside the port) arguing that the ToU didn't allow Britain to gain control outside Gibraltar.
  • Airspace: I don't know who holds de facto control (any reliable source?). Both the UK and Spain claim sovereignty with the same arguments as with the territorial waters.
Do we all agree on these facts before we start summarising them? (if someone has some additional info to share, it will be welcome) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeat the same position, thats always a good consensus building ploy.

Why mention Utrecht at all? A 300 year old treaty? The dispute is over the isthmus and territorial waters, thats pretty much all that needs mentioning. Everything else is details that go into the Dispute article. A few sentences at most is needed. Justin talk 20:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There is of course a rational argument that nothing else matters enough to be worth including here. Personally I'd go with Pfainuk's list, the one that we've been working on. Does anyone else agree with Justin's suggestion - though we don't yet have a text - that we can leave out the T of U and several other points? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
BTW if you're going to revert to restore a text that is in violation of wikipedia's policies, it would be better to do a complete revert and restore the NPOV tag. Justin talk 21:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


I guess that we have a consensus minus Justin. Unless this changes in the next day or so I plan to remove the present text:

More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.

And replace it with:

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and airspace, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.

Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.

Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.

Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".

Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No you clearly don't have a consensus, other editors have indicated their opposition. Pretending they don't exist is disruptive. Be warned if you plan on tag team edit warring again, I will seek admin intervention. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
To amplify that point, I note that Pfainuk has not been able to comment since his last visit, where he indicated problems with this proposal. Narson has also indicated his dissatisfaction, I have clearly indicated my issues with the proposal. To therefore claim there is consensus and I am the sole voice of "unreasonable opposition" is simply not sustainable. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're at or even particularly close to the point where leaving people out of the consensus-building process is appropriate. Justin is entitled to make points and should not be ignored just because it may be convenient for others. The fact that others disagree with Justin's points does not invalidate them.

Clearly, no editor has a final veto on content, but we should still be looking to include all editors in any given consensus.

My perspective on the point at hand is this:

I have an issue with "present de facto limits" because it doesn't mean anything, and can perfectly easily be substituted with words that do. Like, for example, "existing borders", the wording that I originally proposed and that no-one raised any objection to.

I think that, whereas verbosity is to be avoided, we ought to explain the very basics of the dispute in this section. The fact of the Spanish claim over areas that both sides agree are British territory (the whole self-determination vs. territorial integrity bit) is significant. I rather feel that if we are limiting ourselves to a single sentence, there is not a lot of point in bothering - since that point is already made rather more expansively in the lede. Hence my suggestion that it be a bit longer. Pfainuk talk 19:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Less is often more, we need to cover this briefly and not create WP:COATRACKs to skew the article into nothing but the sovereignty dispute. I am not insisting on a single sentence but it does demonstrate that less verbose text is possible and that is achieved by including only essential facts. For instance do we need to mention Utrecht at all, its possible to simply state what is disputed. Note I suggested a few sentences were all that is needed - and they can be short sentences. This is an overview after all, the details can go elsewhere. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Pfainuk, as I've mentioned I find your list of essential points on the dispute to be particularly useful. The reason for avoiding the word "border" is that the official Spanish view says that there isn't one. Again, a really good NPOV text will where convenient avoid using words that provoke any position however silly or even counterfactual. Such words at best require further explanation or justification, and are a standing temptation to POV warriors.
I'd love to include all editors in a final consensus. On reviewing Justin's contributions since his return, it's clear that only outside intervention will allow that. Simply, we have had from him incompetent and POV edits, immense but ill-directed argumentation, and far-fetched accusations of most crimes in the Wikibook, and the only time that this has calmed down is after a concisely-expressed outside opinion on his content proposals. He repeatedly threatens administrative action and indeed, apart from walking away and letting him take full ownership of the article, I can see no other solution. It seems only fair to give him the chance to improve his editing or frame his argument first, but if he doesn't do that soon then I intend to. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, on your description of the official Spanish view. Please cite me a source that says that Spain does not accept that there is a border between Spain and Gibraltar, and then please explain to me what they believe divides British sovereign territory from Spanish sovereign territory if no border exists. Alternatively, please cite me a source that says that Spain thinks that there is a line of border posts at the southern end of the isthmus, some distance inside British-controlled territory. In either case, the sources will have to be fairly exceptional, because both the claims made are absurd.
Secondly, you say that a really good NPOV text will avoid using words to provoke any position however silly or counterfactual. Frankly, that's crap. Do you think we should avoid reference to the curvature of the Earth because it might provoke the Flat Earth Society? Perhaps you feel that Barack Obama should express doubt as to his birthplace, to appease those who believe that he was born outside the United States? And should AIDS avoid naming HIV as the virus that causes it for fear of provoking those who think that it isn't? You just argued that we should do all of those things.
Nowhere does WP:NPOV require us to pretend that things are accurate when we can demonstrate that they are inaccurate. And specific to this case, nowhere does WP:NPOV require us to pretend that Spain might have control over the isthmus when it is clear - indeed, undisputed - that it does not. There is no way that I can accept this as a basis for this wording. I'll respond to the second paragraph below. Pfainuk talk 18:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Putting it like that makes clear that I have overstated my case. Sorry, and thanks for the enlightenment. However, I don't think it's useful to use the word "border" when the Spanish view is that there isn't one at La Linea or at any rate shouldn't be one, and when there are other good ways of putting it. The land area "under de facto British control" is unambiguous and doesn't raise hackles un-necessarily, it doesn't imply anything incorrect and merely leaves the de jure issue for discussion elsewhere. I still suggest it's a useful form of words, but no doubt there are others and I'd appreciate your suggestions. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk, what some sources say is that the limit in the middle of the isthmus is not a border. For example, the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "España no reconoce que el límite marcado por la verja constituya una frontera internacional" (in the official paper cited above). Unlike the curvature of the Earth, international borders are a social and legal convention (i.e. something that is accepted by some persons). Spain, one of the parts in this controversy (one of the sides of the theoretical "border") does not agree the "convention" that a border exists in the middle of the isthmus. On the other hand, Britain calls it a border. If WP calls the line in the middle of the isthmus a border, then it is not NPOV (unless it explains it is a Brtish claim). If it calls the limit of the Rock a border, it's not NPOV either (that's a Spanish claim). Let's use other less pointy (as in POV) words if possible? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I have yet to see your source for this mysterious line of border controls at the southern end of the isthmus that you say that Spain says exists. Please supply one. Sure, Spain doesn't recognise the legality of the border. But that is not what you're arguing: you're arguing that Spain says that there is no border at all.
Nowhere does NPOV require us to pretend that things are accurate when they are plainly inaccruate. As such, the fact that one side of the dispute does not like the fact that these buildings exist does not mean that we have to pretend that they do not, or express any particular doubt about the matter. Your argument that we do is absurd, and there is no way I can possibly accept it. Pfainuk talk 18:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with all of you about the length of the text: the issue should be covered in no more than 2-4 paragraphs, but it has to be covered with enough length to explain all the noteworthy points (and I must add that the topics of sovereignty and territorial limits in Gibraltar are VERY noteworthy both in scholar papers and newspapers, and in all kinds of POVs -from the most extreme to the most neutral).
I agree with Richard that we should try to avoid sentences and/or expressions that are used only by one side, unless we attribute that expression to the position of that side (e.g. "Britain claims that... borders..." or "Spain claims that... colony...) Otherwise, WP would be assuming one POV, not a neutral POV.
In any case, this should not be hard. If you take a look at the papers from the Governments of Spain and the UK, their position is very clear and easy to summarize (I think).
Finally, I must say that I also want everyone to be included in the consensus. But in order to do it, Justin / Monster must change his attitude. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Like it or not, Justin is not required to take your position. You go on about his changing his attitude - well, if that's what you want, perhaps you should change yours as well. In order to reach consensus, we need to reach a compromise. Systematically dismissing his arguments, often without actually making any counter-argument, is not the way to do this. It's not reasonable of you to expect him to compromise and compromise until he reaches your position, and that's not the way to get consensus on this. But that's what you seem to expect. Pfainuk talk 18:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Justin needs not change his position. He just needs to change his attitude. It would be helpful if he stopped making unilateral edits and reversals in topics that are subject to a very hard and long discussion in order to reach consensus. For example, his edits about the capture and the exodus. Wouldn't you have complained and said something about BRD if it was someone else removing text (and reverting the reversal) which was uncomfortable to the Spanish POV while we were discussing it? Please ask him to stop that behaviour and self-revert to the previous text. (BTW, it must be quite disorienting for outside editors -if there are any at this point- to see continuous references to "Justin needs this or that" when no signature appears to resemble that name anymore... What should we do?) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It was Richard, not Justin, who torpedoed discussion on this point. It was Richard, not Justin, who wrecked our chances of getting a friendly consensus on this matter in the short term. It was Richard, not Justin, who pushed this from discussing the article to discussing the editors. All through this post.
You demand I tell Justin to do things but seem totally unwilling to say anything to the person who actually sank this. You demand WP:BRD - so perhaps you and Richard ought to stop with the unhelpful personal remarks and actually engage in discussion. We can do it. But it needs all sides to be careful about what they say and tolerant of others.
For my part, I support Justin's edit. It is neutral and gives due weight to the points concerned. Pfainuk talk 18:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Which edit would that be? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Border?

When is a border not a border?

If there isn't a border, could somone tell me why there are border guards, passport and customs controls on the Spanish side of the ... er border? [19] [20] Note the second from a neutral third party source [21] Google brings up over 2,000,000 hits. Mmmm, to be honest WP:DUCK springs to mind, not calling it a border just seems, well, extraordinarily silly to me. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

On this point, I couldn't agree with you more. But the word is a partisan issue. I'm just trying to find a convenient way of not upsetting anybody. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a border there. Spain may not believe that it is a legal border, but that does not change the fact that it is there. There are customs facilities and passport control and everything. The legality of the border may be an issue - that being the whole point of the sentence - but the existence of the border is undeniable. Pfainuk talk 18:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Monster's link leads to the following definition: "The line or frontier area separating political or geographical regions." The geographical regions are very clear (the Rock and the isthmus), although I think that you mean it in the political sense. And we can spend months discussing where each "political region" begins and ends. It's much easier to use alternative expressions that are sure to satisfy all POVs. This one obviously doesn't satisfy one of two very respectable POVs, because the British POV says that the political regions are separated in the middle of the isthmus, and the Spanish POV says that the limit is between the Rock and the isthmus.
If you insist in talking about borders, I will insist that the two (not only the British or the Spanish) POVs are mentioned each time this word appears, in order to guarantee NPOV. But I'm afraid this will make the text unnecessarily long... That's why I ptopose to use alternative uncontroversial expressions (there are many!!!). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Given what can only be described as your threats, and as the person who initially proposed both the change in question and the form that we are discussing, I feel that it is now clear that no consensus that contains both you and me is possible on that basis.
I do not think it is very much to expect you to acknowledge that these buildings exist, and that they are in the location that all the sources say they are in - but apparently it is. In my view, your argument that we must mislead our readers in order to appease the POV of one side of a dispute represents the most serious form of intellectual dishonesty, dishonesty of a kind that has no place in the writing of an encyclopædia, or indeed elsewhere. Though I dislike what we have, it is far better than what you propose. Pfainuk talk 20:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree, when we see such an obvious statement of an outrageously intransigent POV position that simply flies in the face of common sense it is highly unlikely that a reasonable consensus position can be achievable.
I would also point out to Richard, does it not also occur to you that not calling it a border is perhaps equally partisan? In trying to find a way to please everyone, you end up actually being patronising, pleasing no one and failing to provide the NPOV that is the cornerstone of wikipedia's policy. It is perhaps better to use the term border and also include the alternate POV as a direct quote. When it is really that silly it condemns itself. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Denying that it is a border would be even more partisan - as you say the physical and social reality is there. We simply don't need to argue this point in the overview article and can leave it for the Dispute article. That's all there is to this issue... Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

  1. Of course the buildings are there. What I'm saying is that the GoSpain (a very relevant source in this controversy) claims that those buildings are not seating on an international border that separates two nations, but on top of Spanish ground (implying the not undisputably insane idea that wherever a country unilaterally decides to build some customs and a barrier is not automatically an international border). You don't need to share this POV to respect it in the article. To mention a border in the middle of the isthmus strongly implies that the southern half is under British sovereignty and the northern half is under Spanish. I hope you (Justin, Pfainuk, Richard) agree that to imply this is clearly non-NPOV. Do you? Please, answer this question.
  2. One more thing: Pfainuk has said that he does not think that he can be in a consensus with me. I hope this is the result of a temporary misunderstanding. BTW, I have not made any threats like Pfainuk said (of course). I just proposed what I honestly and in good faith thought was the only alternative to guarantee NPOV if we start to mention borders in the article. BTW I thought Pfainuk strongly believed that previous consensus text should prevail as per BRD. Please,Pfainuk, could you confirm that you stll stand by your comments here[22][23][24][25]?
  3. Richard, of course that denying that the international border is in the middle of the isthmus is partisan (Spanish partisanship). Just as partisan as asserting that the international border is there (British partisanship). Both are respectable, but non-NPOV (see my point #1).
  4. Finally, I think that after the last comments and Justin/Monster's unilateral non-consensus edits/reverts, we've reached a point where formal mediation or WP:AE is the only way out. Does anybody reject dispute resolution? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

To an outsider watching this page this is all a bit daft you are all going round in circles. The de facto border is the border it is not bias it is a fact of life all you need to say is the although the border is at wherever the Spanish claim that it is in the wrong place. You can all use some fancy phrases but I am afraid the border is physically where it is, all you need to mention is that Spain doesnt agree. MilborneOne (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I (and I think everybody else) have always agreed that the southern part of the isthmus is "de facto" under British control (that means, there are barriers, custom facilities, etc at the limit of this territory). I believe that the "de facto" situation is clear all along the article (and it's fine with me, I have never disputed it).
The thing is that this subsection deals specifically with the territorial dispute, and this has more to do with political and legal concepts. Although the "de facto" limit is clear, the political and legal border (the "de iure" border) is very much under dispute.
The "de facto" border is the "de facto" border, not "the border". The "de iure" border is the "de iure" border (not "the border" either). It is the British (and only British) position that the "de iure" and "de facto" borders are the same in Gibraltar. The Spanish position is that the "de iure" border lies south of the "de facto" border. The fact is that, for example, EU directives (on airspace, airports, customs, etc) never include the "de facto" border of Gibraltar: they explicitly leave it to Spain and the UK to manage the isthmus according to "de facto" temporary agreements.
To say that "the border" is at wherever the "de facto border" is, IS BIASED (sorry to contradict you, MilborneOne, I say this very respectfully).The article should take this into account, especially in the subsection about territorial disputes.
Pfainuk, Justin/Monster, Richard, please, can you take a look at the other points I mentioned above? It is very important. Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you are mixing the political debate with what is actually happening on the ground this is an encyclopedia and is giving an overview of the place. The border is at x (sorry I dont know the name) and Spain disputes it, no more or no less. Nothing wrong in one of the other articles explaining why they dont like it but most readers expect the article to be a simple overview. The fact that Spain doesnt recognise it can be explained elsewhere we just need to say that Spain doesnt like it. If readers are interested in the dispute then they can read the more detailed explanation you cant explain everything in an overview, keep it simple. Nobody disputes that Britain and Spain dont agree but in the real world the border exists and practicaly it is recognised by everybody except for the politicians. Does the spanish customs and immigration service ignore the "border" they seem to use it as a place to check passports and papers, looks like a border everybody treats it as a border WP:DUCK it is the current border. Dont get me wrong it is clear that Spain doesnt like it and Britain/Gibralter ignores Spains protests but that can be explained elsewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help MilborneOne - much appreciated. You are absolutely right that the border fulfils every practical definition of a border. I merely suggest that the word is controversial and, in a simple overview, we simply need to say that Spain doesn't like the present situation. I would be very grateful for your comment on the current proposal, which explains the situation, quite well I think, without actually using the word in any context that anyone doesn't like:

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity. Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and airspace, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.

Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain. Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.

Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.

Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".

The other proposal was to use "borders" instead of "de facto limits", which is where this little fracas came from. I'd rather side-step the entire issue and provide a text that is accurate and that nobody will think is biased.

Finally, we also have a less verbose counter-suggestion from Justin:

Spain disputes Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain or to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.

I am fairly sure that this prejudges a number of issues, such as whether Gibraltar is part of Spain, and it omits the various rationales for the positions. However, it's shorter, we do have specific articles on the disputes, and the issues could be put right. Perhaps:

Spain requests the return of the entire territory, and believes that it has legal sovereignty over the isthmus south of La Linea and over all territorial waters and airspace.

If I could impose so far upon your good-will, I hope that a well-considered external choice at this point may put an end to years of wrangling. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look at your suggestions, but bare with me I know little about Gibralter and I am not inclined to read any of the verbose talk page discussions so I will have just have a look at the suggestions on merit. MilborneOne (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry excuse my ignorance but what is the current text in the article that is under dispute? MilborneOne (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I do apologise, you wouldn't be the first editor to be deterred by this talk page. The current text is:

More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.

Thanks in advance. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else demonstrates why we never get anywhere, the above was published a good 5 minutes after I'd answered Milbourne1's question. Clearly someone doesn't read my contributions. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
"suggestions on merit" there is a radical idea, one I endorse wholeheartedly and its refreshing to hear a spot of common sense. I have suggested that we allow text to stand on merit but two editors refuse to allow that. You'll note that rather than letting suggestions stand on merit only, Richard has immediately tried to rubbish my own contribution. Please also note that following a discussion with Pfainuk I'd already agreed to reconsider that, ie its out of date but misrepresenting my position is common sadly. I will present some text here later today or tomorrow for your consideration but thats all I'll be doing. In answer to your question, we were discussing changing the penultimate paragraph of the history section:


Personally the way discussion are going, with walls of text going up I'm inclined to give up and leave the current consensus to stand. All I can see ahead are fruitless and unproductive discussions leading nowhere fast. We were talking about improvements and a less verbose paragraph but thats not the way its headed. I do appreciate the Blue Helmet intervention by the way from MilborneOne, an outside opinion is most welcome and I have to say he is rather brave to offer it. Kudos. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Curry Monster. I see little prospect of consensus here, though I welcome the outside intervention.
My intention when I made the original proposal here was for an addition to the politics section, rather than for the history section, since there isn't any mention of the dispute there at all. I hadn't noticed the paragraph that Curry Monster quotes at the time, but if we get a text here I'd still put it in the politics section and remove that paragraph from the history section altogether.
I will note that Richard is not being entirely accurate in his representation of contribution either. My original proposal (in this section) was:
Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its existing borders.
It is the words "existing borders" that are being disputed here (as I'm sure you've read in great detail). Pfainuk talk 11:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


The current statement as a continuation of the history section appears to discuss a continuing dispute about territorial waters. Is it the contention that it should also summarise the current disputed situation not just the territorial waters dispute? (simple answers only) MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that we were trying to summarize the totality of the disputed situation, insofar as it's required for this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We already have a reasonable summary in the lead The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory and seeks its return. so I think a more expanded version is needed but only as far as to set the scene. The detail can be in the child-articles, although it seems strange that the History of article stops in the 19th century! I will take the suggested long version, please note I am not bothered which of you suggested what far to confusing:

While recognising British sovereignty in Gibraltar, Spain requests that the territory be returned to its rule, citing the principle of territorial integrity.
  • Looks ok but as a continuation of the previous history section perhaps it should contain Spain continues to request rather than Spain requests.
Spain also claims the isthmus northwards from the Rock, and territorial waters and airspace, arguing that these were not ceded by the Treaty of Utrecht.
  • Dont see a problem in that statement.
Britain rejects this request, arguing that Gibraltar has the right to self-determination, subject only to a provision of the Treaty of Utrecht that states that, should Britain withdraw, the territory must be offered to Spain.
  • rejects this request could be clearer the request that all the territory be returned or just the isthmus, should it be these requests.
Britain further argues that, under international law, unrestricted British sovereignty extends to the whole of the territory within its present de facto limits.
  • Dont like this bit already stated that the UK rejects both requests (total or partial handover) so I dont think it is needed.
Gibraltar argues that its right to self-determination is unrestricted, otherwise agreeing with Britain.
  • Doesnt actually make sense to somebody like me without a detailed knowledge of the subject not sure what it is trying to say, perhaps consider not using it.
Britain added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now argues, alongside Gibraltar, that the territory has been effectively decolonised and thus should be removed. Spain opposes removal, describing Gibraltar as a "colonial situation".
  • Not sure it needs the Britain added Gibraltar to the list just that it is on the list. The rest appear to be be OK.

I think that the shorter texts are not really giving the reader a flavour of the recent history so I would suggest use a version of the above text but take notice of my comments. Note that longer explanations can be delegated to the child articles. Note that I have given an opinion I dont intend to debate my conclusions its up to the regulars on this page to take or ignore them. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that leaves us with something like (possible omissions in italics.):

All versions strike me as entirely acceptable. The first possible omission removes the Gibraltarian view, and I'd tend to keep it. The second removes a text on which Justin / Wee Monster has strong feelings, and if it would mean a consensus I'd accept it joyfully.

MilborneOne, many thanks for your help so far. I understand your intention to avoid further debate, but could I ask you to follow this edit, perhaps over the next week at most, until we have achieved a better version? As you may notice, we have got stuck. As an administrator you have relevant powers, and under the recent Arbcom decision on this page these are quite extensive enough to ensure that a sensible decision is in fact reached in that time.

Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave this until Tuesday evening, but - unless there is any disagreement - will then make the edit. I propose to leave out the phrase added Gibraltar to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946, but now. However, if anybody wants to keep the phrase, for the sake of consensus, I'd personally be happy to do so. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast please, I said I intended to offer a suggestion. My suggestion:


Britain doesn't reject the Spanish position, it will only negotiate with the consent of the Gibraltarians. The legality of certain Spanish claims is also questionable. I will expand this with the provision of cites later. I just need time to format them. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The part about "legal advice" is wrong (it refers to some controversial unofficial report recently published in a blog by a retired diplomat who once upon a time was the director of the Legal Services of Spain's Foreign Affairs Ministry, not to an official legal advice). It is also anecdotal. In someone thinks it is relevant, I suppose we would also have to cite the official "Kershaw Report" by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which questioned British jurisdiction over the isthmus... which is cited by several secondary sources.[26] -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
For my money, the legal advice point is tangential. One of those details that could not unreasonably be described as "significant", but that aren't important enough to belong here. I would support the text otherwise.
(I note in passing that I would consider this blog to be as reliable as an autobiography or similar. It's not like it was written by an unconnected person speculating or something. That blogs are unreliable is a good general rule, but does not hold in all cases.) Pfainuk talk 19:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a couple of suggestions for Richard's text in order to improve it while keeping the same information. Of course, given that English is not my native tongue, I maybe wrong, but here I go:
  • I think it'd be better to use a more direct wording for the first sentence (subject+verb+predicate) not beginning with "While recognising...Spain..." but with "Spain recognises...but..."
  • The text begins with the Spanish claim about sovereignty. Then the Spanish claim about territorial limits. Then it explains that "Britain rejects this request" (meaning the claim about sovereignty, not the one about territorial limits). I think this is confusing, because "this request" seems to be the one abut territorial limits. I propose that we reorder the text so that Britain's rejection goes right after the Spanish claim about sovereignty.
  • The text says that "Spain claims the isthmus northward of the Rock". Actually, Spain only claims the southern half of the isthmus (the northern part has always been under Spanish control).
  • Finally, from the text it would seem that Britain's argument regarding "international law" refers to all the Spanish territorial claims (isthmus, territorial waters, airspace) but it actually only refers to the territorial waters and airspace ([27] page 80). The title to the isthmus is defended by the UK FCO with the argument of "continuous possession" ([28] page 58).
The text of the two first paragraphs would be:


I hope this makes the text more accurate and understandable. What do you think, MilborneOne? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This is precisely the issue I had with these texts before: it contains large amounts of unnecessary detail that would be better left to the article on the dispute. Thus I oppose it. Pfainuk talk 19:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I also oppose this text, it contains too much detail that is unnecessary. It is also inaccurate, Britains doesn't reject Spanish requests it will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. Also as already noted above it contains text that has been rejected as confusing. I would draw attention to the fact I have not yet supplied any cites, so wonder at the prescience of the editor who commented on my proposed edit. My cite is not a blog but a news item. Nevertheless I am prepared to compromise over that, provided its included in the Dispute article. Is that a suitable suggestion? Assuming this is accepted I now propose:


This is distinctly less verbose than previous texts, so I hope it meets with approval. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It meets with mine. I have gone back to Pfainuk's list of the essential points, and tried to reconsider your text and Imalbornoz's from the view of the intended target audience - who don't know the background - and sensitive psyches on either side of the debate. Minor suggestions on this basis lead me to:


It takes the same space - six lines on my edit screen - as Justin / Wee Monster's suggestion.

Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The middle paragraph seems contrived, a detail too much? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
A suggested amendment:


Although more accurate than the above I'm not entirely happy with this though, it seems to be going into too much detail for an overview. I would suggest my earlier draft may strike a better balance. Thoughts? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The sentence was indeed somethat contrived, but we could avoid any hint of an assumption that Britain is actually ever going to withdraw. Perhaps :

would be even better?

As I think I've mentioned above a shorter version does strike me as acceptable, but the current text is based on Pfainuk's list of main points, has been backed by MilborneOne, and seems acceptable to everyone else so far. I'd suggest sticking with it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually the provision states the Spanish crown not Spain per se, slight tinkering:


I'm not going to insist on Spain vs Spanish Crown but I think the above is slightly better. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and it's conditional enough. We therefore have:

Do we have a consensus? It's only Monday and I still propose to leave the edit until tomorrow evening, unless of course anyone else does it first.

Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Support I support this text but suggest we add cites before putting it into the article. I also suggest as per Pfainuk removing the last paragraph of the history and placing this text under Government. Is this acceptable? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
To my understanding this text will replace the last paragraph of the present History section? Yes, I agree it should all go in the Government and Politics section - it's about a current situation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the first two paragraphs are good and neutral enough (the last one is not -IMHO- but I prefer to reach agreement about the larger part first and then discuss the last paragraph later), but I still have a couple of issues regarding their accuracy:
  • Spain does not claim the isthmus, but the southern part of the isthmus.
  • The UK is willing to consider the request of the return of Gibraltar, not the request regarding the territorial limits (at least that I know, does anybody have any more information regarding this point?).
  • The text lacks some information which I think is relevant: The arguments from each side dealing with the territorial limits.
Finally, the first two paragraphs in this text amount to 105 words. My previous proposal, which gave more detail of all these points in order to avoid the inaccuracies, was 138 words long (it's not like it was twice or 10 times larger...) I don't want to sound like "I only will accept my own text!" But I think that if we are able to be be more accurate without being too lengthy, it is better for the reader. If we manage to be more accurate in a shorter text than the one I proposed, which would be the limit: 105 words, 120 words, 140? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying again (and I note with approval that this brings us back again to a close facsimile of Pfainuk's list):

Again, do we have a consensus? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly no, we're veering into too verbose territory again. If its only the Southern part how about.


I oppose more verbose texts as this is an overview and the arguments "its just a few more words", well bitter experience sadly says that those "few more words" usually result in an opus. Also arm waving generalities that the last paragraph is POV are not helpful. If there is an issue state it, we should be expected to guess what your objections are. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy with the latest text above. However, Imalbornoz is right I think, nobody on the UK side is discussing the possibility of handing over just the waters and the airspace. And, would it seem more NPOV (and a tiny bit clearer) if the last paragraph is reordered? I've made a couple more minor changes for clarity:


Again, have we reached a consensus?

Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, ish. Can I ask you look again at the previous suggestion, as I don't believe the additions you've added are necessary. I made some subtle changes of phrasing you may have overlooked. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm stuck. I was intending to add a couple of words to your last version, only for clarity and without changing any meaning, and I don't see the problem. Could you enlighten my ignorance? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
In my version, the first line is Spain requests the return of Gibraltar, which leads to the next paragraph that Britain is willing to consider that request. It avoids the confusion with territorial waters/airspace altogether resulting in a more compact text that doesn't require a qualifier. I removed requests plural to replace it with the singular connected to the previous paragraph. I have a preference for my final paragraph simply because its shorter. Clear? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'd prefer my last version as being slightly clearer - I appreciate your grammatical points but thought that for a newcomer the extra clarity would be a little better. But I'd be happy with either. Any more comments from anyone? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said I have a preference for the less verbose text. A slightlu modified version:


Slight tweaks here and there making it slimmer and less verbose. It doesn't need any qualifiers I believe if you state it like this. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I support this version. Pfainuk talk 21:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Good work, thanks, it is indeed shorter and clearer. Does anybody want to put references in? Or to disagree? The last sentence strikes me as acceptable but the previous version

is a little clearer for newcomers, because it starts with the fact and only then gives the arguments. So I'd suggest that order - doubtless a better version could be produced. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Close I have one more minor tweak to suggest but wouldn't oppose the above:

How about that? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of it: the first sentence states a fact; the second sentence explains the position of the UK and Gibraltar. The last sentence does not explain the Spanish position: it fails to comply with the principle "Where different viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content, fairly representing the weight of authority for each view."
An alternative symmetrical to the one above will give you a clear example of what I mean:


A merger of both alternatives would reflect all viewpoints fairly representing the weight of authority for each view:


I hope we are nearer to consensus and to a NPOV text now. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I live in hope. What about an even shorter version, the whole thing now reading:

With UN resolutions left for child articles and, if appropriate, references, this might be the best outcome? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Reluctantly Oppose Sorry but I don't think this is the best outcome, I thought we had a really good consensus building process going but I just really don't know what to say right now. I think it best if I simply register my opposition and take time to rethink what to do next. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Before anyone else comments, could I make the suggestion that the last text above is quite a lot better than the text in the article at present, and that it might be reasonable to remove

More recently, the Spanish Government has started to claim Gibraltar's territorial waters insisting that the territory has none. Spain has reverted to tactics such as listing Gibraltar's waters as Spanish under European Union mechanisms, despite the UK previously having registered the said territorial waters using the same mechanism. Although international law recognises Gibraltar's waters (and its right to claim a greater area) Spain is loath to agree. The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account, preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states. Both the British and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised. On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.

and substitute what we now have, in the Politics section, while leaving open the possibility of improving the new text? I agree that we are doing well here - thanks to all and especially to MilborneOne - and would hope to establish some of the progress actually made. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better to get a clear consensus position before doing this - given circumstances, it's probably best to do it by the book. I am willing to support both your text of 16:40 and Curry Monster's of 14:06 (they being identical other than the third paragraph). I do not accept Imalbornoz's claim that his suggestion and Curry Monster's are symmetrical, and strongly oppose his proposal of 16:30 as being a very long way over the "too detailed" line. Pfainuk talk 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, let's leave the UN resolutions out for now if you think they're too detailed. I would support this text if -at least- we adopt a slightly less Gibraltarian POV to describe Spain's position. I understand that from a Gibraltarian POV "Spain opposes" is the right way to describe Spain's position. From Spain's (and the UN'S position) the text should say that Spain supports the UN position, not that "UN says this, G and UK say the contrary, and Spain opposes the opposition". I believe that explaining each one's opinion from their own POV is the right thing to do, don't you think?


This text is just as detailed as Richard's or Justin's. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
A question to all: What virtue is there in mentioning that spain supports the retention on the list? It seems clunky. It also ascribes some sense that the UN would require Spainish support to keep it on the list - It is a UN list, the UN (as in the constituted parts of it) could put France on it if it wants. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose this suggestion. It is this sentence above causes me concern:


I'm troubled by this intervention, deeply troubled to be honest given the positive nature of previous discussions. I'm compelled to say it struck a strongly discordant note with me but I will try to put that behind me to explain my opposition.

Spain's position is based on the principle of Territorial integrity claiming that the population is implanted and does not enjoy the right to self-determination under UN resolution 1514 and the UN Charter. As I will show below the resolutions mentioned have nothing to do with decolonisation, rather they're usually cited in regard to the Spanish sovereignty claim. The Spanish position on sovereignty is already covered in the article. So this would be giving prominence to the Spanish position twice. Hence, I don't find this sentence would contribute to a NPOV, rather it would detract from it.

  1. wikisource:Consensus on Gibraltar by the UN Committee of 24 in 1964 Simply calls for negotiations between the two powers, it does not set out criteria for decolonisation.
  2. wikisource:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2070 Again simply calls for negotiations, it does not set out criteria for decolonisation.
  3. wikisource:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2231 Again simply calls for negotiations, it does not set out criteria for decolonisation.
  4. wikisource:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2353 Scolds Britain for asking the people of a dependent territory for their views in a democratic referendum, cites the principle of territorial integrity and calls for negotiations.
  5. wikisource:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 Defines what is a non-self-governing territory and the criteria by which it would be judged to no longer be a dependent territory. This is one of the bedrock UN resolutions on the matter.
  6. wikisource:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 Is the resolution that called for an end to colonisation.

If we look at the resolutions cited in the sentence quoted above, they're clearly not related to the NSG territory list, which is the topic of this paragraph. However, 5 is clearly relevant, 6 is also relevant but as a general principle only and could be suborned to the child article.

Focusing now on 1541, this defines the criteria for a non-self-governing territory, it doesn't favour one side or the other. Of itself its worthy of inclusion as one of the bed rock resolutions of decolonisation and for its relevance to the list we're discussing. I don't think the same can be argued for the other resolutions.

I would hope there is agreement that I've demonstrated the resolutions the above sentence calls up aren't relevant to the topic of this paragraph. Hence, the paragraph suggested following this intervention, removed the one resolution (1541) that is significantly relevant, results in a proposed text that is poorer for it and is diverging from wikipedia's mission of educating our readers on this topic.

I would like to see a minimalist approach but have been prepared to compromise and see more details included than is perhaps necessary for an overview IMHO. I have been prepared to compromise on the Spanish refusal to refer the matter to the ICJ, leaving it to another article. I've been prepared to compromise that the legal advice advice on the Spanish position indicates it is illegal under International Law, leaving it to another article. I can acknowledge those comments as perhaps too detailed for an overview. I don't think this applies to 1541 though. Hence, for me this is just a compromise too far - if we go for more verbose text, inevitably certain details simply have to be covered. I have one final suggestion.


I hope we can finally agree on a consensus text. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So do I and I'd be happy with this one, and with Imalbornoz's too - for all that I've been keen to get it right, it is possible to get a little too concerned about detail. I'd tend to agree that the other resolutions mentioned are in some sense subsidiary to 1541 and 1514 and I suggest that it is possible to include them and leave out the others here. What about, approximately, Imalbornoz's order but including 1541 and 1514, perhaps thus:


Mentioning the Resolutions does make it slightly longer, but as I say I find that entirely defensible. Thanks everyone for your efforts so far. Can I ask for you all to overcome the last little obstacle and achieve a significant improvement in the article?
To answer Narson's question, I guess that if it wasn't for strong Spanish feelings, Gib would have been removed from the list of NSGT some time ago. I can't reference that idea, unless Wikileaks produces something, but nobody else cares enough. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe you're correct without Spain's opposition, Gibraltar would have been delisted - I can cite that as the opinion of a number of authors but we need to separate fact from opinion here. Spain actually classes Gibraltar as a Dependent territory, which is why I included the link. I like this text as it brings in 1514 and it is defensible but I have a weak preference for the previous text simply because it brings in the wikilink. I am off to cogitate some more on the matter but I believe we're close. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A point I would make is that there is a semantic difference - albeit a small one - between the two wordings.

Imalbornoz's wording states that Spain actively supports retaining Gibraltar, including in circumstances where Britain is not discussing the issue. The implication is that Spain would speak in support of inclusion even if Gibraltar and Britain had not said anything about it: that Spain's support is a matter for itself, unrelated to Britain and Gibraltar's arguments for removal.

Curry Monster's wording states that Spain responds to Gibraltar and Britain's arguments. It does not imply anything about what Spain would do if Gibraltar and Britain had not said anything about it, because it is written on the premise that they have.

To my mind, Imalbornoz's wording puts the cart before the horse. It goes into Spain's arguing for the status quo before suggesting that there might be disagreement about this. To my mind, this is the wrong way around. I also don't think that it is necessarily on the right side of the semantic difference: I would speculate (and I fully accept that it would be speculation) that Spain would not put the issue of removal or retention on the table if Britain and Gibraltar had not already done so. So, I think Curry Monster's wording is better. Pfainuk talk 22:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from, it is kinda putting the cart before the horse. I did like Richard's latest offering for weaving in 1514 though - again a useful direction for education of any reader yes? Do you think thats appropriate or a detail too much? I'm torn between the two to be honest, I really am. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The semantic difference is - just perceptible with effort. Does it matter? As Pfainuk says, interpreting the difference is a matter of speculation only. I don't actually know which government started this particular argument, nor do I think it matters. Additionally, if we're speculating, I'd speculate that Spain would in fact be supporting Gib's retention on the UN list even if nobody else had any opinions on it at all. If the order is a problem, what about swopping two sentences around?


Imalbornoz, in case it helps, I really don't think this order significantly affects NPOV and it does make - very very slightly - more sense. Again I ask, can we achieve consensus on:

Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Support but needs spelling/grammar corrections - To whit: Decolonised. Can we have some uniformity please? Also: 'Does not accept this limits'? Is it more than one limit (these limits) or just one limit (this limit)? --Narson ~ Talk • 10:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. WCM, would you like to start inserting citations, in hopeful anticipatation of genuine consensus? I hope that this process will be uncontroversial. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Support, because it is a huge improvement over the current text (thanks so much).
Regarding Pfainuk's comments about the resolutions, I will only say that the text I proposed explains the position of the GoSpain, which it says is based on those decisions and resolutions I mentioned above (you can check it here in page 15). But first, let's see if we've got an agreement about the proposal and we'll talk about the UN later.
Narson, it is about the verb "to limit", not the noun "limit/s": "this limits its right..."
Richard, I don't know if WCM can insert the citations here, given his one week ban in the talk page...-- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Still only a possibility, which I hope can be avoided, and I'd like to take full advantage of the consensus. OK, let's all insert citations in the text below and see how it goes. Given a little self-restraint this should be achievable fairly easily. Narson, I've changed -ize to -ise for uniformity with the rest of the page, thanks. We could write "that this limits" rather than "this limits" for the sake of clarity - both are acceptable English but if one editor has already tripped over it then we may need to use the clearer version. I have boldly changed it in the text below.
Given the amount of time that's gone into it, this should be the best bit of text on Wikipedia! My heartfelt thanks to everyone concerned. I do appreciate how this has required painful rethinking and changes of position. Thanks in especial to MilborneOne for the guardian angel act. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Non-Self Governing Territories". United Nations. Retrieved 2008-10-18.
  2. ^ "Official Government of Gibraltar London website". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  3. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Maec was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "Address to UN". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  5. ^ Gibraltar.gov.gi, Chief Minister's UN Speech "Mr Chairman, nobody who visits Gibraltar and observes its society and self government can objectively think that Gibraltar, in reality, remains a colony." Speech to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation 8 October 2009
  6. ^ "Our main political challenges come from Spain's antiquated territorial claim." Government of Gibraltar Information Services, Office of the Chief Minister. http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/office-of-the-chief-minister accessed 15th May 2010
  7. ^ UN.org, Special Committee on Decolonisation hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, "the representative of Spain opposed any attempt to remove it from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories undergoing decolonisation"
  8. ^ http://www.lukor.com/not-esp/internacional/portada/06040333.htm
  9. ^ http://www.publico.es/espana/276568/cospedal/gibraltar/colonia/deberia/exitir
  10. ^ "Non-Self Governing Territories". United Nations. Retrieved 2008-10-18.
  11. ^ "Official Government of Gibraltar London website". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  12. ^ "Address to UN". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  13. ^ Gibraltar.gov.gi, Chief Minister's UN Speech "Mr Chairman, nobody who visits Gibraltar and observes its society and self government can objectively think that Gibraltar, in reality, remains a colony." Speech to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation 8 October 2009
  14. ^ "Our main political challenges come from Spain's antiquated territorial claim." Government of Gibraltar Information Services, Office of the Chief Minister. http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/office-of-the-chief-minister accessed 15th May 2010
  15. ^ UN.org, Special Committee on Decolonisation hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, "the representative of Spain opposed any attempt to remove it from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories undergoing decolonisation"
  16. ^ http://www.lukor.com/not-esp/internacional/portada/06040333.htm
  17. ^ http://www.publico.es/espana/276568/cospedal/gibraltar/colonia/deberia/exitir
  18. ^ "Non-Self Governing Territories". United Nations. Retrieved 2008-10-18.
  19. ^ "Official Government of Gibraltar London website". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  20. ^ "Address to UN". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  21. ^ Gibraltar.gov.gi, Chief Minister's UN Speech "Mr Chairman, nobody who visits Gibraltar and observes its society and self government can objectively think that Gibraltar, in reality, remains a colony." Speech to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation 8 October 2009
  22. ^ "Our main political challenges come from Spain's antiquated territorial claim." Government of Gibraltar Information Services, Office of the Chief Minister. http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/office-of-the-chief-minister accessed 15th May 2010
  23. ^ UN.org, Special Committee on Decolonisation hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, "the representative of Spain opposed any attempt to remove it from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories undergoing decolonisation"
  24. ^ http://www.lukor.com/not-esp/internacional/portada/06040333.htm
  25. ^ http://www.publico.es/espana/276568/cospedal/gibraltar/colonia/deberia/exitir
  26. ^ "Non-Self Governing Territories". United Nations. Retrieved 2008-10-18.
  27. ^ "Official Government of Gibraltar London website". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  28. ^ "Address to UN". Retrieved 18 October 2008. [dead link]
  29. ^ Gibraltar.gov.gi, Chief Minister's UN Speech "Mr Chairman, nobody who visits Gibraltar and observes its society and self government can objectively think that Gibraltar, in reality, remains a colony." Speech to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation 8 October 2009
  30. ^ "Our main political challenges come from Spain's antiquated territorial claim." Government of Gibraltar Information Services, Office of the Chief Minister. http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/office-of-the-chief-minister accessed 15th May 2010
  31. ^ UN.org, Special Committee on Decolonisation hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, "the representative of Spain opposed any attempt to remove it from the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories undergoing decolonisation"
  32. ^ http://www.lukor.com/not-esp/internacional/portada/06040333.htm
  33. ^ http://www.publico.es/espana/276568/cospedal/gibraltar/colonia/deberia/exitir
  34. ^ [29] Peter Caruana, Gibraltar First Minister, Ministerial Statement in full "So, if Mr Moratinos is convinced that under international law, the waters around Gibraltar are not British, then he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing that issue in the International Court, as we have repeatedly suggested."
  35. ^ La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
  36. ^ Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  37. ^ Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
  38. ^ La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
  39. ^ Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  40. ^ Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
  41. ^ La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
  42. ^ Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  43. ^ Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
  44. ^ La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
  45. ^ Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  46. ^ Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
  47. ^ [http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/publications/full/bsb7-1_oreilly.pdf O’Reilly, G. (1992) Gibraltar: Spanish and UK Claims, Territory Briefing, 4, Durham: International Boundaries Research Unit]
  48. ^ [30] Peter Caruana, Gibraltar First Minister, Ministerial Statement in full "So, if Mr Moratinos is convinced that under international law, the waters around Gibraltar are not British, then he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing that issue in the International Court, as we have repeatedly suggested."
  49. ^ [31] Peter Caruana, Gibraltar First Minister, Ministerial Statement in full "So, if Mr Moratinos is convinced that under international law, the waters around Gibraltar are not British, then he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing that issue in the International Court, as we have repeatedly suggested."
  50. ^ [32] Peter Caruana, Gibraltar First Minister, Ministerial Statement in full "So, if Mr Moratinos is convinced that under international law, the waters around Gibraltar are not British, then he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing that issue in the International Court, as we have repeatedly suggested."
  51. ^ La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
  52. ^ Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  53. ^ Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
  54. ^ [http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/publications/full/bsb7-1_oreilly.pdf O’Reilly, G. (1992) Gibraltar: Spanish and UK Claims, Territory Briefing, 4, Durham: International Boundaries Research Unit]
  55. ^ La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
  56. ^ Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  57. ^ Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
  58. ^ [33] Peter Caruana, Gibraltar First Minister, Ministerial Statement in full "So, if Mr Moratinos is convinced that under international law, the waters around Gibraltar are not British, then he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by testing that issue in the International Court, as we have repeatedly suggested."
  59. ^ [34] Mercopress: Spain plans to help the European Commission fend off a legal challenge by Gibraltar over a decision relating to the Rock’s territorial waters, reports the Gibraltar Chronicle. Lawyers representing the Spanish government filed an application to join the controversial case last Friday, a day after the British government confirmed that it would support Gibraltar in court.(...) The Gibraltar Government is challenging the Commission’s decision last December to approve a Spanish request designating most of Gibraltar’s territorial waters as one of Spain’s protected nature sites under EU law.
  60. ^ La cuestión de Gibraltar (in Spanish)
  61. ^ Declarations upon accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
  62. ^ Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. Appendix 1: Profiles for Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands & Gibraltar
  63. ^ [http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/publications/full/bsb7-1_oreilly.pdf O’Reilly, G. (1992) Gibraltar: Spanish and UK Claims, Territory Briefing, 4, Durham: International Boundaries Research Unit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar/Archive_21&oldid=1136764528"