Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

British military history of Gibraltar?

I'm not sure that it's time to change the page name yet, but we do seem to have acquired rather a lot of military history, not all quite directly to do with Gibraltar, and rather one-sided at that. Not that it's necessarily bad, but social history is important too, and equivalent details of the Spanish military could also be at least equally interesting. For example, the Marquis of Verboom's efforts in relation to La Linea and the siege of 1727, and the bombardment in 1704, could seem as worthy of space than some of the details we now have. While we consider these comments, I have reinserted the modern town of San Roque, and removed the unreferenced remark about the "unprecedented" targeting of civilians, a military technique well-recorded from the start of history. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is getting truly bizarre. You demanded San Roque be mentioned for two years, I have utterly given in on that point though I still feel it is tangential, now you want it mentioned twice! At least this time poor old Algeciras wasn't expunged from the historical record. There is a wikilink, there is no need to mention it twice in an article about Gibraltar. I really don't see the need for it to be mentioned twice.

I would happily include details of the siege of 1727, feel free to make a contribution,

The particular comment you removed was supported by a cite and quote from a reliable source. The cite does precede the comment so may be forgiven for not noticing. The deliberate targeting of civilians in the Great Siege was unprecendented and attracted a great deal of comment. I feel it is important to explain why the Spanish architectural influence on Gibraltar was essentially obliterated, you twice restored an inaccurate statement that claimed St Marys was the original Spanish building.

I included more details of the Great Siege as the history section was completely unbalanced by the capture, pretty much as I said it would be. I also plan on expanding the role Gibraltar played in WW2 as it was hugely significant. I also note the 19th Century and the tension between the fortress and civilian population isn't covered so I intend to expand that as well. Which will include some social history.

Noting that you missed the cite, I will restore that material and move the cite. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I trust the copy edit meets with your approval. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

An indulgent smile at worst; I hope for the same in return. I suppose Wikipedia has space for military history buffs to get their details in even if I wouldn't personally include them. My possible use is then to support getting the salient social history points in, and to do it all in a way that maintains NPOV on anything that could impact on the national dispute. I'll be back with some more bright ideas but I appreciate as usual on your enthusiasm and your library, larger than mine on this subject. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just noticed that I logged out before making the last edit, which changed the intangible concept of "heritage" to "buildings". Sorry. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Just two things (I am away on vacation, like I said before WC Monster quickly reverted my edit on Friday).

One: The sources that support the following paragraph are Hills and Jackson, both of which have been considered generally reliable by all of us. WC Monster has removed the paragraph saying it had unreliable sources (while he added more and more details about the "military history of Gibraltar"). I think WC Monster owes some explanation.

“ Although nominally in the hands of the Archduke Charles, and garrisoned with both English and Dutch regiments, the British gradually gained control of the town between 1705 and 1711: in 1706, although not yet the legal ruler of the territory, Queen Anne of England declared it a free port; Roger Elliott was the first British Governor directly appointed by the Queen in 1707; and from 1709 on, the garrison stopped giving more formal recognition to the Archduke than Queen Anne; in 1711 the British government covertly ordered the British Gibraltar governor, Thomas Stanwix, to expel any foreign (not British) troops in order to render the place "absolutely in the Queen's power". ”

Two: Am I the only one to think that WC Monster's text has way too much detail and has not gained consensus? (I think Richard's comment suggests that he does not agree with WC Monster's text; myself, I still think that several points in his text are not supported by sources). What I am asking for is the opinion of other editors (other than WC Monster, who I suppose wholeheartedly supports his own edits). Any comments?

Best regards and thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to be able to wholeheartedly support an edit to accept it for the purposes of consensus. If you think that you do, then it might explain why consensus takes so long to get on this page, and I suggest you lower your standards of acceptance.

To my mind, this whole thing makes the entire history section entirely too long. But there is so much weight otherwise given to the 1704 capture that we don't really get a lot of choice in the matter. It has to be long, because otherwise we risk unbalancing the entire history section by treating the capture as more important than the rest of Gibraltar history put together.

Military history? Well, yes, Gibraltar has a lot of recent military history, since for much of the last three hundred years it has been primarily a naval base. But I note that the current text does contain an element of social history as well. We could also do with lengthening the pre-1704 section - there's the captures in 711, 1309, 1333 and 1464 that could do with more detail, given how much weight goes on 1704 - as well as over 250 years of Spanish rule and over 700 years of Moorish rule to discuss. Not to mention the Visigoths, Vandals, Romans... Pfainuk talk 22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I would qualify the previous comment, that WC Monster's edit has made the whole section too long, an understatement. The fact that the Great Siege takes up ONE THIRD (yes one third!!!) of the length of the History section is absolutely ridiculous, and is enough to explain my much much less than "wholehearted" support. (There are many other problems with his edit, but I don't want to make a wall of text here, the ridiculous length of the Great Siege text should be more than enough).

I am returning the text to the previous consensus. I hope that we manage to find a new consensus. What I think isn't reasonable at all is WC Monster's current History section. Someone should convince WC Monster to be reasonable (in case he doesn't listen to me). Can someone please explain why his edit is absolutely out of place? -- Imalbornoz (talk 10:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I might paraphrase you by point out that the fact that the violence takes up ONE THIRD (yes one third!!!) of the length of the our comment on the 1704 capture is absolutely ridiculous. Tthough actually, it's more than a third in this case. You say that his edit "isn't reasonable". I think your insistence that we go on and on about the violence isn't reasonable. I think it's "absolutely out of place", indeed. Certainly, quite a lot more out of place than Curry Monster's attempts to find a new consensus here, and it's not the editor who is going out of his way to accept unpalatable compromises in the name of consensus (that's Curry Monster) but the editor who is refusing to accept any compromise at all. You.

There is a difference between the arguments, of course. The third you say was dedicated to the Great Siege is based on an unfinished job - as I noted before you reverted it wholesale. Once the job was finished, the proportion of text devoted to the Siege would have gone down, probably significantly. I also note that the Great Siege is a very major event in the history of British Gibraltar, which you have just expunged entirely. Meanwhile, your position seems to be that the discussion of the capture is a finished job that does not need further change - that "ONE THIRD (yes one third!!!)" is actually appropriate for the violence (despite opportunities for summary - something that you declined to do for the Great Siege), regardless of the weight actually provided by reliable sources to this point. Pfainuk talk 11:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I was in the middle of expanding the history section, that said having 1/3 of the history section dedicated to the Great Siege of Gibraltar is clearly not undue weight for anyone even basically familiar with the History of Gibraltar. This is an absolutely seminal event in the history of Gibraltar and anyone claiming that it is anything other is talking nonsense. Hills for example devotes three whole chapters, whilst devoting a paragraph to details of the capture.

As to the Paragraph I removed, well I removed it because it was WP:OR and one of the worst examples of cherry picking yet. Anyone who can mention the orders to expel foreign troops but neglect to mentiom that those orders were simply ignored, or ignore that Hills makes its plain that Gibraltar gave full due to Charles right up to 1713 is someone editing without any regard to a policy of WP:NPOV. You proposed this at mediation, it was rejected there.

Having 1/3 of the article devoted to details of the capture, is undue weight. At present the history section is completely unbalanced due to your continued insistence on including extensive details of the capture. I am restoring my edit, you have given no good reason to destroy hours of work other than WP:IDONTLIKE, this is tantamount to editing as a disruptive editor. Now I have a bereavement to deal with so I trust there will be no further destruction of content. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

566 words for the Great Siege out of 1,604 words in the History section (35% if you make the division) is more than ONE THIRD. Yes more than ONE THIRD dedicated to the 4 years of the Great Siege out of the thousands of years in the history of Gibraltar.

This comes from people who said that 5 words were too many for an already too long History section. So please, let me say that this lack of consistency is absolutely ridiculous. So, it seems that it's either a gigantic treaty on the Great Siege (WC Monster's last edit) or simply avoid any mention of facts that are embarrassing for nationalist historians like Garratt said (PfainUK's last edit).

I propose that we work on a consensus text (I am ready to work on it). In the meanwhile, I am returning the article to the last stable and consensus version (as per BRD, like PfainUK has repeatedly insisted in many instances -I hope he honors his previous criteria and does not give an example of "do as I say not as I do"). Like when he said "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)"

I am ready to compromise, but please WC Monster & PfainUK don't change your criteria all of the time. It's difficult to compromise when you say it's OK to mention that the villagers left because they were "fearful of reprisals" -that one text you two guys tried to impose was indeed incredible!!!! (I mean incredibly lacking of support in sources)-, then (when you realise after several months that what the sources actually say is that they were fearful of the violence) 5 extra words are too much, then 500 extra words are OK, then...

To be clear, the last consensus text is the one I am restoring, when no active editor had anything against, and even PfainUK said "I'm happy with the current wording - that is, Richard's current wording. I think a shortened version would probably be better (subject to my concerns as noted above), but if we can't agree on one then this one will do. Pfainuk talk 18:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)" It's true that WC Monster (then with a different name) didn't have the chance to oppose it because he was under a 3 month topic ban, but that has been the only text everyone has accepted since this dispute began. We should try to use it as a starting point.

BTW, if you guys -WC Monster or PfainUK- want to work on a huge alternative text in order to progressively trim it down, I suggest that you do it in you own workspace, or discuss it here, especially in such a sensitive article like this one has proved to be. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Would it be useful to use Andrew's megatext idea, not in the form of enormous bold additions, but rather on a separate "nursery" page? I have placed a version of the megatext on User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar - approximately, WC Monster's last version - and I'd like to invite other editors to edit it, with discussion right here on this page. For what it's worth I have a personal list of things which I'm sure should be in the article, including the standing details of the violence on capture, the ongoing significance of San Roque, and also the Great Siege and other military points of obvious significance. There are a lot of details of military history that I personally wouldn't put in, but could probably accept happily. I hope that this mechanism, and this overview, may offer a way forward to a new and better consensus text. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So, that means, we can go through a process of determining appropriate weight, provided that it meets your preconceptions of what the results should be? That misses the point entirely and is a waste of time for all concerned. If you want to go through a process to determine what should go in, then nothing should be ruled in or out. If you are not willing to make any effort to get consensus - and in particular if Imalbornoz is not willing to assume good faith (as is apparent from his message above) - it is difficult to see how this will be resolved, which is what we all should be working toward. Pfainuk talk 08:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It means that I'm willing to compromise on anything, I'm suggesting a mechanism to acheve resolution, and I'm fairly indifferent to the large number of possible inclusions that don't, I think, significantly affect our core mission. That I have a definite idea on some things that should be in the article is hardly news; I'm just explaining, again, the basis of my reasoning (and I suspect of Imalbornoz's). And neither I nor (as far as I can see) Imalbornoz is questioning your good faith or WC Monster's. Would you suggest any changes to the text in User talk:Richard Keatinge/Gibraltar and would you be prepared to accept that as, at least, an improvement on the current version? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

CO2 emissions

The figure may be true but can anyone source that this (as I understand) is due to commercial success in the ship fuel market rather than local excessive fuel consumption? I'd suggest that it needs appropriate context. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Corporate Tax

Just a quick one:

"Recently, many bookmakers and online gaming operators have relocated to Gibraltar to benefit from operating in a regulated jurisdiction with a favourable corporate taxregime. However, this corporate tax regime for non-resident controlled companies is due to be phased out by 2010, to be replaced by a low tax regime across the board.[54]"

Is there any update to bring this paragraph up-to-date?_Will^Dow (Talk) 11:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Since January 2011 the corporate tax rate is 10% both for national and foreign companies. Online gaming is still an important part of the economy (so far). See Economy of Gibraltar. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Final Para of History Section

I have removed this paragraph [1]. I don't know how it got in there, it did not use to be there and does not constitute a "consensus". It has no references, it is highly POV (per my edit comment) and it is not even history. It has no place in the history section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Its been there a long time, we attempted to rewrite it but the process of doing so was wrecked by the demand that we insert text that the UN supported the Spanish sovereignty claim. In the absence of a new consensus emerging I would ask you to restore the text please. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because it's the final state left by four editors in the middle of a quarrel before some sort of editing restriction was imposed does not mean it has even temporary permanence here. Perhaps a sandbox can be used while working on it, but as it stands it can't stay.

• "Spain has reverted to tactics" - highly POV and who says so?
• "tactics such as" - who says there is a list of tactics of which this is an example?
• "Spain is loath to agree" - peacock term ("loath to"); says who?
• "The European Union is presently reviewing the matter but traditionally does not take the views of Gibraltar into account" - says who?
• "preferring to consider the dispute as bilateral so as not to offend the sovereignty sentiments of its more influential member states" - says who?

I'm obviously willing to discuss but for now it shouldn't stay in the article - it's original research as it stands, and as I say, it's not even "history" - it's discussion of the current political environment. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 21 for the proposals. I don't actually disagree with you and tried to write better text but that was derailed by the insistence on including certain claims. The current text is the consensus version albeit imperfect, you've removed it and are now edit warring to keep it from the article. I will remind you that you are also subject to editing restrictions on Gibraltar and are in breach of them. Do I take your response as a refusal to self-revert? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to self-revert. But rather than attempting to get me into trouble, how about we work together to improve the wording, if you also agree with me? Obviously, in any discussions on what has taken place here, I will raise the point that no future edits will be possible to this article if the process is always (1) someone makes a change (2) you revert it stating it breaks consensus and asking for discussion (3) you never agree to change or consensus on the discussion page. This endless cycle is why it's impossible to get anything done here. As a starting point, I'd propose that at the very least references need to be provided first before the wording returns (per WP:NOR). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I also object to the so called previous uncited consensus versions inclusion if its uncited and contensious user wee curry monster should not have replaced it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A long time ago I had proposed to remove that section, as poorly written. I don't agree with the content at all but no consenus emerged to change it as it was derailed by certain demands.

My suggestion for the politics section remains.

“ While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of territorial integrity.

The UK, although willing to consider this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will only negotiate with the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The UK also accepts a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht that states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept this limits its right to self-determination.

Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UK and Gibraltar argue that under the criteria specified by UN Resolution 1541 Gibraltar has been decolonised, meriting removal. Spain supports its retention arguing that Gibraltar has not been decolonized as required by UN Resolution 1514.

”

However, if this become a WP:COATRACK to hang on claims that the UN supports the Spanish position, I'm unwilling to contemplate that at all and would prefer the current crap that is in there. BTW RHoPF might like to look back at who wrote it, he may find it surprising. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - but I'm a bit confused now - not sure if we are talking about the same bit (bear with me, obviously I haven't been keeping track of all discussions over the last year). I'm referring to the last paragraph of the history section. Are you proposing to remove that and replace with a para in the politics section? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The proposal I made was precisisely that. Remove that last Paragraph and put the above Paragraph into the politics section. I won't go into the reasons why that consensus unravelled. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll take a look shortly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The uncited content about the territorial waters seems to have been added by User:JLV78 in this diff on October 31, 2010. Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that the issue described in this paragraph does not belong to the History section, but to the Government and politics section (I agree with WC Monster here): There has not been any recent episode in which Spain has suddenly started to claim the territorial waters (that would be an episode worthy of being mentioned in the History section), but -rather- it's been a historical claim since many years ago without any distinct episode regarding Spain's position. The issue is at least as old as Spain's acceptance of the UN's Convention of territorial waters in 1984.Upon signature

The only recent episodes (I don't know if they are worthy of mention) are a European Commission decision designating most of Gibraltar’s territorial waters as one of Spain’s protected nature sites under EU law in 2009[2] and the usual clashes between Spain's Guardia Civil and the Gibraltar Police.

Finally, regarding the paragraph in the Politics section, there are several alternative proposals and (as usual) we were not able to reach consensus (WC Monster's proposal is just one of many...) See Archive 21 for more info. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried reading archive 21 but it's just too long! I did note a comment by Pfainuk along the lines of less wording is better and I agree. I'd propose a succinct solitary sentence at the end of the Gib is/isn't a colony paragraph stating that the UK and Spain have differing interpretations of where sovereignty starts and ends both on land and water, leave it at that and we all move on in our lives. This is an overview article and it doesn't need details like this. That should be part of the Dispute article and can be linked to from the main one. Most of these arguments we have here stem from trying to pack too much in to an overview - mention this then we have to mention that - but if we mention that we have to mention this but then you're giving too much emphasis to that instead of this etc etc The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if you look back without anger or rancour (homage to Oasis) you'll find I said that nearly two years ago. In archive 21, you'll find me repeatedly asserting that less is more when it comes to writing an overview. Refer to Archive 22 for why this consensus fell apart. I would support putting the text into the article that we arrived at in December (nearly 6 months ago). But if it turns into the thin end of the wedge for demands that effectively turn this article into an essay on the sovereignty dispute I won't. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal above, if that was the December Agreement, seems fine to me. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

New approach?

The talk page has died down here, but the "non-neutral" tag remains. Can the people who are disputing the article's neutrality point out the specific sentences they believe are not neutral? Thanks. Also, for the regulars, I'd say, let's try a new approach for matters relating to the territorial dispute: instead of trying to agree on what we need to add (ie things like "if we mention X then we must mention Y") let's agree on what we can move to the Disputed status of Gibraltar and History of Gibraltar articles. For example, we could deal with the long-running history section dispute by moving this strikethrough section to History of Gibraltar:

On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings.[10][11][12] By 7 August order was restored but almost all the population fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain.[11] Gibraltar subsequently became a key base for the Royal Navy, first playing an important part prior to the Battle of Trafalgar.

The politics section could be treated thus:

Gibraltar is a British overseas territory. The British Nationality Act 1981 granted Gibraltarians full British citizenship.

Under its current Constitution, Gibraltar has almost complete internal democratic self-government through an elected parliament.[24][25][26][27] The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented by the Governor of Gibraltar. Defence, foreign policy and internal security are formally the responsibility of the Governor; judicial and other appointments are also made on behalf of the Queen in consultation with the head of the elected government.[28][29][30][31][32][32][33]

Both the British [34] and Gibraltar governments assert that Gibraltar has been effectively decolonised.[5][35][36][37] On the other hand, Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.[38] Spain opposes any attempt to remove it from this list[39] and Spanish commentators still commonly describe Gibraltar as a colony.[40][41] The Gibraltar Parliament is elected for a term of up to four years. The unicameral Parliament presently consists of seventeen elected members, and the Speaker who is not elected, but appointed by a resolution of the Parliament.[42] The Government consists of ten elected members. All local political parties oppose any transfer of sovereignty to Spain, instead supporting self-determination. The main UK opposition parties also support this policy and it is UK Government policy not to engage in talks about the sovereignty of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar.[43]

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is simply removing facts certain parties find unpalatable, in effect censoring the article. The reason for the NPOV tag is that he Government of Gibraltar section does not include an accurate description of the manner in which Gibraltar is governed. That is why I placed it there and it should remain until the description is accurate. The manner in which Gibraltar is governed is not a subject for the Disputed status of Gibraltar.

As to the rest I am not at the present time permitted to comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not censoring the information: the information would be preserved in Gibraltar's in-depth article space. It's an overview article - let's keep it simple and concise, in the process allowing us to move forward from this intractable situation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with slimming down certain parts of the article, I've been saying that for the past two years - but was shouted down then and since. However, certain facts should be included because of their notability, including certain facts you now wish to remove. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not proposing to remove them from the encyclopaedia. Let's think of the bigger picture, rather than just this article. The information stays on Wikipedia, we just cut down this article. I think - I may be wrong here - much of the content you want to remain got added to the article as a counterbalance to the "Spain thinks Gibraltar is still a colony" additions. I'm suggesting we move all of this to Politics/Disputed Status - including wording like "almost complete self-government". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with slimming certain parts down, difficult not to as those proposals were in fact my own - 2 years ago. I disagree with some of your proposals on Government. Gibraltar is self-governing, even the Spanish Government acknowledges its status as a self-governing BOT. The relevance of the C24 list needs to be explained - in the correct context. I came up with a compact description it was a few lines. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Can the people who are disputing the article's neutrality point out the specific sentences they believe are not neutral?

No, because we're not allowed to. I suggest you look in the archives.

Per AE decision, the dispute has to be resolved by binding RFC. Given that they also tell us that there is no problem at all with outright accusing other editors of acting in bad faith and that they actively encourage us not to make any attempt to explain any reasons for our objections to any edit or existing point but simply to veto any change proposed without further comment - and that that veto can prevent a new consensus from forming - you can imagine what I think of this decision.

For my part, RL commitments have meant that I simply have not had time over the last few weeks to get to the RFC. I intend to start it once I get an appropriate window. Pfainuk talk 19:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk: per AE decision, you guys have to resolve your disputes by binding RFC. I wasn't party to the latest disputes and AE rounds. That said, I'm sure that noone there would object if we all started working together cordially. WCM: as your issue is with the Gov and Politics section, I removed the tag which applies to the whole article (the NPOV tag remains at the G&P section). I hope that is OK with you. In terms of the G&P section, the article I'd propose to move the detail to is Politics of Gibraltar. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No that isn't alright with me, there are more NPOV issues than that - I'm effectively not allowed to speak about them. I would also not agree with moving that detail to Politics of Gibraltar. Nor do I agree with removing tags until disputes are resolved. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please tell me, out of these sections, where you see NPOV problems: Etymology, History, Government and politics, Geography, Economy, Demography, Education, Health care, Culture, Sport, Communications, Transport, Police, Military, Town twinnings. Government and politics has a NPOV tag. I do not see where else you are questioning the neutrality? Please think of the innocent reader who stumbles across this article: the first thing they see is this banner about the article as a whole, when it's only certain sections that have the "problems". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

btw I made two bold edits, one to History and one to Politics and Government, so please reread them before answering. No content has been deleted, it has just been moved to History of Gibraltar (except for material already covered there, such as San Roque) and Disputed status of Gibraltar. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You're asking me to comment on subjects where I am gagged by AE from commenting. The dispute remains, so should the tag. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear though, the fact that you are under an editing and talk page restriction does not prevent others, including me, from making edits to the article. The AE enforcement decision is not a de facto "the page stays the same forever" decision - it's a decision on you and your editing of this article space. Anyway, I'm sure that the AE decision does not prevent you from answering this question. You didn't initiate the discussion, I did, and I'm asking you civilly to civilly give me an answer. If the Arbitration Enforcers have a problem with us being civil to each other, I'll certainly defend you and say that they are being ridiculous. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You say: "I'm sure that noone there would object if we all started working together cordially." Trouble is, the decision had nothing to do with behaviour - on the contrary, they decided that accusing other editors of bad faith was completely fine and that editors should be encouraged to edit disruptively. So far as the admins at AE are concerned, we're effectively allowed to behave as badly as we wish, provided that we do not actually discuss content while doing it. Pfainuk talk 21:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Answering TRHOPF's question (I hope I am not running into forbidden ground as per the AE; if I'm wrong, I would kindly ask some admin to remove my comments):

• One of the key subjects of this article is the population of Gibraltar (their history, demography, politics, culture...)
• In 1704 Gibraltar was captured, all right; this historical military and diplomatic fact is notable and relevant.
• But several other very notable facts took place, regarding Gibraltar's population: it suffered some very significant abuses, and almost the whole of them moved away. The largest part of them moved to a place called San Roque, which would later gain the status of "village of San Roque" and keep some administrative and demographic continuity with pre-1704 Gibraltar.
• These facts are much more widely mentioned in secondary sources than several other facts that nobody proposes to move from the History section of this overview article. (I personally think this point is very important).
• Therefore, the proposal would move some notable facts from the overview article, while keeping other less notable facts about Gibraltar. I don't think this would be consistent.

I mean, in 4 days of August 1704, something happened and the population of Gibraltar moved away. This is a major event in the history of Gibraltar. The proposal excludes this event (the exodus of Gib's population) and many events surrounding this major historical episode.

I don't mind about the other proposal, but I understand that someone would want those facts to be kept in the lede (even though they are very detailed).

Thank you TRHPF for trying to tidy up the article. If I am able to do it, I will give my opinion when asked. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your comment is a violation of the AE rules, which prohibit you from "any discussion concerning any events, occurrences, or incidents that occurred between 1600 AD and 1900 AD, if such event, occurrence, or incident took place in, or is otherwise related to, Gibraltar, broadly construed". Please remove such discussion from the above comment, and I suggest that you do not repeat such violation. Pfainuk talk 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Pfainuk, I saw your comments regarding this issue and -taking into account that you are under the same AE rules- thought that it would be OK to comment as well. Anyhow, I will try to have someone more neutral (and an admin if possible) decide about my comments here. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a comment of mine that involves "any discussion concerning any events, occurrences, or incidents that occurred between 1600 AD and 1900 AD, if such event, occurrence, or incident took place in, or is otherwise related to, Gibraltar, broadly construed" in my previous discussion here, please bring it to my attention. So far as I can tell, the only editors who have done this in the above are you and Red Hat. While the AE restriction is patently ridiculous, it is still an AE restriction and I have made effort to avoid breaking it. Pfainuk talk 15:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Imalbornoz: just because more has been written by academics about the details of the capture of Gibraltar than, say, events in the 19th century does not mean that a potted history of Gibraltar like this should devote more page space to it at the expense of the 19th century. The capture itself was notable - this is mentioned and that is all that needs to be mentioned in an overview article. If the reader wants to know more, they click on the History of Gibraltar link. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

TRHOPF, you touch a very interesting point (with a more general view, not regarding this particular episode). I have many doubts about which criteria we should use in order to decide the inclusion (or not) of a fact in an overview article. My own opinion is that the degree of attention given by academics should be one of the criteria, although I agree that it should not be the only one.

Other criteria should be used as well, such as its impact on the subject of the article (but, again, how do we measure that impact?), notability (but, isn't this very related to the degree of attention from reputed secondary sources?), NPOV (but -sorry, I am repeating myself again-, isn't NPOV the result of weighting the different views of secondary sources?) ...

That is my own personal (and humble) opinion, but I'm not sure about its compliance with WP's policies and guidelines...

What criteria do you propose (in general)? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible to define a hard and fast rule for this. One guide might be the sorts of potted histories you get in travel books, where they too are limited to a few choice words. Reading the Lonely Planet's history in their Andalucia book, it's not far off what we have now, since my edit yesterday, save for mention of the fleeing population. NB I'm not proposing use of Lonely Planet as a reference, merely as an indication of how others who have to write summary histories treat each event. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well fuck me gently with a chain saw, did you just repeat my argument from two years ago? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Shockingly, I agree with Red Hat. On the subject of travel books, just because two sources may be valid does not mean that two sources are equal in weight - I will listen to Simmel on trickledown economics before I listen to OK! magazine. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wonders will never cease! BTW I added back mention of the fleeing population, but this time simply saying "Campo de Gibraltar". I hope this is an acceptable position for all: it's concise, Imabornoz gets his mention of the fact that the population fled, WCM doesn't have mention of a town he feels was founded 2 years later, and the reader can click on Campo de Gibraltar or History of Gibraltar to find out more, about both the capture of the town itself, and of the towns where the population fled to. Now - for another potential wonder - would it be possible for everyone just to agree that we're done with this and we can move on? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not allowed to comment on an edit I proposed 2 years ago in a way that would suggest I approved, disapproved, endorsed or condemned in any shape, way or form. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin Intervention?

[3][4] For information of all concerned. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page. I advise WCM and the three other restricted editors not to continue the discussion here, until such time as they have opened the required RfC. If you need to discuss the restriction itself use my talk page (or that of T. Canens) but not this one. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Olympic Committee

The article contained references to an Olympic Ctte for Gibratltar without providing any sources. I have deleted the reference until apt. sources can be included (I previously flagged citation was needed). WP:Verification etc. 84.203.74.43 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Special Member State territory of the United Kingdom.

Is Gibraltar a a Special Member State territory of the United Kingdom? Is there any source for this? What I mean is this: Does EU law recognise Gibraltar as a United Kingdom territory?....I am really looking for a specific answer based on references to EU legal sources; my understanding from the EU Treaties is that the EU deliberately takes no position on sovereignty as regards Gibraltar. Any takers for this query? 84.203.74.43 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that Spain recognises British sovereignty over Gibraltar, it would be quite surprising if the EU didn't. Pfainuk talk 20:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Joe Bossano accused Britain of repeatedly overlooking Gibraltar in its negotiations with the European Union, citing, as an example, the Union's companies directive. "To avoid doubts, it defines what a company is in each member state. Well, the Gibraltar Companies Ordinance {Act} is not there...We've got a nightmare situation in our constitutional relationship,...It is a case of criminal negligence on the part of the UK. They are responsible for us as a colony, and they took us into the EC in 1973." Ref: JOHN HOOPER IN GIBRALTAR. The Guardian (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Manchester (UK)] 22 Nov 1993 Proquest (User talk:MacStep) 21:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Log on with

Re User Pfainuk...I don't really understand your comment; Spain does not recognise British sovereignty there I think.

Re Joe Bossano...The comment tended to back up what I thought...that the EU does not recognise British sovereignty..but I was looking for something more definitive (for or against). So any help would be appreciated. 84.203.74.43 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a common misconception. Spain disputes only the extent of British sovereignty in Gibraltar, not the fact of it. References are in the article.

Re Joe Bossano, the point is that it is Britain who takes responsibility here. Note also that Gibraltar became part of the EU in 1973, not 1986, as is clear from the 1972 Treaty of Accession and from the article Special Member State territories and the European Union. Pfainuk talk 19:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Gibraltar a Member State? No. Did it get a special mention in the Treaty on European Union? No. How come it is in the European Union? Because, prior to British entry, the European Communities Act 1972 (UK) made provision to include the United Kingdom, together with (for certain purposes) the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar ^Ref MacStep (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk - No one asked whether the UK takes responsibility for Gibraltar (obviously it does). You seem to be suggesting that the 1972 Treaty of Accession is evidence that the EU has taken the position that Gibraltar is a UK territory. But that Treaty does not mention Gibraltar at all - [5]; cross-referring generally into a Wikipedia article (obviously I've read it but it doesn't answer my question) doesn't get us anywhere either. My question really isn't that complicated to understand; it's not a question about UK laws or the UK's position - it is the question I set out above; I've put the question in bold.

MacStep - No one asked if Gibraltar was a Member State; You are right that it did not get a special mention in the Treaty - A logical question that flows from that is WHY is it not mentinoed? It is dealt with indirectly by "Article 355(3) (ex Article 299(4))"which applies the treaty to "the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible", a provision which in practice only applies to Gibraltar. Why this peculiar provision? Why is Gibraltar not listed like any of the other territories (e.g. Isle of Man and others)? You quoted Joe Bossano pointing to the difficulty relating to Company Law for Gibraltar because of discrepancies; why do these discrepancies arise - its a related question. Again, is this because the EU takes no position on the question of sovereignty over Gibraltar? No one has gone near dealing directly with my question yet. I'm 100% open to informed views based on references to EU law; I'm not interested in POV, just a proper answer 84.203.74.43 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The point I made is included in the article I gave you and the reference is in the article I pointed you at. If you think that article doesn't answer your question then I suggest you reread it. What you have there is not the full treaty, as is made obvious from Article 1, Section 2 of the document. The points made by Special Member State territories and the European Union are both accurate and accurately referenced.

And in any case, you're ignoring the fact that Spain recognises British sovereignty over Gibraltar. As referenced in this article. You're effectively saying, with no evidence beyond speculation, that the EU takes a position that is very significantly more pro-Spanish than even the Spanish government argues for. This is not a logical argument. Pfainuk talk 18:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk - I could not make head nor tail of what you said in your first para above.

Re me ignoring that Spain recognises British sovereignty - the Wikipedia article says it disputes it so I can't make much sense of that either - I am still no further on in finding an answer to my question. 84.203.74.43 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If a Wikipedia article says that Spain disputes the existence of British sovereignty in Gibraltar then that Wikipedia article is wrong. This one doesn't. Spain's position is that Gibraltar is under British sovereignty, but with limited extent. Spain also argues that Britain should give sovereignty of Gibraltar to Spain. This is all referenced in this article, and the reference is the official position as expressed by the Spanish Foreign Ministry. I find it highly unlikely that the EU takes a more pro-Spanish line here than the Spanish government does.

The treaty you cited said this:

“ The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties establishing the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community necessitated thereby are set out in the Act annexed to this Treaty. The provisions of that Act concerning the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community shall form an integral part of this Treaty. ”

In other words, what you cited is not the full treaty. This should be obvious anyway - the idea that you could add three new members to such a complex organisation based on nothing but a four-page treaty (including title page) is absurd. The Acts that this refers to do make reference to Gibraltar, as cited by the article Special Member State territories and the European Union. Pfainuk talk 20:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right that the Act makes reference to Gibraltar; that is useful to know - the question as to why the Treaties don't is outstanding and why the peculiar language in Art 299(4); Was that language an attempt to fudge on sovereignty over Gibraltar?

About the Spanish position, there is an entire article (very poorly written) on the dispute here on Wikipedia; it's so badly written that its hard to ascertain much from reading it. What you said above does not exactly clarify matters either. What on Earth does accepting some one's "Sovereignty" but with "limited extent" mean?!

Here are a few quotations from the Spanish Government's website (various docs; just google Gibraltar within the domain gob.es):

• "The British colony of Gibraltar is an anomaly in today‟s Europe. It poses security problems for Spain and Europe in several domains, which require effective solutions."[Spanish Security Strategy document] - Calling Gibraltar a "colony" does not suggest respect for British sovereignty there;
• 51-2009. COMMUNIQUÉ OF THE MINISTERIAL MEETING OF THE FORUM OF DIALOGUE ON GIBRALTAR - Last para reads "We look forward to being able to reach agreements within this framework for the next Ministerial meeting of the Forum in 2010. We have reaffirmed that, as was the case with the Cordoba Statements, any agreements in these areas would have no implications whatsoever regarding sovereignty and jurisdiction." Why are they mentioning sovereignty etc here? What position are they reserving on; clearly there is some dispute on sovereignty here - otherwise it would not be mentioned.
• "There are four aspects to the approach, which we’ve adopted in these discussion; Preserving Gibraltar’s unique way of life, greater self-government and internal self-government for Gibraltar; practical benefit through cooperation and putting this long-running dispute about sovereignty to rest." - Jack Straw in 2002, quoted on the website; why is he referring to a dispute about sovereignty if there is none?
• "There are four aspects to the approach, which we’ve adopted in these discussion; Preserving Gibraltar’s unique way of life, greater self-government and internal self-government for Gibraltar; practical benefit through cooperation and putting this long-running dispute about sovereignty to rest." - Another statement from the Website; why are the UN General Assembly urging talks etc; if sovereignty is settled, what is there to talk about?

On the whole, I think it is clear there is a sovereignty dispute in play here. The Wikipedia article on the whole issue of such low quality, it's nigh impossible to make out anything much from it; but even those quotes above show there is a sovereignty dispute. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, the Wiki article, Disputed status of Gibraltar, (as I say really badly written and sourced though it is) says:

• "The United Kingdom joined the European Union (EU) on 1st Jaunuary 1973 at the same time as Gibraltar which was included as a Special Member State territory under the UK's Treaty of Accession in 1972." Where in the Accession Treaty does it say Gibraltar is a "Special Member State territory"?
• "The claim was reactivated during the 1950s and especially during the 1960s by the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, as a means of cohesion of public opinion and obtaining support for the dictatorship." This sentence doesn't specify what the claim is exactly but sounds like they are referring to a claim to Gibraltar here!
• "in July 2009, Miguel Ángel Moratinos to Gibraltar to discuss a range of mutual issues. This was the first official Spanish visit since Gibraltar was ceded. During the press conference, he said that the claim to sovereignty could not be given up by Spain." How can it then be said that Spain does not dispute UK sovereignty?

I don't want to turn this into a discussion on the sovereignty question as such; I would rather it focussed on the EU position (my original question). However, I have had to get into the "sovereignty question" to deal with what has been said. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article Disputed status of Gibraltar is very badly written and does not adequately describe the situation. If a Wikipedia article says that Spain disputes British sovereignty over Gibraltar in general, then that article is wrong, though this is a common misconception. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to get agreement on any significant change to Gibraltar-related articles.

Spain's position in detail is:

• Spain recognises the fact of British sovereignty over Gibraltar.
• Spain does not recognise British sovereignty over the isthmus between La Línea de la Concepción and the Rock of Gibraltar (which is controlled by Gibraltar).
• Spain does not recognise any right to airspace, territorial waters etc. arising from British sovereignty over Gibraltar.
• Spain argues that Britain should relinquish its sovereignty over Gibraltar to Spain.

You can reference this to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs as per this article.

You are ultimately welcome to speculate as to what exactly the EU means when it refers to "a European territory for whose external relations a Member State is responsible", provided that you do not do so in Wikipedia articles. For my part, I personally take it as doing little more than allow for the possibility that a similar situation may arise in the future - for example, with respect to British bases in Cyprus, the Crown Dependencies or the Faroe Islands. But I won't be putting that in a Wikipedia article either. Pfainuk talk 10:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the above; I will read the La Línea de la Concepción you suggest; hopefully it will have sources backing up what you are saying. I am not into speculating at all, here or anywhere - simply interested in determining the true position as to whether the EU has taken a position on UK sovereignty over Gibraltar; a question you have not answered save referring to a reference to "Gibraltar" in the Act appended to the Treaty of Accesssion. My question remains. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the article - it doesn't say anything about sovereignty at all. What article are you even referring to! Once again, if you are not talking about the La Línea de la Concepción article, I can't make head nor tail of what you are saying (again). I've listed various things above pointing to a sovereignty dispute with UK and Spain; none of these have been addressed by the La Linea article. Finally, why don't you fix the Gibraltar article if you know it is frankly rubbish and if you are knowledgable about the topic? Please do; I would certainly support you in trying to re-write it based on apt. references all the way through. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The quetions above need answers...but I suppose I should add this too "Is it speculation to say that the EU considers Gibraltar a "Special Member State territory of the United Kingdom" if no one advances a source for this? Is that OR? Things are not in good order here. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

For good measure, when you say:

"Spain's position in detail is:

• Spain recognises the fact of British sovereignty over Gibraltar.
• Spain does not recognise British sovereignty over the isthmus between La Línea de la Concepción and the Rock of Gibraltar (which is controlled by Gibraltar).
• Spain does not recognise any right to airspace, territorial waters etc. arising from British sovereignty over Gibraltar.
• Spain argues that Britain should relinquish its sovereignty over Gibraltar to Spain."

That's all very neat and tidy...but you haven't sourced anything and no wiki article says any of this...What are you asking me to do? How can I know if any of what you are saying is true. Where is the back up? You seem to be saying go off and find out the answers on the Dept. of Foregin Affairs website in Spain....Surely the answers should be put in the Wiki articles. If you know the sources for all of this...add them in...and or at least provide them. It seems you just want me to take your word for all this..........This is all a bit crazy. You could be right about all of this but how can I know........You could be entirely wrong and the things I quoted (i.e. referenced) above suggested that there certainly is a sovereignty dispute (complete, not just part of the territory). 84.203.40.1 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have pointed out several times now that this is referenced in this article. I can't force you to read the article or the references, but if you're not prepared to do so I suggest you don't complain that things aren't referenced.

Nothing I said in my previous comment either stated or implied that there were likely to be references for this point in the article on La Linea. As it happens, I linked it only because I thought it might be useful for you to understand La Linea's geographical location, and where the area of dispute actually is.

If there is no proposal for change here, I suggest that this conversation end per WP:NOTFORUM. Pfainuk talk 15:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We are going around in circles; you admit that the article is pretty useless and it doesnt say the things you say but you keep referring me to it. You should able to reference your claims above but you choose not to. That's your choice. You can choose to stop participating in the conversation if you wish.

My question remains unanswered and is now not just one question but at least two (1) Does Spain claim sovereignty over Gibraltar? and (2) Does EU law recognise Gibraltar as a United Kingdom territory? Again, any takers? Thanks. 84.203.40.1 (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the first question: Pfainuk is right about Spain recognizing but not agreeing with British sovereignty over Gibraltar (except for a few square km where it neither recognizes nor agrees). I understand your doubts when you look at the WP articles. There was some discussion regarding the convenience (or not) of including 3 para about the dispute. We almost reached consensus once, but in the end we started a different discussion and everybody stepped back from their concessions. The result is that there is a very unsatisfying vacuum around the dispute in the article.

During the discussion we gathered a very interesting amount of sources. You can find them here:

• Primary sources
• Secondary sources

Regarding your question, I especially recommend that you follow the link of Spain's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to understand its position (although it is in Spanish).

The proposed text (which neither completely satisfied nor was unacceptable for any side -which means that it was quite good), was:

“ While recognising British sovereignty over Gibraltar, Spain disputes its extent, claiming the Southern part of the isthmus connecting the Rock to the mainland and the territorial waters and airspace around Gibraltar. Spain requests the return of Gibraltar citing the principle of territorial integrity.[6] ”

“ The UK, although open to negotiate this request, cites the principle of self-determination, and will never enter into sovereignty arrangements against the wishes of Gibraltarians. The UK also accepts a provision in the Treaty of Utrecht that states that upon a British withdrawal, the territory must first be offered to the Spanish crown. Gibraltar does not accept that this limits its right to self-determination. ”

“ Gibraltar remains on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UK and Gibraltar argue that under the criteria specified by UN Resolution 1541 Gibraltar has been decolonised, meriting removal. Spain supports its retention arguing that Gibraltar has not been decolonised as required by UN Resolution 1514. ”

Cheers. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Just to respond to the second question (granted a bit late!) what I can say is that Gibraltarians vote for their MEPs through the UK. Some would consider this de facto recognition of UK sovereignty over Gibraltar, but obviously this is controversial. If you are looking for some sort of formal EU declaraton that the UK has sovereignty over Gibraltar, you are unlikely to find it - there is no legal basis for such a declaration under the Treaties (everything the EU does must have a legal basis) - of course, it is also a political issue. There is an Annex to the Treaties (#55) from Spain and the UK jointly on the application of the Treaties to Gibraltar. (Connolly15 (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

National anthem

'The Gibraltar anthem' is the local anthem, or unofficial national anthem. The official national anthem is 'God Save the Queen', in common with every other British overseas territory. See CIA World factbook:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gi.html

National anthem:

name: "Gibraltar Anthem" lyrics/music: Peter EMBERLEY note: adopted 1994; serves as a local anthem; as a territory of the United Kingdom, "God Save the Queen" remains official (see United Kingdom)

This got reverted when I changed it. Why was this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.119.242 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question: as the reverter's edit summary implies, it probably got reverted because you did not explain the change in an edit summary and did not provide a source.

Substantively, I agree with you. Some Commonwealth countries that are sovereign states and are responsible for their own foreign affairs but have Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state (like Australia and Canada) have their own official national anthem but also use God Save the Queen as the royal anthem when the Queen or her representative is present. But Britain retains sovereignty of Gibraltar, and God Save the Queen remains the official anthem. The Gibraltar Anthem is sometimes referred to as the "national song", "local anthem", or "unofficial national anthem".--Boson (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Demography pic

The first picture in the Gibraltar#Demography section is rotated wrongly to left. The floor of the church is to right and the roof is to left, while they should be down & up. I could fix it, but can't upload it. 82.141.119.188 (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ricardo Montez

Ricardo Montez (Levy Isaac Attias) a Gibraltarian actor best known for his role as the Spanish bartender Juan Cervantes in the ITV comedy series "Mind Your Language".

Hi, everybody I was looking for information and biography about this Gibraltarian actor. Can anyone please write more about him?

Hola a todos, soy un fan de este actor, lo descubrí porque estoy aprendiendo inglés y su actuación me parece genial, no era capaz de entender como podía hacer tan bien de español. He descubierto que era gibraltareño, pero su articulo en Wikipedia en inglés es muy pequeño. ¿Podría alguien por favor ampliar su articulo? Creo que este es el lugar adecuado donde solicitarlo, ya que aun deben vivir muchas personas que le conocieron. ¿ Que otras actuaciones pueden encontrarse de Ricardo montez??

Muchas gracias. 85.251.106.11 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that among the ethnic groups of which gibraltarian people descend 26% were Spaniards, I think the percentage is less, I think 10% of the ancestors of the people of Gibraltar weres spaniard, and the rest were British, Italian, Maltese, Portuguese .. etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.29.113.144 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Borders of Gibraltar and Category:Borders of the United Kingdom

Why is Category:Borders of Gibraltar categorized under Category:Borders of the United Kingdom whereas, according to British Overseas Territories, "he 14 British Overseas Territories are under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, though they do not form part of it"? Apokrif (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I keep finding Gibraltar categories under UK ones which as you point out is wrong. I've corrected this one, thanks for pointing it out. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 11:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No farmers, no fishermen?

I'm having a hard time believing: "The Treaties relating to coal and steel, agriculture and fisheries do not apply simply because Gibraltar does not produce any of those resources." Surely there must be some fishing boats at their docks! Wnt (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I observed lots of boats in lots of different docks when I was there at about the same time you posted this, but unfortunately I did not clearly establish (nor take photographs) whether any of them were engaged in the fishing trade.

I guess I might have to go back! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, of course some locals fish but the reason these treaties do not apply to Gibraltar is because there's no fishing industry, i.e. it's not a commercial trade. Demiurge, let me know if you're planning on returning to Gib at some point :) --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 10:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

UK Responsible Minister

I have reverted the last changes to include the name of the UK responsible minister. If we compare Gibraltar (a British Overseas Territory) and Australia (a dominion) we see that day-to-day affairs in both are carried out by an elected government whose election has been ratified by the Queen’s Representative (a governor in the case of Gibraltar and a governor-general in the case of Australia). The difference between the two is that the Australian governor-general is appointed on the advice of the Australian Government and is appointed by the Queen in her capacity as Queen of Australia, but the Governor of Gibraltar is appointed on the advice of the British Government and is responsible to a British minister, not a member of the Gibraltar government. That is why the "UK responsible minister" is included in the info-box of all British Overseas Territories. Martinvl (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually the governor is advised by the government of Gibraltar. The Canadian governor-general was not appointed on the advice of the Canadian privy council until 1952, but it did mot mean that the country was run out of Whitehall. In fact it was a founding member of the UN. TFD (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The point that I was making is that there is a difference between Australia (and Canada) on the one hand and Gibraltar on the other - Australia and Canada are dominions, but Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory. The Australian and Canadian governor-generals have nothing to do with the UK government - they is appointed by the Queen of Australia and the QUeen of Canada respectiveely on the advice of the Australian and Canadian Parliaments. The Governor of Gibraltar is different - he is appointed by the British Government, but acts on the advice of the Gibraltar government in respect of interal matters. He is however responsible to the British Governemnt in respect of foreign affairs, defence etc and also for "good governance". Martinvl (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think that is a mistake to include under Government, for the misleading impression it gives that Gibraltar and other BOT are governed from Whitehall. They're not, government is devolved and I suggest you look again at how governors are appointed to BOT. They're appointed in consultation with the local administration not imposed by Whitehall as you appear to believe. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I checked the [Constitution of Gibraltar]. Nowhere does the constituion state how the Governor is appointed - just that Her Majesty shall appoint a governor. The constitution does however make many references to the "Secretary of State". It is clear from the constitution that Her Majesty acts through a [British] secretary of state, which is why that office should be mentioned. Martinvl (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That is of course original research, since you synthesise that from a primary source. Nor does it address the point i make to you. You imply with your edit that the Minister has a role in the execution of Government in Gibraltar, he does not. And while the constitution states the Governor is appointed by the Minister, and in theory he could impose an appointment, custom and practise is that the Governor of BOT is appointed in consultation with local Government. Note, btw seeing as you fail to acknowledge the point I have no problem in refererencing the role the Minister plays, I do not believe it belongs in the info box. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why every other BOT artcile lists the UK minister responsible? Also why should Gibraltar be different? Martinvl (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest the Minister responsible is removed from those BOT that have stable civilian populations and governments but should remain for those that only have transitory military or scientific residents. I don't think Gibraltar should be different. In turn could you address the point that it implies a role in Government that is perhaps misleading to readers. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The role of the UK Minister alongside the Governor as overseer of "good government" (ie judging something as being "repugnant") could (andmaybe should) be discussed in the section on the BOT's government. Martinvl (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion, however, I note you haven't responded to my question. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Correction Requested

Second Paragraph says, "An Anglo-Dutch force captured Gibraltar from Spain in 1704 during the War of the Spanish Succession". However 'Spain' did not exist as a Nation State in 1704, it was part of the kingdom of Castilia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.158.116 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

immigration?

How does immigration into Gibraltar differ from into England, Scotland, or Nothern Ireland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.217.200.214 (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar and Europe

"Gibraltar is part of the European Union, having joined via the Single European Act 1972". The European Union was actually established under that name by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993. The Single European Act was signed in 1986.Perhaps this account needs editing.07:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)81.249.117.171 (talk)

Well spotted, thank you. I've changed this. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Government

There are a number of errors in the section on government. The Governor does not "enacts day-to-day matters on the advice of the Gibraltar Parliament". The Governor acts on the advice of the Government. The government consists of as many members of Parliament as are appointed to the cabinet. It is not limited to 10.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar as a Non-Self-Governing Territory

Why is there no reference to the status of Non-Self-Governing Territories (i.e. a colony) given by the United Nations? --Kokoo (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Since I consider some reference about this fact should be mentioned, I added a piece of information about this topic at the beginning of the article. I just copied and pasted it from Guam. --Kokoo (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear why you feel this is to be considered so significant. Gibraltar is not a "colony" and the listing is of little significance to the territory (noting that the UN committee is boycotted by both Gibraltar and the UK). The lede is supposed to reflect the article as a whole, and this point does not. And it's also worth mentioning that was inserted in the middle of a point, significantly changing the meaning of the paragraph. Kahastok talk 19:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Although from your point of view Gibraltar is not a colony, from UN point of view it is. That's why I think this fact is to be considered relevant, regardless of the significance it has to the territory. So, if the problem is that it doesn't fit in the introductory paragraph (I really don't see why not), I can move it to the paragraph about Governance. --Kokoo (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You're talking about the C24 POV, not the UN POV - quite a different kettle of fish. The views of the C24 do not generally reflect the POV of the UN as a whole - their recommendations routinely fail to even make it on to the agenda at the General Assembly - and in any case they do not call Gibraltar a "colony".

Listing by the C24 has always had more to do with politics than with any coherent criteria and there are plenty of entities with similar statuses to those listed that are not listed (Chinese SARs, British Crown Dependencies, French Overseas Collectivities other than French Polynesia). And let's not forget Western Sahara, whose listing is actually self-contradictory. Kahastok talk 17:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The significance is that the UK listed it as a non-self-governing territory, has never requested it be removed, that status is universally recognized and the U.N. monitors it. Its official status, British Overseas Territory, which is mentioned in the lead, is basically the UK term for non-self-governing territory. Whatever opinion one has on the issue, the fact that the status remains a matter of dispute between the UK and Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries is significant to the subject. TFD (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well no, that is not the British term for a non-self-governing territory, and in fact Gibraltar is self-governing to a very large degree. The UN categorisation is absolute nonsense, though probably should be mentioned in the article. cwmacdougall 7:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned anywhere. But it is still being given far too much prominence given its total lack of significance to Gibraltar as a whole. I have moved it to the very bottom of the section.

FWIW "non-self-governing territory" means (in theory) any territory that is not independent, not an integral part of a sovereign state, and not an associated state, regardless of its degree of self-governance. Suffice it to say that these categories are sufficiently ambiguous that, in practice, it means whatever the C24 wants it to mean. Kahastok talk 17:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Britain boycotts the C24 and has indeed called for delisting.

You say: "the fact that the status remains a matter of dispute between the UK and Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries is significant to the subject". Well, the status is disputed by Spain, but there are no other Spanish-speaking countries directly involved. But regardless, the fact that the status remains a matter of dispute is already mentioned in some detail and this point does not change that. Kahastok talk 17:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the territories listed as non-self-governing were in fact partly self-governing. Whether or not Gibraltar is partly self-governing depends on who the indigenous population are, which has never been resolved. In fact Gibraltar argued its case in the UN this year.[7] Neutrality requires us to note disputes. Certainly the dispute is between Spain and the UK/Gibraltar. But the decision to keep Gibraltar on the list belongs to the UN, which has already removed most countries and it could remove Gibraltar if it considered it to be an "associated state" or "commonwealth." The UK also has the option of ceding sovereignty over the territory. TFD (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea from where you get this idea that "[w]hether or not Gibraltar is partly self-governing depends on who the indigenous population are". The standard you seek to apply does not exist in reality. There are lots of countries out there where the indigenous population is in the minority - including nearly every country in the Americas. In several cases, particularly in the Caribbean, it has been wiped out completely. This does not make these countries non-self-governing or partly-self-governing.

I don't know where you quote "Commonwealth" from - it's not in any UN rule. When it comes down to it, the C24 chooses whether to remove countries, and generally they have done so on political grounds rather than based any objective measure of status. They are not even supposed to be trying to measure degree of self-governance - the words "non-self-governing" are highly misleading.

You will note from your source that there was no UK presence at the C24 (only a Gibraltar presence) and that Gibraltar's Chief Minister did call from Gibraltar to be removed from the list, a call that the UK government backs.

The dispute between the UK and Spain is covered in detail here and elsewhere. The fact of the dispute does not imply that the C24 listing is automatically relevant, regardless of circumstances. Kahastok talk 21:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The UN allowed the U.S. to delist two non-self-governing territories when they became "commonwealths". "Indigenous" may mean native peoples, but I was using it in this sense to refer to the population who are legitimately entitled to live in a country. Who the "citizens" if you will are has not been determined. TFD (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

While I have great respect for the UN, it is not a neutral arbiter in such things - having as it does a stated mission goal (though its view is of course important, if perhaps toothless). And in this case it being operated by a quango of 24 members, so should more accurately be looked at as C24 rather than the UN. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is not neutral, just whether its position is significant. TFD (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

The first sentence: The name Gibraltar is the Spanish derivation of the Arabic name Jabal-Al-Tariq ,there shouldn't be AL in the last word. It is supposed to be Jabal-Tariq, which literally means Tariq's Mount in Arabic. Atia-Egypt 2013/Aug/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.187.15.138 (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you happen to have a source? There seems to be a lot going the other way (I'm certainly no expert in arabic, but it might be due to grammatical shifts if the name doesn't correspond, no?). If you have a source, it can be easily changed :) --Narson ~ Talk • 12:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The "Al" in Jabal Al-Tariq is misplaced and totally incorrect in Arabic ,which is my native language. It should be Jabal Tariq without the "Al". It's Tariq's mountain not Altariq's mountain which is named after the Muslim leader Tariq Bin-Ziyad. Here's a link from a BBC article calling it Jabal Tarik (a variant spelling of Tariq). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8418630/A-history-of-Gibraltar-in-pictures.html. Rayansb (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rayansb is quite correct. The most definitive sources are George Hills' book Rock of Contention and Sir Willian Jackson's The Rock of the Gibraltarians; both give "Jebel Tarik" as the preferred spelling (no "al"). Prioryman (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Prioryman! I'm glad the issue has been resolved. Rayansb (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Relations on the rocks over reef

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/gibraltar/10237469/Britain-seriously-considering-legal-action-against-Spain-over-Gibraltar.html The government of the tiny peninsula has accused Madrid of acting in retaliation after Gibraltar built an artificial concrete reef which it says is aimed at stopping alleged incursions by Spanish fishing boats.

Notable yet? Hcobb (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Too soon to tell, really. At the moment it is news, but not really much to know. It is all 'They might, we might, you might, he might' --Narson ~ Talk • 22:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Here you have another article on the Gibraltar issue. It seems that some people in Britain are beginning to ha weird ideas.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/14/gibraltar-falklands-deny-logic-history

Popo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edit

[8] Whilst the edit is correct for the 1727 siege, it is obviously wrong for great siege as Philip V died in 1746. Reluctant to fully revert as the previous edit wasn't correct but the second part of this one misleads. Needs a tweak but not sure as to how to proceed.

Thoughts? 192.35.35.40 (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Spanish evacuation 1704

"The demographics of Gibraltar reflect the many European and other economic migrants who came to the Rock over three hundred years, after almost all of the Spanish population left in 1704." This wasn't "Spanish population left", this was an ethnic cleansing. --195.77.16.215 (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually a desperate attempt to keep the population there with promises of good treatment under the alternative claimant to the Spanish throne. After the not-good treatment they'd experienced in reality, most of them left anyway. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Having surrendered they broke the terms of the agreement, murdering British soldiers and left of their own will so any attempt to term this 'ethnic cleansing' is not supported by the contemporary accounts of their departure. 178.208.204.49 (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Spanish pronunciation

Why shouldn't we add a Spanish pronunciation? Gibraltar is located in Spain and the native peoples (those of ethnic Mediterranean origin) speak English and Spanish. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It is located in Spain? That is new to me, not even Spain says that, Spain just claim sovereignty over it. If we are to include Spanish, then we should include every other minority language, such as Arabic, Maltese, Hebrew, Polish, Italian, Portuguese, Llanito, Hindi ect. Anyway, this is English Wikipedia, English language only. IJA (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Geographically, Gibraltar is located in the Iberian Peninsula (the Spanish side, not Portuguese side). I am not saying we should add all minority languages, I am simply suggesting that Spanish pronunciation should be included based on the fact that the majority of natives speak Spanish as well as English (even the Britons learn Spanish) and as per WP:MOS, which states "When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first. If the native name is different from the English name, the native transcription must appear after the native name." Therefore, I propose: Gibraltar (pronounced /dʒɨˈbrɔːltər/; Spanish: [hiˈbralˈtar])

P.S. I am aware that this is the English Wikipedia, however, every article regarding a nation or city does in fact have its native language included (examples: Cuba, Milan, Paris, etc.) Afro-Eurasian (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Spanish is a foreign language to Gibraltar, it has no official status. IJA (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I Have to agree with IJA. Although Spanish is indeed widely spoken in Gib, it's not an official language and thus Gib's native and English place name are one and the same. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 01:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Most Gibraltarians speak Llanito not Spanish, however because they're similar languages, Llanito speakers are able to have a good command of Spanish as well. So strictly speaking, Gibraltarians aren't native speakers of Spanish.

It is similar to Ukraine and the Russian Language, over 80% of Ukraine's population are able to speak Russian and there are a significant amount of native speakers of Russian in Ukraine; however because it has no official status we don't on Wikipedia list the Russian spelling of Ukraine nor do we include the Russian pronunciation of Ukraine either. IJA (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Treaty of Utrecht

Someone needs to add in the key terms of the treaty of Utrecht. If uk leaves, that Gibraltar must return to Spain. Why no mention of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.66.38 (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Neanderthal last holdout

Neanderthal DNA from Gibraltar had tested as younger as any other sample so the reasonable conclusion was that it represented the last surviving population. However recent retesting of the DNA has shown it is in fact much older. Here's a BBC article on the issue BBC Gibraltar Neanderthals DNA I'm not qualified to judge if this matter is regarded as settled but if so the article should have the claim about Neanderthals removed.TheMathemagician (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew?

I was surprised to read on this page that the Jews of Gibraltar speak Hebrew, as I thought the community predates conversational Hebrew. Looking for clarification on the History of the Jews in Gibraltar page, I find that page lists other languages -- not Hebrew. Can somebody clarify?. Thank you. Helenezspeer (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Date of capture

Capture of Gibraltar states that Gibraltar was captured on 3 August, but this articles says 4 August. Can someone resolve this discrepancy? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 18:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Gibraltar was formally surrendered on 4 August, the military assault took place on 3 August. Most reliable secondary sources attribute capture to the date of the formal surrender document - 4 August. WCM_email 20:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to include Capture of Gibraltar on WP:Selected anniversaries/August 4, but since the actual date of 4 August is not mentioned in that article anywhere, I couldn't do it. Can you append that information in there somewhere? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 21:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Spanish IPA

Would it be pertinent to include the IPA transcription of Gibraltar in Spanish in the article's introduction? (considering the territory's proximity to Spain and its considerable Spanish-speaking bilingual population). If so I would be happy to be the one to include it. —Koszmonávt ^(talk / _contribs) 02:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No because Spanish is a foreign language to Gibraltar. IJA (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Are discretionary sanctions here still needed?

An uninvolved editor has asked the Arbitration Committee to review whether the discretionary sanctions are still required in this topic area, and to repeal them if they are not. If you have any opinions on this matter, please comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Ayn Rand, Monty Hall problem, Longevity, Cold fusion 2, Tree shaping, Gibraltar. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of current UN status on Gibraltar

According to the UN, Gibraltar remains a colonized territory.

This information is relevant and well referenced. It should be mentioned in the article. It is known that there is a great deal of controversy surrounding this UN resolution. Nevertheless, the resolution exists. The reader should be informed of this fact. I don't intend to take part on behalf of any claimant. I intend to put relevant information describing the subject of the article. Arcillaroja (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that Gibraltar is a colony doesn't belong in the article if the people of Gibraltar don't see themselves as a colony. And the people of Gibraltar obviously do not see themselves as a colony (they're a British Overseas Territory, and British citizens). The UN list, and the committee on decolonization, is already mentioned quite prominently in the article, as prominently as it deserves to be, so all you're doing is edit-warring to get it into the lede too, and add the express claim that Gibraltar is a colony, a claim that isn't supported by the reference you give, because all it says is that Gibraltar is on a list of "non-selfgoverning territories".

On a side note the Spanish claims on Gibraltar are ridiculous as long as Spain refuses to hand Ceuta and Melilla over to Morocco, because the people of Gibraltar see themselves as as British as the people of Ceuta and Melilla see themselves as Spanish. Thomas.W ^talk 12:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Thomas, I'm surprised about your comment as you are obviously an experienced editor.

First: it is not my personal claim. I assure you I did not put Gibraltar on that list. Could it be possible to be a UN view?

Second: This piece of information belongs in the article even if the people of Gibraltar don't see themselves as a colony. Why? Because the article is about facts and not about emotional feelings of the inhabitants.

Third: You say that "the express claim that Gibraltar is a colony, a claim that isn't supported by the reference you give, because all it says is that Gibraltar is on a list of "non-selfgoverning territories"" ==> ::False. I Cote: "...17 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) across the globe remain to be decolonized" hence, a colony.

The prominence of the information in the article remains debatable. Maybe is not necessary to add it to the lede but at least we should reword the claim that is, in my opinion too hazy and quite far down bellow the article.

Maybe you are not aware of it, but your tone is overall quite belligerent. Please don't. Arcillaroja (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Arcillaroja: The only reason it's still on the list is that Spain wants to keep it there. As for what the people of Gibraltar want, see Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 1967 and Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002; as you can see there only 0.36% of the population wanted Gibraltar to be turned over to Spain in 1967, and only 1% could imagine even a joint British-Spanish rule in 2002, so the people of Gibraltar don't want to be Spanish (and the most important factor in determining the future of a territory is what the people who live there want). As for Gibraltar's political status they are a British Overseas Territory, by their own choice, and have self-rule in everything except defence and foreign relations. Which means they're not ruled by the UK and can not be claimed to be a colony, by the definition in that article. Thomas.W ^talk 16:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The article says that Gibraltar is on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories "Non-Self-Governing Territories" is the official name the UN uses rather than colonies. The article also says that it is a "British Overseas Territory", which is the term in British law that replaced colony. But there is dispute over whether it remains a colony. Spain's position is that it is a part of Spain colonized by the UK. But that was not the reason the UK placed it on the list. And Gibraltar's right to self-governance was strengthened by Ex parte Quark 2005 and the new constitution that came into effect in 2007, which is discussed in Overseas Territories: Seventh Report of Session 2007-08, Vol. 2: Oral and Written Evidence, p. 296.[9] The 2005 judgment makes clear that the Queen in carrying out her responsibilities in Gibraltar acts as queen of Gibraltar, not of the UK. The effect is that the UK government does not have the power to interfere in the internal governance of Gibraltar, and is obligated to respect the Gibraltar constitution, The Gibraltar government makes clear its position on p. 298 that it has been de-colonized, while recognizing arguments that it has not been. TFD (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the UN's designation is not, and has never been intended to be, a comment on the degree of self-government a territory holds. A "non-self-governing territory" is intended to be a territory that is not independent, an integral part of a sovereign state, or an associated state. In practice, inclusion or exclusion has long been based purely on political considerations. Kahastok talk 18:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this rather than issue blocks for the ridiculous edit war that has been raging. I note that the edit war has been over how much prominence (if any) to give the UN status in the lead. I take no view on that. I enjoin those who have an opinion on this to thrash it out here in the discussion page rather than edit-war. Thanks for anything you can give to this. --John (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

John, it is included in the article, Gibraltar#Governance. The problem as I see it with the current edit is that it is implying the UN includes it, which is not the case and never has been. Its included as the UK declared it in 1947 on the formation of the UN. WCM_email 22:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that it is included in the article and that you are in dispute about how much prominence (if any) to give it in the lead. Is that correct? --John (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

John, have you perhaps misread this talk page? You've added this "protected" section under a discussion of a dispute that occurred last August, a good 6 months ago. The most recent edit war has been down to one ostensibly new editor - now blocked - who refused to discuss his edits. Nobody is "in dispute" with anyone else at the moment, since there is no ongoing discussion of the issue and the editor in question isn't capable of discussing anything right now. Prioryman (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope @@John: that is incorrect. Like many NSGT on the UN list it is included solely because the administering power declared it, not because some UN employee compiled a list. My objection is to an edit in wikipedia's voice suggesting the UN declared it to be an NSGT as it is simply untrue and unsourced. The lede is supposed to reflect the content of the article. WCM_email 22:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• It would be useful to hear from User:Beyond My Ken. --John (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on his talk page, I don't think that's very likely.

I agree with the position that says that this does not belong in the lede, per the arguments above and previous discussions on the point. I see no particular case that this is relevant enough in this case. I would note that in a survey of articles on other territories on the list, most do not list the UN status in the lede (the split is 12-5), so there is no reason to couch this as an British-Spanish issue. Kahastok talk 19:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well, if BMK declines to discuss this with you here, and if they are the only current dissenter, we can conclude that the current consensus favours not having this in the lead. If nobody objects I can unprotect and we can move on. I would counsel any regular editors in future to discuss promptly in talk rather than entering a group edit-war. Not only does it promote comradeship among respectful colleagues, but because it allows us to reach the same outcome with a great deal less friction all round. --John (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• • John, I'm happy to see the article unprotected. I accept your suggestion that perhaps this should have gone to talk. I think there is a potential issue with editors like this who simply revert without engaging though. WCM_email 16:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is wirtten in British English and with a British perspective

For British the current UN Status is not relevant because it doesn't follow the British interest and the political views of the British writers of this article. Any attempt to balance the article has been blocked and the editors has been reported. Being the only Territory that remains under such status in Europe, the continous expansion of the colony territory over the waters and the isthmus is sufficient argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pep2co (talk • contribs) 20:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What improvement to the article are you proposing? What are your sources? --John (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference to the UN status is in the article. Regards, WCM_email 20:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The article already mentions that Gibraltar is on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories (even though Gibraltar is a self-governing territory, it is only on the list for geopolitical reasons), why does this information need to be in the opening sentence to the article? That is POV pushing by giving undue weight. We don't include this information in the opening sentence on the articles of other territories which are also on the same list. IJA (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to ask, is this whole kerfuffle caused by the fact the OP hadn't actually read the article? The reference to the UN has been there for some time. BedsBookworm (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Latest embellishment Comment

[10] Does this improve the article, I was tempted to simply revert but given recent comments brought it here for discussion. WCM_email 16:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Customs between Gibraltar and other EU countries?!

If i order some "health products" = capsules/tablets from Gibraltar to other countries Europe Union (Finland, Sweden etc), I need to pay VAT and customs if the order is big? Right?

As Gibraltar is NOT part of EU Customs Union(?), althouth they belong to EU.

ee1518 (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Climate Chart.

I notice that the sunshine hours are always exactly divisible by the number of of days in the month to give a whole number. E.g. if there are 31 days in the month, the figures will always be 155, 186, 217 etc which are all multiple of 31. Though I cannot rule it out as accurate, it has the look of someone having guessed rather than researched the data? 46.7.85.68 (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

UEFA?

As Gibraltar is now recognised by UEFA, and plays in UEFA competitions since last year. Should that receive a mention?46.7.85.68 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100325220954/http://www.maec.es:80/subwebs/Embajadas/Londres/es/MenuPpal/Gibraltar/Paginas/LacuestiondeGibraltar.aspx to http://www.maec.es/subwebs/embajadas/londres/es/menuppal/gibraltar/Paginas/LacuestiondeGibraltar.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071110021022/http://www.aquagib.gi:80/gibraltar_water_supply.html to http://www.aquagib.gi/gibraltar_water_supply.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120428023855/http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/e-business/taxation to http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/e-business/taxation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131114122436/https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/statistics/census/gibraltar-census-history to https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/statistics/census/gibraltar-census-history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070322195006/http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi:80/pensions/Ministerial_Statement.pdf to http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/pensions/Ministerial_Statement.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071124171815/http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/press_releases/2006/271-2006.pdf to http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/press_releases/2006/271-2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100324222206/http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi:80/the-gibraltar-parliament to http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/the-gibraltar-parliament
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130905195545/http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140426/gibraltar/ to http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140426/gibraltar/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120504185529/http://www.gpa.gi/about_the_Gibraltar_Police_Authority.html to http://www.gpa.gi/about_the_Gibraltar_Police_Authority.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090326083117/http://www.un.org:80/Depts/dpi/decolonization/history.htm to http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120419033431/http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=31757&lang=us to http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=31757&lang=us
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120927034456/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/europe/gibraltar?profile=economy to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/europe/gibraltar/?profile=economy
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.foghs.org.uk/nl/70.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927003243/http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S9770 to http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S9770

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511082327/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/c147-v/c14702.htm to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/c147-v/c14702.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081029161356/http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/press_releases/2007/111-2007-images.pdf to http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/press_releases/2007/111-2007-images.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Gibraltar National Day

An editor has twice now removed Gibraltar National Day as not significant. Given it celebrates one of the key moments in Gibraltar history, I suggest this isn't constructive, especially replacing it with the day the UK joined the EU. Also incorrect, as Gibraltar did not get EU representation till much later. WCM_email 23:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: I removed Gibraltar National Day from the template, because articles on other countries mention their respective national days in the article, not the template. Also, if you read the footnote in the template, it is about Gibraltar joining the EU (then the EC) as a special territory. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

On the Conversos of Gibraltar

I have added the number of Conversos who settled Gibraltar (4350, I think) and what was there fate (eviction and return to their city of origin (Cordoba) or refuge in Seville and Granada. This is as per page 25 of the cited source, an investigation which specifically examines this rather obscure episode of history. A certain wikipedia user WCM Curry Monster for some inexplicable reason finds this contentious andd has reverted my edits a number of times. I still have not fully understood what the issue is. I await a coherent argument here.Asilah1981 (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've labelled it for POV, you've imposed your edit by edit warring. It doesn't reflect what the mainstream historical works say eg Jackson p.66, which refers to the expulsion of the conversos. Its a contentious edit because you have selected a source to white wash over what happened rather than reflecting what the mainstream historical works say. You've not attempted to discuss this, you dismiss any source that contradicts you as ignorant and wrong and rather than discussing the matter you've just carried on reverting. Note, I am not indulging you in an edit war, I've tagged it to bring it to the attention of other wikipedians. WCM_email 00:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Listen, I have no time for politically motivated editors. You are being childish and ridiculous, frankly. Conversos were expelled from Gibraltar and returned home (notably Cordoba) as per source - specifically 25. The ONLY modern source which exists probably in the world which specifically examines the fate of this group of Conversos. But you don't like it because why??? Conversos have never been expelled FROM SPAIN. They were expelled FROM GIBRALTAR. That is what the source says. There is nothing POV about that and I am sure the British Empire will not crumble as a result.Asilah1981 (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Language section

A user is insisting upon adding uncited POV content to this section.

The claim being made is that Gibraltarian people speak Spanish among themselves and that they only use English in formal contexts. There is no source for this claim. The user has repeatedly refused to provide a source. There is a strong risk of POV because it is effectively claiming that all Gibraltarians are Spanish really and are just being difficult for the sake of being difficulty over the sovereignty dispute.

But it's fine if it can be cited. The user in question cannot provide a cite. Does anyone else have a cite, or will we just have to remove it again? Kahastok talk 12:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kahastok I have added the required sources, content is not POV it is a rather uncontroversial fact about Gibraltar. Sources are specific studies (none written by Spaniards, if that is what you fear) of language use and its history in Gibraltar. Cheers.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The Lipski source doesn't make the statements you claim of it though.

For example, your section claims, "among those families who did not have relatives in the United Kingdom, as a general rule, none of its members spoke English at a native level". Lipski actually ascribes this specifically to families that only speak Spanish at home (y que hablan el español como único lengua de hogar) - a very different claim and pretty much a statement of the obvious. The same would apply with almost any national language in any non-Spanish speaking country in the world. In France, in most households where Spanish the only language spoken at home there will be no French native speakers. In China, in most households where Spanish the only language spoken at home there will be no Chinese native speakers. In Turkey, in most households where Spanish the only language spoken at home there will be no Turkish native speakers.

I also note that the first source is also not available online, and you give no page reference (just the whole book). In the second you're just giving a 14-page document in a language that many of our readers will not understand. Given the error above, and these points, I would like to see the specific excerpts of the texts that you are claiming as supporting each specific part of the text before I can accept that this is closed.

I note that it is bad form to remove banners until a discussion is resolved. And you don't get to decide unilaterally that the discussion is resolved. Kahastok talk 13:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok Spanish is the dominant language of Gibraltar according to every single academic source available, although code-switching to English has increased during recent decades (as it did during Franco's blockade). I have now added many and I have also documented the ground English has gained in recent years. I have also added a source which quotes Lipski saying what article says. Btw, Lipski is just explaining that except for the minority of Gibraltarians who are of mixed anglo-Gibraltarian background, Spanish is, as a rule, the native Gibraltarians native tongue. You misunderstood what he is saying. I don't know what more you want.... We need a real basis on which to dispute the factual accuracy of the statements to have a POV tag, so far you have not done so. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

You give me long tracts of Spanish as quotes and then tell me you assumed I would accept them without understanding them. I ask for specific quotes, you add more links to more long tracts of Spanish.

If you are not willing to provide the quotes I ask for - explicitly, clearly, unambiguously, matching claim in the text to claim in the sources, so that neither I nor anyone else trying to verify this point has to trawl through pages and pages of Spanish text - I will feel I have no option but to assume that this is because the sources do not in fact back the claims you make.

I would be slower to make this assumption, but for this point. Let me quote the full sentence on page 417 of this source. If I can do that (and it took me less than a minute), then you can do that. Adding my own emphasis:

Entre los gibraltareños que carecen de parientes de origen británico y que hablan el español como única lengua de hogar, casi ninguno habla el inglés al nivel de un hablante nativo.

In English

Among Gibraltarians without relatives of British origin and who speak Spanish as their only language at home, almost none speak English to the level of a native speaker.

The text could not be any clearer on this point, that the claim being is restricted to people without relatives of British origin who speak Spanish - and only Spanish - at home. And your claim, equally clearly, is not so restricted. If there is another part of the text that backs up your point, you'll need to point it out, but the idea that you think I'll accept that your text in the article is an accurate reflection of that text from the source is an insult to my intelligence. Kahastok talk 16:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know Kahastok, perhaps a Llanito will help you with the sources in Spanish. The entire article by John Lipski revolves around the idea of how much more comfortable Llanitos feel in their local vernacular than in English. As do all the other academic studies cited. Ideally, I would find the English version of the Lipski article for you, since the author I believe is American. In any case, you are being stubborn on this issue for political reasons. The funny thing is that claiming Llanitos don't speak Spanish does little to further their pro-UK cause. Indeed, Spaniards tend to wrongly claim that Gibraltarians speak bad Spanish when most actually speak it perfectly (simply with a strong Cadiz accent and with a fascinating number of words taken from English and other languages). Many Spaniards also sadly tend to see Gibraltarians as "foreign settlers" rather than being the indigenous and rightful inhabitants of the city and wider region. Note that no Gibraltarian of the dozens who follow this page is supporting you on your crusade against Gibraltarian culture and language. I think you should perhaps discuss it with one of them. You can be British without being Anglo. And Gibraltarians are proud Brits who speak their own variety of Andalusian Spanish called Yanito or Llanito.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

In any case Kahastok I removed the sentence which you protested. Asilah1981 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

And that isn't good enough. The only other quote you've provided is:

Entre los gibraltareños de mas edad, existen todavía personas que ignoran por completo el idioma inglés

Among older Gibraltarians there are still people who do not understand the English language

which is used to justify "Many among the older generations did not speak English at all." That's not what the source says. The source says some still existed, i.e. not many. The source does not justify the claim you wish it to make.

So that's one quote found, one provided, and neither actually justifies the claims you wish the article to make. 0% success rate. 100% failure to verify so far. And several new claims in there that have not been justified that need to be justified - effectively this entire series of edits, save for the sentence that you have already removed.

I note that you persist in questioning my motives here. This is not helpful and not likely to improve the article. My motive is that we should have an accurate and neutral description of the use of languages in Gibraltar. Which the version before you changed it clearly was, even if we accept all your claims. The POV issue arises because it looked - and at this point still looks - like you were introducing POV material suggesting that Gibraltarians are all Spanish really (and presumably refusing to join Spain through stubbornness). Which isn't allowed.

And finally, I would note that this is a fourth revert within twenty-four hours, such as could see you blocked for edit warring. I will not go to the boards at this time, but I do suggest you self-revert. As I note above the tag remains warranted.

I await quotations that would justify the remainder of the new material, including the sentence I cite above. Kahastok talk 19:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok! The edit summary tells you the page number and the exact quote (in Spanish) but I figured you would understand!Asilah1981 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you claiming that that single quote is sufficient to justify all of these changes, plus this new one? Patently it isn't.

Your position seems to be that I or someone else who wants to verify this section should be expected to trawl through long documents in a foreign language - that even you assume they don't understand - to try and verify your claims. That's unreasonable. And this is particularly important that we go through this given that the two claims we have managed to track down both proved not to accurately reflect the source.

In the circumstances, if you are not willing to provide any reasonable assistance in demonstrating that these sources back your proposed text, then I do not see how it can remain in the article.

(And that's before we get on to weight. Can we really say that this section - with details of points that even you claim are purely historical in nature - meets the standards of WP:WEIGHT? I am unconvinced.) Kahastok talk 21:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok It isn't one quote, it is simply reflecting the entire body of academia on language use in Gibraltar, which is surprisingly quite substantial. It is clearly a topic which has interested a significant number of linguists. I don't really understand your point to be honest. Do you want a specific quote from Karmer, Lipski or the other studies citied for each sentence in the section? I can do that although I'm not very good at quoting on wikipedia. I would have to look up how it is done. Asilah1981 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok You are right, quotes need to be verified. I will go through each of the sources, add exact quotation and page number. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't have a consensus to add the changes you want, from what I've seen so far the sources you've added don't verify the claims you are making. What is also not helpful is your presumptions about the motives of the editors who are reverting you, nor the frankly offensive actions you're taking. WP:BRD requires you to gain a consensus in talk pages BEFORE adding changes to the article. You seem to think that you can carry on revert warring to force your changes to the article.

Even if this were adequately sourced, I would still be arguing not to add the detailed changes you're insisting upon, since this is an overview article, where that level of detail is not desirable anyway. WCM_email 12:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster: PLEASE Read the sources, cite them, interpret them, whatever and edit as you see fit. But don't delete them. They are the body of information/academic studies we have on this particular topic. I may have been biased in my interpretation of them, may have stressed some things and omitted others. There may even be another source I missed. Can we edit and discuss constructively? Asilah1981 (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Your presumption I hadn't evaluated the sources you cited in support of your edit is incorrect. I did. As Kahastok has noted above, they don't verify the claims you've made. And nothing on Wikipedia is ever deleted, they still exist in the history; they don't have to be in the published version. You've not even attempted to discuss what is appropriate coverage for an overview article.

If you wish to discuss an edit proposal in talk before its added to an article, then I am always happy to do so. I'm not however happy to have an editor impose an edit and insist we have to discuss it with them otherwise we're not allowed to edit. That flies completely in the face of WP:BRD and is a complete anathema to the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. I'd strongly suggest at this point you self-revert as your revert war will see you head to a block, you've reverted 3 times now. And you did the same yesterday. WCM_email 13:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

WCM If you notice my discussion with Kahastok we were going through each sentence and a couple of my own sentences I had written we deleted because they were not justified by the sources. I don't want to impose the edit, I do want to impose the sources, they are two different things. On the basis of sources which touch exactly on the issue at hand (and other sources we can find) we can together come to a consensus on the wording/ content of the section. My "edit warring" with you frankly is not about what I wrote is about losing the sources. There is nothing to justify that.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I've read the discussion, there is nothing in there to justify your conclusion that Kahastok agrees with your addition, rather the contrary that he opposes the addition as sources don't verify the claim made. Using sources which don't support the claim made is citation fraud and I would be perfectly justified in removing it. I haven't done so because I am not indulging you predilection for edit warring to impose change. I also see no evidence of you seeking consensus here, you impose your edits on the article before there is anything resembling a consensus emerging. Your premise you reverted to avoid losing sources is frankly ridiculous. WCM_email 13:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

WCM I didn't express myself properly. The sources are entire academic studies directly analysing language use in Gibraltar. Regardless of whether they verify the claims made or not (they do but that is another matter) they directly address what the section discusses. You can modify the claims as per however you interpret the sources (and other sources you may know of) but the sources directly address this topic! Do you understand what I mean? Your beef can be with the claim. It can't be with the source. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

WCM I can't edit more wikipedia today. All I ask is you write what you like, even that Gibraltar's official language is Mandarin and working language is Romanian, but just avoid cutting out the sources. They will be the basis for much more interesting development of the article in the future. They contain a huge amount of information on Gibraltar, its culture and its history which should be on wikipedia. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Its not a question of expression of your opinion, you are simply mistaken. You don't get to impose an edit simply because its sourced, it also has to relevant and have an appropriate depth of coverage for an overview article. Turning a tiny section of an overview into a treatise on language use is inappropriate. [11] Before you edited we noted English is the official language, most inhabitants were bilingual and the local language was Llanito. That was more than sufficient. The discussion should have been about the changes you wanted to make, nothing more and you should not have edit warred. I will continued to oppose changes that are inappropriate for this and other articles. WCM_email 13:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Curry Monster here. Asilah seems to have completely misunderstood my position here.

There was nothing wrong with the status quo before Asilah's changes. It was perfectly factual and neutral according to all views expressed here. There is also clearly no consensus for Asilah's edit, so the previous version is the standing consensus that ends up in the article if no consensus for change can be reached. No amount of edit warring on Asilah's part changes that fact.

For many of the reasons that Curry Monster gives, I oppose this change. I could be persuaded to accept it, in a form, if I was confident that it was properly cited and met the standards of due weight, but discussion has not been far from persuasive as every claim that has been properly considered has unravelled and the text has become enormous. To the point where Asilah is actually now refusing to provide the information (the quotes from the lengthy non-English and offline sources that s/he claims back his/her text) that would allow proper consideration. And in any case, simply being sourced is insufficient, we need due weight and neutrality, and that's far from obvious. Kahastok talk 19:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok The problem with the prior version is that it said that "Gibraltarians also speak Llanito because of the territory's proximity to Spain", as if Llanito Spanish wasn't their own native tongue and they had just happened to picked it up on shopping trips across the border. Gibraltarians speak Llanito Spanish because it is their own speech and they have struggled with English for generations. It is true that most of the online stuff by Lipski, S. Ballantine and J. Kramer are (for some reason) translated to Spanish or quoted in Spanish-language articles, but they are the main academic authorities on this matter. The online secondary sources (in Spanish) quote the offline primary sources in English. I don't know. If you consider this section is not interesting enough and should be kept brief, that is another matter. Maybe another article can be created on "Language in Gibraltar". Asilah1981 (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There is already an article on "Language in Gibraltar" but that is also not the place for your personal views on the disdain of Gibraltarians for English. Are you going to self-revert and discuss this properly or do you insist on your text going into the article. To be blunt, will you continue to edit war to impose your views? Its a yes/no answer. WCM_email 12:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The Gibraltarians have no disdain for the English language. On the contrary, the language is extremely important for them as a sign of identity, particularly in the context of tense relations with the Madrid government. Interestingly, one of the sources explains how in the context of evacuation during WW2, the situation reversed as the Spanish language became the main vehicle of retaining their identity as Gibraltarians during their stay in the UK. In any case, I won't impose my views, I'm simply trying to summarize what sources say. I could revert and go back to square one. The problem is that our impasse is due to your inability to read (or reticence to translate) the main sources covering the topic. Perhaps we should involve Gibraltarians in this discussion? I'm sure there are a few following this page. They will have a neutral perspective and will be able to read/understand/explain the sources. They should perhaps lead this whole discussion so as to avoid the sense of there being an "attack on the Empire". I am very much in favor of Gibraltar either keeping its current status or becoming independent.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Bluntly, if you can't be bothered to spend three minutes telling me what part of those dozens-of-pages-long foreign-language sources justify the edits you wish to make, then I don't see why I should be bothered to spend hours trawling through them to try and work it out. You don't like that? Not my problem. You're the one who wants to add the material, you're the one who needs to convince a consensus of editors that it belongs. You've failed to convince me.

If consensus is not forthcoming then we just revert the section back to the point before these edits were made. I agree it's probably not perfect, but it gets the basic point across accurately and neutrally. And it can always be improved with a consensus of editors. Kahastok talk 21:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok I can be bothered and would actually be vey happy to, but I just hoped we could maybe change the tone first. I will assume good faith from you guys, could I request the same?? Im going to self revert to the version from a few days back if that helps. Asilah1981 (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a start. Seeing as you keep mentioning your presumption that reverts have something to do with an "attack on the Empire" let me fill you in on something. A) I'm not English and B) I'm half-Spanish. See how making assumptions about people's motives makes you look foolish. You were reverted because your sources didn't support the edit you were making, you were reverted because you were adding material of a detail inappropriate to this article - nothing more. You could start by explaining what is wrong with the article as you see it. WCM_email 07:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

WCM, I still assume you are from the Falklands or somewhere like that. I was not aware you and Kahastok had both previously been undersanctions for your behavior on this article. I see you continue with your aggressive style despite my overtures which is quite disheartening. I do not need to repeat myself over and over again, I have discussed the content of sources in detail above. All I want to do is expand the section as per sources which directly discuss the matter. Could you rather explain which phrase in the prior version you disagree with and why? I will then be able to look into the matter and, if required, find you the exact page number in the source. I assume you speak Spanish if you are half Spanish? If so, I would be baffled why you have been not understanding sources written in Spanish. I am waiting for your explanation on why you believe sourced material should not be incorporated or in what way it had been wrongly cited. Thanks. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to remind you what it says in WP:CIVIL about past problems, which happened 7 years ago, when I was having problems with PTSD. I wasn't very well for a time, I was uncivil, I nevertheless apologized for incivility that many would acknowledge were uncharacteristic. And I'll also say don't WP:POKE bears. As it happens the style of your writing and your actions seem very familiar to me, you act in the same antagonistic style of Ecemaml who likes to edit under many different accounts. You could almost say the resemblance is uncanny.

I do read Spanish and if you look above I did comment on the sources you used having looked at them. I commented that the sources didn't support the edit you propose to make. Kahastok has also noted this. For example, Entre los gibraltareños que carecen de parientes de origen británico y que hablan el español como única lengua de hogar, casi ninguno habla el inglés al nivel de un hablante nativo., the source caveats that it referred to Gibraltarians without British origins, your edit did not and implied this was characteristic of most Gibraltarians and not a defined group.

I also commented that the expansion you proposed was too detailed for an overview. I'll repeat the invite for you to explain what is wrong with the article currently, which makes it plain that Llanito is a language unique to Gibraltar? WCM_email 17:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster That sentence you mention was deleted by myself during my discussion with Kahastok, just before you reported me. I remind you that it was the admin who you reported me to who brought up your long-term ban, not me. What is wrong is 1) It has less quality information than it could have. See WP:OWN and ommits key sources discussing language in Gibraltar. 2) Regardless of the fact that there is no reason to keep a section short if there is a lot of interesting information on it, an overview has to be an overview of what sources say on the topic, not an overview of one's personal opinion. 3) Llanito is not a language. It is a variety of Cadiz/Algeciras Spanish with numerous hispanicized loan-words mainly from English but also (to a much lesser extent) from other Mediterranean languages. That is what linguists claim in the sources provided. Just as Spanish nationalists cannot edit wikipedia to claim Valencian is a separate language from Catalan, we cannot claim Llanito is a language unto itself. Asilah1981 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Also,Wee Curry Monster more specifically I would ask you to | read these examples of ownership behavior so you are aware to what degree your statements in this thread are covered by WP:OWN.Asilah1981 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Btw, what the source is saying that evidently a minority of Gibraltarians may have one or two parents from the UK and that they speak English. But ethnic Gibraltarians, without parents who came from the UK don't tend to speak English. That this is what he meant is evident from the wider context of the page, but since it was written in an ambiguous manner, I removed it. Is there anything else beyond that sentence which was already removed? If you want to shorten it, it can be something on the lines of "Llanito Spanish has historically been the dominant language of the territory with British English being somewhat of a second language to a majority of native Gibraltarians. Nevertheless, in recent years, English has been gaining ground as the language of choice among younger Gibraltarians." That sentence is succinct and largely summarizes the content of all the sources which have been removed. I can concede to your argument that there is no need to go into depths on the details of studies on proficiency in Spanish and English which have been made over the past two decades. We can however, keep the sources as basis for these two lines. Asilah1981 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

And you had to repeat that it was brought up in order to demonstrate you were about to WP:AGF and discuss matters in a civil manner? Or did you just immediately violate WP:CIVIL- which hardly sets the tone for a civil discussion.

Don't mention WP:OWN either, there is only one person who has demonstrated WP:OWN here and that was you in edit warring to impose your edit. Omits key sources? Really, why are they key, who says they are key? Which reliable secondary source says this is a key source?

This is an overview article, this means by necessity it will not have an in-depth discussion on Llanito, which is not to say we shouldn't cover it but we should cover it at a depth appropriate to the article. At 92kb this is already a large article - adding a large section dedicated to language is not WP:DUE coverage.

I disagree completely with your assertion that Llanito is not a language, it most certainly is and is unique to Gibraltar. As you point out it is based on Andalusian Spanish but borrows a lot of key words from other languages; there are many such languages of this nature eg Jamaican Patois. Attempting to assert this is down to some form of nationalism is not conducive to a civil discussion. I note you still haven't addressed the problem that you see exists in this article and I do hope this isn't down to the reference to Llanito as a language.

I would modify your proposal thus:

Llanito (pronounced [ʎaˈnito]), has historically been the predominant language of the territory. It is a vernacular unique to Gibraltar and based on Andalusian Spanish with a strong mixture of British English and elements from languages such as Maltese, Portuguese, Genoese Italian and Haketia (a Judeo-Spanish dialect). Llanito also often involves code-switching to English, with technical terms and complex ideas mostly expressed in English. Nevertheless, in recent years, English has been gaining ground as the language of choice among younger Gibraltarians."

I will comment again when Kahastok has had a chance to have their say, it would be good if you could extend him the same courtesy. WCM_email 20:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

W Ok well we are making progress and I appreciate your proposal. I would agree except for a small misunderstanding on what Llanito actually is. The small issue here is claiming that Llanito is akin to Jamaican or any Atlantic Creole, i.e. a pidgin. There is a source on the main article on llanito (which I didn't add) which makes it clear that it is not a creole. Llanito is indeed unique. But that does not make it a creole. The language is peppered with words taken from English and hispanicized and it also has a few other loanwords from other languages such as hebrew and maltese. But in itself it is pure, correct Andalusian Spanish. This, not just in terms of accent, but in terms of syntax, conjugation etc... I would challenge any Spaniard to listen to a Llanito (without telling him he is from Gibraltar) and identifying him as anything but Andalusian. He would not be able to. It is pure Spanish yet a unique variety of Spanish. But just as Mexican Spanish has specific expressions and loanwords taken from Aztec and English or New Zealand English has words taken from Maori, or US English has again words taken from Spanish, Gibraltar has a unique set of expressions and vocabulary which are what make it unique. We would be doing a disservice to Llanito and Gibraltarians by classing their speech as a debased "mongrel" pidgin, which is what is being implied. Native llanito speakers are native Spanish speakers and when they speak they make no more grammatical mistakes or speak with any less fluency or linguistic complexity than people from surrounding towns of equivalent socio-economic background. Spanish, as is the case for all international languages, allows for diversity particularly in expressions and lexicon. Indeed, Llanito is much closer to south-peninsular Spanish than Argentine Spanish for example - in every sense. Another separate point, I am pretty sure Portuguese, Genoese and probably Maltese died out in Gibraltar well over a century ago. As for Hindi and Sindhi, it may still be spoken, but from my experience with the long established Sindhi community in Ceuta and the Canary Islands, I doubt it is spoken with any fluency. Berber I doubt is spoken in Gibraltar due to its geographical location although no doubt Darija Arabic is still spoken by Moroccan families. I read in one of the sources that Moroccan Gibraltarians can only communicate in Spanish (besides arabic), I would guess that Indians would have a preference for English due to historical / colonial ties. Asilah1981 (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

WCM I know you asked me to wait for Kahastok but I just realized you may not have got my prior reference to Valencian and Catalan. Catalonia, as you surely know, is a region in north eastern Spain with a strong independence movement and separate language. Just south of Catalonia is another region which also speaks a variety of Catalan which they call Valencian. Unlike Catalonia, Valencia is overall fiercely unionist and wary of Catalan attempts to "annex" it both politically and culturally. As a result, Spanish (normally Valencian) nationalists often go on an edit-warring drive on wikipedia trying to assert that Valencian is not Catalan. Indeed for political reasons they are legally classed as separate languages within Spain. But if you notice, on wikipedia, Valencian does not have its own article despite that there are some difference with other varieties of Catalan (such as Balearic). Wikipedia (both in the English and Spanish version) gives precedence to what academics say about the language over politics, even though this angers a significant number of right wing Spaniards and Valencians. Politics plays a big part in language and in the case of Gibraltar all the more so. That is why I thought the section should be expanded, since the use of language seems to be affected by social and political factors which are very interesting to the reader. Asilah1981 (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You comments appeat to be unsubstantiated assertion and personal speculation but to cut a long story short, we finally have your objection - you don't like referring to Llanito as language and are insistent its "just" Spanish. The assertion that its pure, correct Andalusian Spanish is plainly ridiculous, since by your own comments you recognise that it is full of borrowed words from a number of different languages. TBH and largely because you keep bringing up the subject of nationalism, this seems to be an expression of Spanish nationalism to me analagous to your comments about Valencia. Now do you think we could allow Kahastok to have a say please. WCM_email 23:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster Indeed, all of the dozens of perfectly correct dialects of Spanish are full of borrowed words from other languages. It's not that I don't like Llanito not being a language. I would love it if that was the case. It would be wonderful for a separate language to develop on such a small territory. Problem is that this clashes with reality and available sources which agree it is not a separate language and not a pidgin. At the most, a variant of Andalusian Spanish incorporating unique terms and expressions and a degree of code-switching. I will see what Kahastok has to say and then I will simply post here the sources to close this topic and agree on a consensus paragraph. This is really becoming excruciating. I'm going to end up with PTSD myself! Asilah1981 (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Levey describes Llanito as a language. So it is in fact sourced. Thank you for drawing my attention to the statement in the other article. Having checked Levey, he does not support the statement made but quite the opposite, you appear to have uncovered an example of citation fraud. And as regards your insistence it is pure Andalusian, Levey notes Ballantine (2000) referring to South American and influences from the Canary Islands. Ballantine also notes that Gibraltarians converse in three different languages English, Spanish and Llanito. The joke about PTSD is not appreciated, its not funny and extremely insensitive. WCM_email 00:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster I hope that was an honest mistake. David Levey specifically states in page 2 and 3 that I do not feel that Yanito can be considered as an autonomous language as such. Although for some it is a reflection of local identity, its linguistic proximity to Spanish gives it heteronomous status in that it is a language variety that is socially and culturally dependent on an autonomous one. It rarely appears in written form and can best be described as an Andalusian-Spanish dominant form of oral expression that integrates mainly English lexical and Syntactic elements as well as some local vocabulary. https://books.google.es/books?id=VKW6uqxsj4YC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=ballantine+llanito+language&source=bl&ots=6EbRURnjjs&sig=4Jr7tH6vhkj8681AuVFzsdWPc2Q&hl=es&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwj377zn3JXOAhVFvRQKHRHNBeQQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=ballantine%20llanito%20language&f=false

Asilah1981 (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see my comments as a mistake, the extract you've focused on his clearly the author's opinion on the language. You cannot use this as a cite for a fact, only for that author's opinion. However, he doesn't deny it is a language, he simply suggests it isn't an autonomous language. Moreover, you can't use it as previously to claim its not a Creole, the author doesn't claim that from what I can see. And as I noted, he also makes references to influences from South America and the Canary Islands - ie it is not pure Andalusian-Spanish as claimed but dominated by Andalusian-Spanish - that is not the same thing. WCM_email 10:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

He says very clearly it is a variant of Spanish. It is clear from the quote. Equally Lipski simply refers to it as Gibraltarian Spanish in his discussion of the dialect, http://www.personal.psu.edu/jml34/gib.pdf. Most other sources available online say it is akin to Spanglish (if one includes the practice of code-switching, which occurs mainly in formal setting). Are you telling me this Gibraltarian girl is speaking a separate language or simply trying to speak English with a GBC reporter, constantly falling back to Andalusian Spanish due to stress and lack of fluency? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWhc6UF75Q I am starting to think you are engaging in this discussion in bad faith. Why are you insisting on an illogical position by clutching at straws? Do you know what the definition of a language is? Do you really speak Spanish? because I am having trouble believing anyone fluent in Spanish and English would think what you are trying to say. Please look up the article "Language" btw. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The sources say quite clearly that Llanito is a language - verbatim. I don't see where at any point I have denied it has Spanish roots and as Levey notes it involves code switching into English is a feature of Llanito as well as the borrowed words from a number of different Mediterranean languages. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to conclude from the video you posted? Your focus seems to be entirely about denying Llanito is a language unique to Gibraltar and every time I point out what the sources say you accuse me of editing in bad faith, being ignorant, clutching at straws or apparently now Spanish fluency is a requirement for commenting. Kahastok I have tried to allow you time to comment, perhaps now is a good time. WCM_email 11:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed the sources say quite clearly that Llanito is a variety of Spanish language rather than an autonomous language. We are going nowhere so will have to take this for RFC.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Arbitration case is still on the books (from 2010)

There is an existing arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar. See in particular Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Editors reminded. If it appears that this article has once become the target of nationalist edit warring, anyone can open a request at WP:ARCA to have the discretionary sanctions reactivated. Please avoid claims that other editors are working in bad faith unless you have evidence that you can submit to administrators. See WP:ASPERSIONS. Attributing their POV to their nationality could be an example of this. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

[12] You are confusing your own (frankly surprising) ignorance/prejudice with what you consider to be mainstream history (unsubstantiated of course).

[13] Listen, I have no time for politically motivated editors. You are being childish and ridiculous, frankly.

[14] I have to say it smells of hyper-nationalistic (to put it mildly) POV pushing which has no place on wikipedia. Gibraltarians can remain British while conserving their language, heritage and culture, no need to worry.

The two comments directed against myself stemmed from the suggestion that we need to reflect the range of views expressed in the literature. The comments against Kahastok were his opening gambit. I would suggest that any discussion does not have comments of this nature. Would you agree EdJohnston? WCM_email 15:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Noted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if this ends now, rather than allowing it to fester and lead to an acrimonious situation again. WCM_email 16:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster I don't think this concerns me. I have not been previously involved in edit wars on this article nor been subject to a long term ban. I have been however irritated by your persistently aggressive tone on this talk page and systematic reverting of every single edit I have made. So far, I have been the only person to self-revert out of consideration for you, thereby deleting dozens of sources and valuable information, just to please/humor you. Something I am now coming to regret... Asilah1981 (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Asilah1981, I think it does concern you. You don't win any awards for diplomacy based on the three comments listed above by WCM. I am sure all parties are able do do better than this. From a distance, this looks to be a crude nationalist dispute. From closer review, there are genuine issues of fact that could be worked out on the talk page. Asilah1981 should have patience in supplying answers to questions about his references, especially those which are only available in Spanish. At some point, admins may lose patience and start blocking people for aspersions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston Frankly, I think I should win some prize for diplomacy, keeping my cool for the most part with an editor who clearly pretends to misunderstand sources which are very clear or very carefully misconstrues their meaning, rejects every single one of my attempts at reconciliation, reports me before even attempting to engage, reverts every single one of my edits on principle, responds to civility and friendliness with hostility and takes this whole thing as some sort of crusade where he has to win and I have to lose. Ask me to assume good faith, I just can't. I detect enough level of mental instability here to let go of this whole thing. I'm finally done with my taxes in any case, so going down to the pool. Cheers. Asilah1981 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)