Wikipedia

Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 25

< Talk:Gibraltar
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Giraffedata in topic No mention in the lead that the 1967 referendum was specifically condemned by the UN General Assembly and not recognized by any international body or state
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27

RFC: Llanito as language or dialect

Latest comment: 8 years ago41 comments9 people in discussion
I'll have to forgo on any admiration for closing this because having already taken an hour to read it, I do not consider the issue sufficiently critical to spend much more time on it. As a linguist, I'm not going to get involved in the description or definition of Llanito because that is not what is at stake here - if it were, I would be contributing to the RfC rather than attempting to close it. Parsing the objective discussion from all the bickering and mud slinging is the harder part. The RfC was begun ostensibly to obtain a consensus on differences held mainly between two editors, but when those editors continue to be the same people involved in any previous talk the RfC and it simply becomes an extension of it, in which case a solution should preferably be sought at DRN, but it's too late for that unless the moderators there will accept a case once this RfC is closed. One editor …agree(s) with the characterization of Llanito in its own article… and it would be a paradox for one Wikipedia article to contradict another - consistency is required - and while I do not know of any ruling that allows a contradiction such as is being suggested here, Llanito is clearly the primary article, is contributed to also by the same disputing parties here, so it logically follows what goes there should be summarised accurately in any secondary article. It is however to be noted that the article at Llanito has been subject to content dispute, bordering on disruption, by the same group of editors who are arguing here, and I would take this opportunity to point out that t-bans for any Gibraltar related articles and and i-bans may be looming on the horizon. There is therefore no consensus to be read out this 'RfC' and my recommendation is to restore the article to its pre-distruptive revision and start a proper RfC at Llanito, ensuring that the RfC is properly and widely published, including notifying all participants of this and related discussions within our canvassing policy, being sure to invite the WP:LANGUAGE language project to the debate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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

A long dispute with User:Wee Curry Monster (see above) concerns whether Llanito, the vernacular of Gibraltar is 1) an actual language or 2) a dialect of Andalusian Spanish with a unique lexicon and varying degrees of code-switching to English (akin to Spanglish). (See discussion above)Asilah1981 (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Available online sources:

For now this is sufficient for an English-language RFC. Spanish language sources can also be provided.

Asilah1981 (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  • ????????. Why would there be a need to define what Llanito is or isn't here, in the article about Gibraltar? There's a separate article for it, and that's where a definition of what it is or isn't belongs, not here. Thomas.W talk 14:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The RfC has been framed in a confusing manner. There is no question that Llanito is a language see [1]. On Page 1 Levey states [1] "the principle language of the Rock is Yanito (or Llanito)". The framer of this RFC is confusing the concept of a language with distinctions used by linguists such as "Autonomous language" to argue Llanito isn't really a language but simply a dialect of Andalusian Spanish. That is a gross oversimplification. The actual edits under discussion are:
A)

Llanito (pronounced [ʎaˈnito]),[2] 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."

B)

"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."

The difference is the framer of the Rfc wishes to convey Llanito as simply a Spanish dialect, when no source available would support this. I would contend (A) above describes the situation rather well whereas (B) clearly does not. Happy for the community to consider the proposals on merit. WCMemail 15:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  • After reading the discussions here, checking the page history of the article, and taking a quick look at Asilah1981's other edits, I get the impression that they want Llanito defined as being Spanish in order to make the people of Gibraltar seem more Spanish than they are, and then use that to support a claim that Gibraltar belongs to Spain. But this article is about Gibraltar, not about what Llanito is or isn't (there's a separate article about that, not surprisingly named Llanito), about what the ethnic background of the people of Gibraltar is (there's a separate article about that: Demographics of Gibraltar), or about whether Gibraltar is British or Spanish (the people of Gibraltar have had their say twice: 99.6% of them, including a massive majority of those who speak Llanito/Andalucian/Spanish at home, saying no to Spain in the 1960s, and 99% saying no to even being jointly ruled by Spain and the UK in 2002), since there are a number of separate articles about that too, primarily Disputed status of Gibraltar and History of Gibraltar. So let's keep this article focused on what matters here, and report what reliable sources say. And since most sources seem to say that the majority of the people of Gibraltar speak Llanito among themselves, regardless of their ethnic background, and all sources say that English is the sole official language of Gibraltar, that's what the article should say too. Using the name Llanito, and not "Llanito (which is just another name for Spanish, making the people of Gibraltar Spanish)". Thomas.W talk 16:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: Really, Thomas.W I am neither Spanish nor have I any desire to make Gibraltarians become Spanish, nor do I believe they are Spanish, nor do I believe Gibraltar should belong in Spain. If you really need full transparency on my background I am of Jewish Moroccan origin with Canadian citizenship, although I have owned property and have resided in Spain (close to Gibraltar in fact) for 11 years of my life. I would suggest you focused on the subject matter (the definition of Llanito as per available sources) rather than reflect on my or any other editors' ulterior motives for editing this page. It is not what is expected in an RfC.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I haven't commented on you, as a person, nor have I made any speculations about your ethnic background. As for this RfC it is totally off-topic here, since this article is about Gibraltar, not about the status or definition of Llanito. So raise the question on the talk page of that article, not here. Thomas.W talk 17:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
That is a fair enough point. But frankly this dispute covers all Gibraltar-related articles including evidently Llanito. The fact that the RFC has been chosen to be done on this page is because the bulk of the discussions are present here.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
?? It doesn't matter if you feel that "the bulk of the discussion is here", it's still off-topic here. RfCs regarding the status of languages/dialects/what-have-you should be held on the talk page of that language, dialect or what-have-you, not on the talk page of a totally different article, where very few of the regular editors have any in-depth knowledge about the subject that is being discussed. Linguists don't follow what happens on this article, they follow what happens on articles about languages etc, and it's their input that is needed... Thomas.W talk 17:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Thomas.W Do you propose that I move the RFC to Llanito? There is nothing wrong with the definition of Llanito on that article, it is here where it is being defined incorrectly. Also since the RFC is listed under lang, I thought linguists would come across this RfC. In any case, Im off. TBD. Asilah1981 (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The idea of an RFC is to get outside opinion, I would suggest you allow others to comment, replying tendentiously to every comment will simply deter outside comment. I would suggest you back right off an allow people to have their say. WCMemail 18:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

My preference of all the options I have seen is the status quo. This is perfectly factual, and has seen very little objection in this discussion (there was one, here, based on a quotation that curiously I cannot find anywhere in the article). Per User:Thomas.W, this is an article on Gibraltar, it doesn't need to get into definitions or whys or wherefores of Llanito, beyond noting its existence and giving a description.

Of the two options presented by WCM, option A is far preferable. Notably, "Llanito Spanish" appears to be a neologism aimed at promoting the idea that Llanito is a dialect of Spanish. The main concern that prompted my initial revert was the concern that the presentation made the Gibraltarians seem more Spanish than they are and thus biased the article in favour of the Spanish position in the dispute. This concern seemed to be confirmed when it became clear from those quotes that were available (and for most of the text there were none - we were expected to work out for ourselves what the text was based on from reams of Spanish text and an offline source with no clue as to where we were supposed to be looking) that the prevalence and significance of Spanish in Gibraltar was being significantly overstated compared with what the sources actually said. Kahastok talk 21:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  • While I think WCM is wrong to say that "There is no question that Llanito is a language" (in linguistics there are always questions), having read the discussion above, this RfC, and the sources discussed here which I could access, I find option A of the two WCM noted above to be preferable. For a start it gives a bit more context for Llanito, context which given the importance of Llanito to Gibraltar I feel is justified within WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for this article. Secondly, I agree that "Llanito Spanish" seems to be a neologism. If describing Llanito as a language is political, saying "Llanito Spanish" is far more so. Even taking it as a dialect of Spanish, it's not automatic that it would be commonly referred to with Spanish as a suffix.
If there's a proposal to fiddle with specific wording, that'd be wroth another look. It does seem however that this RfC is setting up the debate poorly, presenting it as probably somewhat of a false dichotomy. Languages are often hard to pidgeonhole into such tight categories. CMD (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
It is not possible to answer the question without knowing what specific edit is contested. The word language can mean different things according to context. TFD (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you TFD, CMD and Kahastok. My input here is just some general thoughts, since I guess this matter is not of great importance in terms of notability or importance. I personally would say that the principle issue here is that the topic on which the question is being ask is so obscure to the vast majority of wikipedia editors, that a preposterous POV can be successfully pushed by an editor without wikipedia's mechanism of review functioning as adequately as it could on more notable matters. Were the question here whether Llanito was a separate dialect from Andalusian Spanish or whether it was simply a variant of this widely spoken variant of peninsular Spanish, positions could be reasonably argued on both sides. Although it is true that a native Gibraltarian could not tell a native from Cadiz province from another native Gibraltarian from a casual conversation (unless he specifically tested his knowledge of certain expressions or words mostly related to foodstuff), political boundaries and a rich local lexicon makes it logical to separate Gibraltarian as a separate variant of southern Spanish (much as Canary Islander, Extremaduran or Murcian are separate and unique dialects from Andalusian). Indeed Andalusian Spanish itself is a political construct since it includes various different varieties which could be as easy separated as grouped together. I would tend to argue yes, Llanito is a unique and separate dialect from Andalusian Spanish. I say this even though the vast majority of Spaniards would be totally incapable of distinguishing Llanito from the Cadiz province variety of Andalusian. Even though the Spanish of Cadiz city or Algeciras city is much closer to Llanito than to the Spanish of other Andalusian towns such as Granada or Malaga. Even though someone from Barcelona or other such town of northern Spain would probably be incapable of distinguishing a Llanito speaking from anyone from the southern third of Spain. As an example, for English speakers to be able to grasp, claiming that Llanito is a separate language is NOT AT ALL like saying that Scottish English is a separate language from English. It is more like saying a specific dialect within Scottish such as the accent of Aberdeen, in all its uniqueness and richness, is a language separate FROM ENGLISH (let alone Scottish English).
I truly believe that the Scotsman pushing this frankly surreal position on this article is, at least partly, unaware of how preposterous his "understanding" of sources provided is. It's hard to grasp fully without knowing Spanish and its various dialects. It is however revealing that none of the dozens of Gibraltarians who are no doubt following this article's talk page with some modicum of amusement have come in his defense of claiming Llanito is a language. They have kept a polite silence in deference for a fellow Brit who evidently believes he is defending Gibraltar from foreign aggression. They know, however, that the position is totally indefensible. Finally, I agree with the comments above that 'Llanito Spanish' is a neologism (fair point). However, 'Gibraltarian Spanish' is not. Many of the sources use 'Llanito', others use 'Gibraltarian Spanish' and a fair number simply use the term 'Spanish'. This, I believe should also be something to take into account when judging this matter as a non-Spanish/Yanito speaker.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Asilah, you've already been blocked for casting aspersions, and you come back and immediately start casting aspersions. That's not the way to stay unblocked. And of course, the fact that you claim a silent majority supporting you does not make any difference in terms of consensus.
As to the question, I find you assert but you do not argue. You seem to try to cover the weakness of your case with rhetoric - peacock terms like "indefensible" and "preposterous" are unpersuasive. I do not accept your claim that Llanito is unquestionably a Spanish dialect. You make no convincing case that it is. Kahastok talk 18:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
You seem quite determined to undermine your own RfC, its supposed to elicit outside comment. Could you please stop the personal attacks. WCMemail 20:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I was summoned by a bot. I have no idea what the language families of Spanish might be, and I actually have studied a romance language, which is unusual enough in ediitors of the English wikipedia. So. I can't speak to the facts. But generally, when facts are disputed, the best resolution is to formulate the dispute, as in some people say x while these other people believe on the other hand that... etc. If there are no sources for the alternate viewpoint, well then what does that tell us? Hope that helps... it's all I've got. Elinruby (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's a huge academic dispute on this. I very much doubt we'll find a source discussing the question. Most linguists are well aware that a language is a dialect with an army and navy and have long since stopped bothering arguing the toss on this sort of thing. Which is one of the reasons why this whole push to insist that Llanito is Spanish dialect looks like a POV push (as I described before).
And I note that the status quo version makes no comment on the matter. It refers to a "vernacular" without defining the point further. The only objection that has been raised objected to a quoted text from - well we don't know where it came from, it's not in this article. Kahastok talk 18:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I will address my comments to the RFC statement and not to any particular edits (I had a hard time relating any edits in the history to the dispute described in the RFC statement). I believe Llanito is both an actual language and a dialect of Andalusian Spanish, because I believe there is no clear distinction in English between the uses of "dialect" and "language". Any argument about which Llanito is is as much an argument about the meaning of "language" and "dialect" as it is an argument about what Llanito is.
The pre-RFC discussion and edits and many of the comments under the RFC seem to reflect disagreements over specific facts about what is spoken in Gibraltar, not whether it has full language or dialect status, as requested for comment. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) Thanks. This is (or has become in this discussion) a clearly politicized issue. IMO the key here is whether code-switching is enough to consider a speech a language (I don't think Spanglish is classed as a language anywhere) and whether 1) code-switching is inherent to llanito or 2) llanitos code-switch between llanito and English. On this last question I confess I am not sure. If the former is true we should refer to llanito as a variety of Spanglish, if the latter is true, the presence of words of non-spanish origin (as is the case for all varieties of Spanish) is not sufficient to classify Llanito as a language. The argument that "a language is a dialect with an army" (e.g. Serbian and Croatian) would be valid if any of the varieties of Spanish which do have an army and independent state (Mexican, Colombian, Argentine, Chilean, Puerto Rican etc...) were classified as separate languages. They are not. In fact, the only defining element of Llanito beyond the presence of numerous anglicisms is their strong south-western Andalusian accent. In terms of sources, they refer to Llanito as 1) "a language" (non-specialized sources), 2) "a dialect of Spanish" or 3) simply "Spanish" (2 and 3 in specialized linguistics sources). I don't want to edit war on this issue anymore and since it includes strong political undertones which make consensus close to impossible, I'm fine with the term "vernacular" as long as the article itself is clear about what Llanito effectively consists of: Southern-Cadiz Andalusian Spanish with a rich lexicon of hispanized English words (which is typical particularly of Latin American varieties of Spanish which are more influenced by English) and the common (yet not universal) practice of code-switching to English. On this basis, which any llanito would agree with, no edit conflict between informed editors should really exist.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm still somewhat confused as to why this is an issue for the Gibraltar article, when the articles Languages of Gibraltar and Llanito are more specific to the topic and don't seem to have an issue. Surely whatever wording is used in Languages of Gibraltar (identified as "main article" for this section) should also be used here and whatever wording is used at Llanito should be used in Languages of Gibraltar. If I followed the previous comments correctly, Asilah1981 agrees with the characterization of Llanito in its own article, and nobody else has given an opinion, so why don't we use the same description in this article and if someone doesn't like it, get consensus for a change to the Llanito article, then copy it here? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Giraffedata Look above at my posting above where I list the two edits (A) is the one most people support and (B) is the one that a single editor sought to edit war into the article. The problem is not how to describe the language but one editor who insists on his edit and accuses anyone who disagrees with them as variously ignorant or some sort of nationalist xenophobe. WCMemail 06:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
That is correct Bryan Henderson (giraffedata), I agree with the characterization of Llanito in its own article. A consensus exists in that article. I was not involved in reaching that consensus. However, copying it here appears to have elicited a rather violent reaction. I will attempt to do so now, see how many minutes it takes to be reverted by one of these two editors above. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Except of course your edit didn't reflect what is in the Llanito article, funny how you managed to remove the fact that its unique to Gibraltar, and edited to state its just "Spanish" with a bit of code switching. It isn't that simple. Bryan's comments did not give you carte blanche to ride rough shod over other editors. WCMemail 17:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster; I have written word for word what it says in the Llanito article, and somehow I have the feeling that you know this to be the case. But you don't like it so (surprise!) you have reverted it. Asilah1981 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Address the content issue, discuss content not editors. WCMemail 17:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster Why do you not like the consensus version from the Llanito article, as per Bryan Henderson (giraffedata)'s very reasonable suggestion? I remind you that, in the absence of arguments, your approval is not a requirement as per WP:JDL and WP:OWN.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above all still applies. The fact that a text has consensus on one article doesn't mean that you can just copy the text to another article. Similarly, the text from this article could not be applied to the other article without a consensus for it. From what I have seen here - as per all of the above - I do not accept that the characterisation in your text is correct, nor that the push to define Llanito as a form of Spanish is neutral or beneficial to this article. Kahastok talk 17:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I would imagine Giraffedata was giving you advice in good faith not expecting you would use this as an excuse to edit war again. The problem is you haven't copied all the points from the other article, including the very significant point that Llanito is unique to Gibraltar. To describe it simply as an Andalusian dialect is a gross over simplification. No matter how many times you simply ignore the fact that I have presented a reason for reverting you, that reason does exist and you should address it rather than making personal remarks. FFS I would like to discuss content not constantly have to defend myself. WCMemail 17:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster I have simply copy-pasted from the relevant article. I barely read what it said, but the consensus version seemed correct to me: A variant of Spanish with numerous anglicisms and words taken from other languages and common code-switching to English. You may not like it. I would also disagree with the fact that it doesn't mention it is Andalusian Spanish, or specifically Cadiz Spanish. But there you go. That is the consensus version and I didn't make it. I don't know what you mean about personal remarks. Asilah1981 (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Nope, you've only partially quoted and removed relevant information, I'll ask you one last time to self-revert as I have had enough of your edit warring. I'm taking this further if you don't. WCMemail 19:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
(ec) According to this logic, does that mean you would not object if I took the text from the status quo version of this (rather higher-profile) article and used it to replace the version at Llanito?
You really really badly need to learn what consensus is and how it works because the logic you are following is going to land you in some serious hot water. You do not get to apply even a standing consensus text from one article on a different article unless you have consensus at the target article as well, which patently you don't. The version you propose has all the problems previously discussed with your previous edit. It still looks like this is a POV-based claim that Gibraltarians are all Spanish really and the sourcing still hasn't been supplied to support it. You don't just get to pretend those points weren't made to you. Kahastok talk 20:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Kahastok My RfC here basically failed because I was told that the definition of Llanito had already been dealt with on the relevant article (Llanito. All I am doing is following what transpired from the RfC and only yesterday an independent commentator recommended we do. This article is about Gibraltar not about Llanito. Evidently, it is in "Llanito" where "Llanito's" definition has been consensuated, not here. Btw, Gibraltarians are not Spanish and I don't want them to be Spanish. I think the second half of your paragraph is casting aspersions. If you and I have an issue with the definition of Llanito we should work on it in the relevant article. Here the definition is the one provided in that article. Asilah1981 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
It is very funny that you're now relying on a standing consensus, something that you're also claiming that in principle doesn't exist. This isn't just some mumbo-jumbo I'm talking about consensus, and it isn't a tool just to be claimed whenever you fancy making an edit.
The previous consensus at this article is more important than any previous consensus anywhere else. There is patently no consensus for this text that you keep on adding to this article for reasons you already know. The fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't override the objections that have been repeatedly raised and that you are insisting on ignoring. Kahastok talk 21:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The RFC did not arrive at a conclusion, you've leaped upon the comment made by one editor and assumed that gave you Carte Blanche to force your edit into the article. Nor have you addressed the point I made. The edit before you changed it reflected and summarized the content of Llanito. After your edit, you removed a number of critical points eg the fact is unique to Gibraltar, or that it includes British English. It no longer reflects an accurate summary, you're being completely disingenuous to pretend it does. WCMemail 21:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
So what, now? Shall we have another RfC on whether the definition of Llanito on Gibraltar reflect the definition in the Llanito article?Asilah1981 (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I've asked for a closure of the RFC, we'll see what an uninvolved admin makes of this RFC. Though in advance they have my admiration if they can conclude anything. WCMemail 21:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh and while we're at it, the current article is a pretty damn good summary of what the dedicated article says. WCMemail 21:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
It will be hard for someone to draw a conclusion from these comments, because people are commenting about lots of different things. The framer of the Rfc didn't ask a clear question, but pretty much implied the question is "whether Llanito, the vernacular of Gibraltar is 1) an actual language or 2) a dialect of Andalusian Spanish with a unique lexicon and varying degrees of code-switching to English (akin to Spanglish)." But the statement also refers to an earlier dispute, which I for one did not have the desire to analyze. Another editor immediately recast the question as which of two alternative texts (A) and (B) is best, and most of the discussion was about that question. But a lot of it was also about whether certain editors were behaving properly and what their motivations are. Finally, there were some meta-comments that we shouldn't even be discussing these things here because two other articles are a better place to do that and this article should just copy whatever is the consensus there.
I still think that last point is the best result to take from this RfC, though it does look like Kahastok doesn't agree that articles should affect each other that way.
Incidentally, I looked at Asilah1981's recent edits that were supposedly following this plan, cutting and pasting, and maybe I'm blind, but I can't find the text added by these edits in those other articles. If it were up to me, I'd just copy the entire lede of Languages Of Gibraltar as the Languages section of Gibraltar, which already says that is the main article. And then take the debate to Languages of Gibraltar. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Levey2008 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Culture of Gibraltar". Everyculture. Retrieved 5 October 2007.

Does the RfC have a chance of resolving this situation?

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I've requested User:Asilah1981 refrain from editing the article absent consensus determined on this page. Would it be possible for the other parties to agree to the same terms? I'd prefer this to fully protecting the article or handing out blocks. @Wee Curry Monster:, @Kahastok: Tiderolls 00:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: Very happy to agree with that, exactly what I've been asking for. WCMemail 00:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Closer's note: As the closer of this I am now fairly familiar with the editing and discussion patterns if not with the subject matter. If disruption continues particularly of the kind that is described in the header of WP:DRN, I'll make a case at ANI, for t-bans, i-bans and/or page protections. I don't think anyone needs to blocked at this point.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
EdJohnston - Yes, Ed, I do believe Gibraltar articles were subject to Arbcom special measures at one time. I don't have to be the only admin looking into this, so if you would like to see what you can do, feel free to go ahead. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง: If I am considered part of the issue here I would like to state that I have no interest in editing this article anymore, so no need for protection or arbitration. There is no glaring historical error here as there is in History of Gibraltar, just slight misinformation and omissions. I accept leaving here, since it is just not worth the effort. So far, even changing a comma meets fierce resistance, which I still interpret as contrary to WP:OWN and WP:JDL,Asilah1981 (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Gibraltar killings / Operation Flavius

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can't find a mention of it in the article. Mind you the 'recent history' is a couple of hundred years condensed into as many paragraphs! Discuss wording here>>>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by You Can Act Like A Man (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Gibraltar repository

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Should a mention of [2] be included in the Gibraltar article/appropriate derivative page? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I would say not yet, its only in the planning stage and hasn't got of the ground yet. WCMemail 19:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a mention on the University of Gibraltar talk page - so that the proverbial someone else' can keep an eye on the matter? Jackiespeel (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
If its going anywhere that would be the place for it. WCMemail 21:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes better to ask such initial questions on the most general article talk page as likely to find more people willing to pursue the matter (as they might not check all the more specific pages). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Users User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Thomas.W and Wikipedia Policy

Latest comment: 8 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
Off-topic for this talkpage.

In the light of behavior of these two users I think it pertinent to highlight Wikipedia policy and how it applies to their control of this article:

Citing WP:Stonewalling

Status quo stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change, or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo), and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes. Such behavior creates the appearance of a real substantive dispute about the change when none (or little) exists.

Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior that is characterized by the use of tactics which obstruct, delay, prolong, or distract discussion from reaching consensus, usually when those opposing a proposal have few if any substantive arguments with which to support their position, and often when it appears that consensus supports, or is close to supporting, the change. While it's very difficult for one editor acting alone to succeed with stonewalling, if only 2 or 3 are involved, who don't even have to be coordinating their efforts, their ability to successfully build and maintain a stonewall retaining the status quo can be distressingly effective. With a few more editors it becomes even easier.

True consensus in a given situation is ideally measured and determined by the strength of the arguments presented, but often formal or informal polling is used as a substitute to determine consensus. So if enough people express objection to a change, that can be easily interpreted to be evidence of a lack of consensus in favor of the change. While that's probably usually an accurate assessment, if those opposed don't actually have substantive arguments supporting their objection, but those in favor of the objection do, there can actually be consensus in favor of the change when it appears that there isn't. Status quo stonewalling is about taking advantage of such a situation in order to prevent a change.

Tactics include:

  • Reverting with "discuss first" without discussing
  • Arguing more discussion is needed, without discussing more
  • Arguing against discussion by alleging time wasting
  • Avoiding substantive discussion because of who is involved
  • Defending a revert because it's related to an ongoing dispute
  • Arguing the status quo "does no harm"
  • Accusing change proponents of disruptive, tendentious, or TLDR editing
  • Filibustering
  • Starting a new diverting discussion when existing discussion is favoring change
  • Finding excuses to ignore discussion results
  • Suggest a third option without actually proposing one
  • Edit war lockdown
  • Manipulating an admin into helping
  • Arguing a policy or guideline needs to change first when opposing a proposal that is based on ignoring that policy/guideline per IAR
  • Opposing a proposal based only on asserting that it's not supported by consensus
  • Claiming consensus supports the status quo when it doesn't
  • Unreasonable sourcing demands

Every single one of these tactics is being used by these two users, to the point whether I am beginning to wonder whether they are using WP:STONEWALL as a guiding document for their strategy. If this and connected articles are not freed from this prolonged kidnap I will start compiling evidence of past and present edits here as evidence of this systematic disruptive behavior. There are dozens if not hundreds of examples. It has being going on for too long for action not to be taken by admins.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W, I´m perfectly willing to have my own behavior scrutinized. I may make mistakes, even transgress policy, but I do not have a systematic strategy for doing so based on the above tactics. The issue is not going against policy (everyone does that once in a while), it is doing so consistently and as part of a strategy to preserve a favored status quo at all costs and in bad faith. This pattern, which both of you are following, is a constant and is clear to anyone who has been closely following this and related articles.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Then bring it to WP:ANI. You're the one who has been repeatedly trying to push POV changes, and repeatedly edit-warred over it against multiple other editors, not me, so I have nothing to fear there... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W I will indeed take it to WP:ANI. I think the evidence will span a good couple of years of edits.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Fine. You need to keep your post there short and concise, though, or no-one will bother reading it. And while you're at it, try to learn how to indent your posts on talk pages... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Btw, Thomas.W, note I am not including Kahastok in this accusation. Kahastok and I disagree with each other almost 100% of the time (he tends to take your side most of the time), but the basis of his involvement in edit disputes are substantive arguments, which I normally challenge and strongly dispute, but they are valid arguments nonetheless and worthy of a response and continued discussion. He has also been willing to reach consensus a few times even though he has strong views on these topics, which is understandable. It is not the POV which bothers me (we all have POVs), it is the Stonewalling strategy and bad faith tactics which are limited to both of you.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This article talk page is not the appropriate place to criticise two Wikipedians. This article talk page should be used for improving the article and not for discussing the perceived behaviour of fellow Wikipedians. IJA (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

IJA Yes I won't discuss further here. But it was sufficient to point here to stonewalling tactics which are very relevant to the present state of the article. Maybe by listing these tactics they will be used less often.Asilah1981 (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: What, no ANI-report? Getting cold feet? WP:Stonewalling is an essay, BTW, the personal opinion of one or more editors, and carries no weight whatsoever, as you would have been told within minutes by one or more editors if you had filed a report at ANI. While POV-pushing and edit-warring violate Wikipedia policies and are blockable offences. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 04:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W Patience. Some of us work for a living. I can't stop my life suddenly to compile a list of 400 edits. Lets stop this discussion here. I will file a report in due course (unless you two modify behavior). The important thing is that the above tactics stop NOW. That is why they are listed above, as a reminder to all. This way maybe productive editing on this page can commence. No more "there is a status-quo consensus", "there is a consensus not to change anything", "discuss first and reach consensus which I will never work for", "you are NPOV so not qualified to edit this article", sparking edit wars to get page protected, avoiding discussion of sources and quality of arguments etc.... Asilah1981 (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: You don't get it, do you? I'm here only to stop blatant POV-pushing and endless edit-warring, your POV-pushing and your edit-warring. Compare your talk page and mine, your talk page is full of block notices, edit-warring warnings and stern warnings from administrators, while mine has nothing of that. So who is the bad guy here? And your threats to drag me to ANI aren't going to change my ways, because unlike you I have nothing to fear there, the only thing that will change my ways is that you change your ways. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 05:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"Gibraltar has been on the list, unwillingly, since December 1946"

Latest comment: 8 years ago85 comments9 people in discussion

Using adverbs like "unwillingly" without a source creates a problem with both WP:V and WP:NPOV. We can't say that it's the position of Gibraltar officially that it doesn't want to be on this list unless there's a source for it, and we can't say it's the position of everyone in Gibralter without taking a side (and, very likely, being wrong). The characterization is therefore not appropriate. agtx 23:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The Government of Gibraltar has asked repeatedly to be removed from the list, it does have a democratic mandate to do so. I agree that its wrong to characterize the "position of everyone" but you can characterize that the Government has repeatedly requested it. WCMemail 08:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
We need to be specific that it is the government of Gibraltar that objects to the listing. We cannot say "unwillingly," because it is a matter of dispute at the UN whether the residents of Gibraltar are the rightful inhabitants, which of is the main reason Gibraltar remains on the list. TFD (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that what I was saying? WCMemail 16:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly. Because it is disputed whether there is a democratic mandate. TFD (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
It would be difficult to argue that a Government elected by a democratic process, in elections where independent international observers have praised the scrupulous attention to conducting a ballot fairly and in accordance with democratic principles doesn't have a democratic mandate. WCMemail 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If the Gibraltarian government (or indeed the UK government) objects to Gibraltar's inclusion on the list, that should definitely be noted in the article. However, there needs to be a source added to confirm that the government explicitly objects, rather than just an assumption being made based on its actions (which appears to be the case at United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories#Completely autonomous dependencies). Using "Gibraltar" as shorthand for "Government of Gibraltar" doesn't present any problems for mine, as it's pretty common to do that where the context is clear – I don't think our other articles on disputed territories get too pedantic about that sort of thing. IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

W I think the point that TFD was making is that the UN doesn't consider the opinion of the current inhabitants of Gibraltar relevant since it is a colonized territory and they are considered "colonists". A bit like if a bunch of Germans conquered Brighton, evicting its inhabitants and the sentence said that "Brighton is "unwillingly" on the list of blablabla. I don't have an opinion on this matter, btw. Just wanted to clarify for you. Asilah1981 (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but thats bullshit, the UN GA has never made that distinction. It does however made something very clear for me. WCMemail 20:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Noone outside Spain will support the Spanish claims to Gibraltar until Spain has handed over Ceuta, Melilla and the other posessions in North Africa to Morocco, because for anyone in Spain to accuse Britain of "colonialism" is not only ridiculous but sheer hypocrisy, as long as Spain hangs on to colonies of her own across the strait of Gibraltar... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not the UN position. That's the position of some in Spain, granted - even the Spanish government - but

not the position of the UN.

Indeed, listing by the C24 would normally imply that the UN endorses the population's right to self-determination - specifically, their right to choose one of the three pre-defined statuses chosen by the UN.
On the issue at hand, I think the proposed text itself is poorly worded, but if properly sourced I see no reason not to mention that Gibraltar (through its government) rejects inclusion on the list. Kahastok talk 21:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The UN never clarified who were the indigenous inhabitants of Gibraltar. The fact that the British administration of Gibraltar is legal is irrelevant, so was British administration of all the territories that have achieved independence. Note that most Spanish-speaking countries in the Americas support the Spanish position. I am not arguing in favor of the Spanish position, merely saying that we cannot present the Gibraltar government position without qualification that it is disputed. The reality is that the UN says that Gibraltar cannot continue to be administered by the UK, and both Spain and the UK agree. Furthermore, an independent Gibraltar would not gain recognition by the UN without the consent of Spain, which has sufficient influence to block it.
The listing of Gibraltar as a non-self-governing territory is not acceptance by the UN that the British citizens resident there are an indigenous population with the right to self-determination. Nor does it imply rejection.
TFD (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
What has "indigenous population" got to do with anything? There are lots of countries around the world where the vast majority of the population aren't indigenous to the area, such as every country in North and South America, including all the Spanish-speaking countries there. So I can't see why who the indigenous people of Gibraltar were would have any bearing on the status of Gibraltar. The only thing that matters is that the people of Gibraltar do not want to be part of Spain... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The U.S. is recognized by the international community as a sovereign state with the right to determine its own citizenry. Gibraltar is not. So while one can talk about the U.S. government obtaining a "democratic mandate," it is controversial to speak about it in the case of Gibraltar. It could be seen as having as little legitimacy if 50,000 German tourists descended on the rock and voted to annex it to Germany.
Of course an argument could be made that the British citizens resident in Gibraltar are the legitimate population with a right to self-determination, which was the case for every British territory that has obtained independence, including the settler colonies of the U.S. But we cannot state that as fact since it is not the consensus of legal scholars.
TFD (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W Comparing Ceuta and Melilla with Gibraltar is surprisingly ignorant, I was not expecting such a statement from you. You do realize Ceuta has been part of Spain (until recently part of Cadiz province), pretty much since Spain exists? That it has been in Christian (Spanish or Portuguese) hands for a period longer than many cities in Spain such as Malaga, Granada, Almeria, Santa Cruz, Las Palmas.... It has even been part of Spain for longer than Tudela or Pamplona, in northern-central Spain! Please, do get your facts straight before getting emotional. There is a reason for which Ceuta and Melilla are not considered colonies by the United Nations. In any case, this is off-topic. Asilah1981 (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The only reason Gibraltar is still considered a colony by the UN is that Spain opposes removing it from the list, and Ceuta and Melilla are remnants of a colonial empire, and claimed by Morocco, just like Gibraltar is claimed by Spain. So wanting Gibraltar but refusing to give up Ceuta and Melilla is hypocrisy. Ceuta has belonged to Spain only since 1668, BTW (before then it was Portuguese), while Gibraltar has belonged to Britain since 1704 (de facto)/1713 (de jure), so the difference is minimal. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thomas.W You do not originate in this part of the world so it is natural that your grasp of its history is limited. The difference is not minimal, and the date you give is wrong. Spain and Portugal united under the Iberian Union in 1580, which is the date you should quote, not 1668. But regardless, Ceuta was part of the Diocesis of Hispania in the 3rd Century, the Byzantine province of Betica (South Spain) in the 6th century, the Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania in the 7th and 8th century, the Caliphate of Cordoba in the 10th century, the Taifa of Malaga in the 11th century, the same Almohads and Almoravids who ruled the southern half of Spain in the 11th and 12th century, the Taifa of Murcia (SE Spain) in the 13th Century, to Kingdom of Granada in the 14th Century, Portugal during the 15th century and then modern Spain in the 16th century. Really? No different to Gibraltar? Its history is similar to any other town in southern Spain. And, no. Its not hypocritical. Spain is a country which historically spans two continents, much as Turkey or Egypt does, that's all. Comparing that to British colonial posessions in Spain or Cyprus or elsewhere is laughable. That explains why Ceuta NEVER WAS ON that UN list to begin with! Asilah1981 (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a load of rubbish, Spain is not a country that "historically spanned two continents" since the Visigoths, the Caliphate of Cordoba and all the rest has nothing whatsoever to do with the country named Spain (which has existed de facto since 1516, de jure since 1715). By your utterly faulty logic Italy would have a right to claim the entire history of the Roman empire, and all areas that once belonged to Rome, including the Iberian peninsula, as theirs. But thanks for proving to all readers here that everything you do on Wikipedia is based on ultranationalistic Spanish views. In case someone hadn't already noticed... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Let me explain (again) Thomas.W, Spain as a modern nation in its present geographic boundaries is a result of 1) the conquest of the Canary Islands by Castile - in Africa (1402), 2) the Union of Castile and Aragon - (1469), 3) the conquest of the Nasrid Kingdom of Granada (1492), 3) the Conquest of Melilla - in Africa (1497), 3) the conquest of Navarre (1512) 4) the permanent annexation of Portuguese Ceuta (in Africa) as part of the Iberian Union (1580). So yes, Spain is a country which historically spans two continents. In fact, the Kingdom of Castile already spanned two continents before it united with Aragon to become modern Spain. If, say, Melilla has been part of Spain for longer than Pamplona, it's kinda hard to argue its a colony, don't you think? Asilah1981 (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
You claimed a Spanish right to Ceuta based on Ceuta having been, and I quote "... part of the Diocesis of Hispania in the 3rd Century, the Byzantine province of Betica (South Spain) in the 6th century, the Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania in the 7th and 8th century, the Caliphate of Cordoba in the 10th century, the Taifa of Malaga in the 11th century, the same Almohads and Almoravids who ruled the southern half of Spain in the 11th and 12th century, the Taifa of Murcia (SE Spain) in the 13th Century, to Kingdom of Granada in the 14th Century ...", which is utter ultranationalistic rubbish, just as I wrote above. Ceuta and Melilla are Spanish overseas enclaves claimed by another country (Morocco), and no different from Gibraltar. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W I think you do not understand. What I meant with that was that UK has no historical, cultural or geographic connection to Gibraltar. Portugal's claim on Olivenza in Spain, for example is pretty solid, I would not dispute it although it is not that big a deal for either country. Argentina's claim to the Falklands is not, since it is (IMO) solely based on geography. Gibraltar is legally (i.e. according to UK and international law) a colony - a British Overseas Territory and a remnant of the British empire, this is not subject to dispute. Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands are no more a colony in Morocco than Istanbul is a Turkish colony in Bulgaria or Greece (in fact much less so) - they are integral, formative elements of the Spanish state. Many countries have irredentist claims on each other, however, Gibraltar is not one of these. It is an actual colony - a distant non-integrated territory taken by force from another modern state and kept as a colony rather than integrated into the UK. In fact, the UK is still legally bound to Spain by Utrecht on a number of issues, regarding how it deals with Gibraltar. Note that Spain lost Perpignan to France in 1659. Why doesn't it claim it??? Why isn't it considered a French colony in Spain? This is the question you should ask yourself. What makes Gibraltar different...

I was just trying to enlighten you about the history of the Western Mediterranean and Ceuta (a city I know very well). That does not make me an ultra-nationalist of any kind. Nor do I wish Gibraltar to return to Spain, it being British makes that small part of the world a little more interesting. I just deemed it important to explain how you were making a false equivalence with these two territories. Asilah1981 (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM folks. This is well beyond the discussion of whether we should mention the Gibraltar Government's view of the C24 listing. Kahastok talk 20:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that. Both positions - that the territory is part of Spain/part of Morocco - have defenders. But pointing out the similarities and differences to Gibraltar do not assist in the issue, where we can present the Gibraltar government position as the correct one. TFD (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be this difficult. Why can't we just report the undisputed facts? It has been stated that the government of Gibraltar has repeatedly requested that Gibraltar be removed from the list. Does anyone dispute that? If not, that's what the article should say. And I personally don't even care if there's a source for it if no one doubts it. We don't have to say this means Gibraltar's will is to be off the list - the reader can figure that out. We don't even have to say this means Gibraltar requested to be removed, since there seems to be some dispute as to whether the government of Gibraltar speaks for "Gibraltar", whatever that is. "Government of Gibraltar" does, apparently, unambiguously refer to an entity, so it doesn't matter whether everyone thinks it is entitled to govern Gibraltar; we're just stating a dry fact. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
We would need a source. TFD (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no issues. All I would suggest is having it sourced and in a separate sentence. The prior version had a emotional ring to it.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I found a source and have made a proposed edit. I also added some words about the purpose of the UN list for context. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The edit is incorrect, Gibraltar was included on the list as the UK nominated it as a dependent territory in 19471946. The UN did not of itself decide which territories require decolonisation. May I suggest you revert and work on the proposed edit in talk first? WCMemail 00:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
[3] Source. WCMemail 00:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest:

Happy to consider improvements, @Kahastok: for his expertise on the decolonisation committee. WCMemail 00:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I like it, except that it has the problem the original text had that it makes it sound like something changed in 1946 to make Gibraltar appropriate for the list, whereas what changed in 1946 was just that the list came into existence. Readers probably won't know that, so it's misleading. So how about, "... by the United Kingdom when the list was created in 1946." Note that the UN resolution establishing the list called for countries to make these nominations -- it was not UK's idea. And another technical problem: The committee this says has included Gibraltar since 1946 didn't exist in 1946, so I would say, "and its predecessor". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with what you propose for the first part, however, there was no predecessor. So how about:
I need to check the date of 1961 but I think its correct. WCMemail 11:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
1961 is correct. Our article suggests that there was previously a Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories before 1961, and that the two were merged in 1963.
I'm not sure it's really necessary to have a reference to the committee (we could just say "and it has been included ever since"). Whereas originally it was the (so-called) administering powers that chose whether territories were listed, nowadays it's done entirely by the General Assembly. Any change to the list requires a positive vote for change. The General Assembly has not actively kept Gibraltar on the list. They just haven't actively removed it so it's still there.
(Understanding this - the peculiar mix of good intentions, inertia and modern political posturing - goes a long way to understanding some of the list's inherent contradictions today.) Kahastok talk 13:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree it's unnecessary to identify the committee. I like "and it has been included ever since".
Details of what would have had to happen for Gibraltar to be removed over the course of those 70 years might be helpful in understanding the meaning of being listed, but that's going to take more than a few words (because deliberately declining to do something is a lot like actively doing the opposite), and a reader who cares can read other Wikipedia articles to get those nuances. So I would save that for a future edit. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It is important to note that under the treaty, "And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant, sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others." That's why Gibraltar cannot be granted independence. TFD (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually that's just one of many opinions on the matter and the position currently adopted by the UK Government. The Government of Gibraltar rejects that argument, you'll also find legal opinions that the modern doctrine of self-determination would over-ride that based on Article 103 of the UN Charter. See Chapter XVI of the United Nations Charter. WCMemail 08:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I've incorporated all of the agreed-to text above into the article. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to pop in a bit late, but the new text raises some quick questions for the reader. Since when has Gibraltar objected, and did it do so in 1946? It is also worth clarifying the UK's current position on Gibraltar being on the list, even if that is not having a position. CMD (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It would help if you could clarify your question and "Since when has Gibraltar objected"? Are you suggesting we add a date? The UK's position is that Gibraltar should be removed from the list. WCMemail 09:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. When I read the added text "Gibraltar was nominated to be included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United Kingdom when the list was created in 1946 and has been listed ever since. The government of Gibraltar has actively worked to have Gibraltar removed from the list", it reads to me that Gibraltar is arguing against the UK for its inclusion in the list. Now this isn't true, but it not being true raises the question of whether Gibraltar was objecting back in 1946 and if not when it started, and what the current UK position is if it is no longer for list inclusion, and perhaps when that changed. I don't think there should be a long explanation covering all this in detail, but the current wording while an improvement is a bit misleading. CMD (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah OK, AFAIK the Government of Gibraltar has been pressing to be removed since the 1969 constitution. Not sure when the UK stated that it should be removed but it stopped formal co-operation with the C24 in the 1970s [4]. It could if it wanted to rejoin but at the moment instead lobbies at the IV committee to which the C24 reports. WCMemail 11:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
If this is not an egregious oversimplification, could the text be changed to some variation along the lines of "Gibraltar was nominated for inclusion on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United Kingdom when the list was created in 1946. Believing it is self-governing, the government of Gibraltar has worked to have Gibraltar removed from the list since 1969, with the UK supporting its self-determination"? CMD (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the UK supports its self-determination, particularly since the independence route is closed.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
"The United Kingdom has declared that the people of Gibraltar enjoy the right to self-determination and that we will never pass on to the sovereignty of another state against our wishes" CMD (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The independence route is not closed, I'm wondering if Asilah1981 might care to disclose an alternate account they have previously used. @Kahastok: WCMemail 15:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

W Treaty of Utrecht. 16:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

Whose interpretation and applicability is disputed. Nothing in there says that Gibraltar may never be independent, and even if it did, the Gibraltar government argues that any restriction on its right to self-determination has since been superseded by changes in customary international law. It is certainly not clear as you claim that the route to independence is closed. And even if it were, you'd need a source clearly saying that the UK did not support Gibraltar's self-determination, to a degree suitable to override the UK government's clear assertion that it does.
I do not agree with CMD's text because it falls into the trap of assuming that the term "non-self-governing territory" in some way refers to the level of self-governance of the territory in question. This is one of the classic errors when dealing with the C24 list. A "non-self-governing territory" is formally a territory that is not either:
  • An independent sovereign state
  • An integral part of a sovereign state
  • In free association with a sovereign state
Even formally, the actual degree of self-government is irrelevant except insofar as it coincides with one of those three statuses. But in practice, the criteria are judged by the United Nations General Assembly, an institution that has never showed any inclination to apply them with any particular consistency. Kahastok talk 19:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I meant it as a way to try and simply carry across the arguments Gibraltar uses calling for removal. What would be a preferable wording? CMD (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Gibraltar's opposition goes to one of the inherent contradictions of the list - that the population's choice of status is paramount over everything else, but the UN will not accept the choice unless it accords with the UN's three predetermined statuses. Their argument is that Gibraltar today does not have a colonial status such as the list was intended to deal with, and that the UN should accept the will of the Gibraltar public favouring the status quo. A brief summary might be, "Arguing that its status is non-colonial in nature...", or "Arguing that the inclusion is unnecessary...", or "Arguing that it has the status its population wants..." Kahastok talk 20:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Kahastock, the reason the UN will not remove Gibraltar from the list is that they do not agree that there is a legitimate permanent population, hence it cannot be "self-governing." And if the Queen surrenders possession, it reverts to Spain, so cannot become independent (although it has been suggested that becoming a Commonwealth Realm might be a workaround.) TFD (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
That is incorrect, the UN has never made such a decision. Kahastok correctly reports the definition of a NSGT and how it may be delisted. A literal reading of the Treaty of Utrecht implies that if the Queen decides to "sell" Gibraltar then Spain has the right to first refusal. However, as more than one scholar has pointed out this would be invalidated by Article 103 of the UN Charter. So far no one has taken up the GoG's suggestion this is referred to the ICJ. Having pointed that out, I'm wondering why we seem to be disappearing down rabbit holes irrelevant to the discussion at hand? WCMemail 07:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Returning Gibraltar to Spain does not violate any obligations the UK has under the UN Charter. It would only be in violation if the UN recognized an indigenous population separate from Spanish people, which it does not. We need to show neutrality, as defined in this policy, rather than present one side of the dispute as fact. TFD (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The UN has not taken any position on the position of the people of Gibraltar, only the UN GA can do that and it never has. You speak of neutrality but have twice made a statement that cannot be sustained as it simply isn't true. And yes Article 103 does come into play, Article 103 states that members' obligations under the UN Charter override their obligations under any other treaty. Its also irrelevant to the discussion at hand. WCMemail 08:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I am confused. You just agreed with me that the UN has not recognized an indigenous population then said I am not neutral for saying that. TFD (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You're extremely confused, I didn't agree with you I said you were plainly wrong. WCMemail 17:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I said the UN has not recognized an indigenous population. You replied, "The UN has not taken any position on the position of the people of Gibraltar, only the UN GA can do that and it never has." Sorry but my reading of your reply was that the UN had not recognized a people of Gibraltar. If they have, I would be interested in seeing a source. TFD (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Your original claim was "the reason the UN will not remove Gibraltar from the list is that they do not agree that there is a legitimate permanent population". That's the claim made and it isn't accurate. The UN has never suggested that they "do not agree that there is a legitimate permanent population" of Gibraltar, let alone that this is a reason for not delisting Gibraltar from the C24 list.

You appear to be implying that if the UN has not explicitly accepted the legitimacy of the population of Gibraltar, then it considers them illegitimate or questions their legitimacy or denies them rights. That is not the case. It means only that they've never discussed the issue. The UN has also never ruled on the legitimacy of the populations of France, the United States, Turkey, Brazil or Kenya. That doesn't mean it considers them illegitimate or that it questions their legitimacy. It means only they've never discussed the issue.

The UN has never made any decision based on any perception of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the population of Gibraltar.

And this feeds into another point I made earlier. You appear to believe that the UN list has something to do with degree of self-governance. It does not, as I pointed out before, except insofar as degree of self-governance accords with the three statuses listed and the political mood music of the era in which the decision is taken. You appear to believe that there has been some serious discussion in the UN about delisting, or that states have to be actively renewed or something. This is not the case. Territories remain on the list until they are actively delisted. The UN does not need a reason not to delist. If there is no discussion, there is no delisting (and for that matter no new listing). The UNGA - the only body with the power to decide what territories go on the list - has never considered whether Gibraltar should be on the list or not. Kahastok talk 20:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The UN has provided a reason for every state delisted.[5] The UNGA votes every year to keep Gibraltar on the list.[6] As I said above, the UN has made no decision regarding the people of Gibraltar, but that is the issue in dispute, the reason the UN has not accepted the Gibraltar government's argument for removal. If no decision has been made on the people, then the issue of self-governance cannot be resolved. TFD (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
At the end of the day I really don't care what personal opinion you've decided through tortuous logic, you're wrong and don't have a source to back you up. The neutrality issue you raised based on your original premise has been debunked. I don't see the point in continuing to discuss WP:OR with you. WCMemail 22:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
If I am unable to persuade you what the problem is, perhaps the expert words of Peter Caruana addressing the UN Committee for Decolonisation will: "Spain contends that the people of Gibraltar (which she refers to as "inhabitants") are not indigenous, being the descendants of people who arrived in the territory after the act of colonisation and therefore are not a colonised people."[7] While the Spanish position may be wrong (Caruana says it is), it is simply untrue to say that Spain has not provided any reasons not to de-list Gibraltar or that the UN never considers the case. TFD (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The only body that can speak with the voice of the UN is the UN General Assembly. The C24 is a sub-committee of the IV committee and is supposed to represent the people of NSGT. It makes recommendations to the IV committee but none have been adopted by the IV committee to become resolutions to be put forward to the General Assembly for years. So whilst it might by discussed in various sub-sub-committees, all that hot air has resulted in precisely nothing. And your comment is really a strawman I never made any comment about Spanish presentations or said that Spanish opposition couldn't be mentioned. What I would resist, however, is this becoming an opus on Spanish claims as there is more to the place than Spain's irredentist, hypocritical and often frankly untrue claims. WCMemail 23:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, no the General Assembly is not the voice of the UN, its resolutions don't even have any value. But, WOW! "Spain's irrendentist, hypocritial and often frankly untrue claims" (sic)... And you say I can't edit these articles because I have "POV" views. TFD Good luck with presenting sources to WCM...He will pretend not to be able to read, open or understand them. This article is his and he won't let go. The funniest thing is that he is a bit like Don Quixote fighting the windmills: There are no Spaniards editing this article, so he just lashes out at random good-faith wikipedians thinking as if they were giants.05:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

I suggest you educate yourself. Spain has accused Gibraltar of crimes such as smuggling and money laundering. Independent financial auditors have vetted the Gibraltar financial system publishing the results which cleared Gibraltar of any wrong doing and further praised the openness of the system. That's just one example of an untrue claim. Maintaining Ceuta and Melila on the basis of the self-determination, whilst asserting it doesn't apply to Gibraltar is hypocritical (no doubt this will elicit a long diatribe about how "that's different".). And claiming a territory after 350 yrs is the very definition of irredentism. And if you can't WP:AGF or be WP:CIVIL find yourself something better to do.
The only bodies that can define UN policy is the UN GA, the only other body that can produce binding resolutions is the UN SC. My statement is correct, the various sub-committees can do no more than suggest resolutions to be voted on in the UN GA. Until that happens it is not the voice of the UN. WCMemail 09:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
W Omg, it really becomes patent you have never been to Gibraltar and know nothing about that territory. It took months for you to understand what Llanito actually is, no wonder. You really think there is no smuggling or money laundering going on in Gibraltar? Or are you just trying to pull our legs? Talk about living in cuckoo land. Both Andorra and Gibraltar are main bases of both activities. Its not even subject to dispute. Do you know how many Gibraltar-based criminal organizations have been brought down by the Spanish Guardia Civil? How much money has been lost to the tax payer? The latest one was only this month. http://www.lacallereal.com/la-operacion-malaespina-involucra-a-gibraltar-tras-desarticula-una-red-que-habria-ocultado-al-fisco-10-millones/ I even personally know people who have laundered money there. And half of La Linea has historically lived as mules for Gibraltarian smugglers. That's why they are so keen for Gibraltar to stay British (and I personally sympathize with them considering it is one of the poorest cities in Spain.) And you still don't understand that Ceuta and Melilla are not part of Spain on the basis of "self-determination", they are part of Spain on the same basis that Brighton is part of the UK or Edirne is part of Turkey. Can't you edit on something about you are at least knowledgable, rather than about places you have never visited or do not understand?Asilah1981 (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
WCC, I did not say anything about what the C24 decided, I merely quoted what Caruana said to them. He might have made his comments to the BBC, that would not imply that the BBC could decide UN policy. Since you appear to be unaware, Caruana is a former chief minister of Gibraltar, a QC. perhaps the leading expert on the territory and opposes the Spanish position. Perhaps his non-English surname is what caused your confusion. He is not a member of C24. TFD (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I know exactly who Caruana is, do you actually have an edit to discuss? I'm getting frustrated and frankly irritated by going round the houses. WCMemail 09:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Not a lot of continuing the debate if the goalposts are going to keep moving. It started with 'the reason the UN will not remove Gibraltar from the list is that they do not agree that there is a legitimate permanent population, hence it cannot be "self-governing."', and now it's describing the Spanish position.
Regardless, you're quite right, WP:NOTFORUM applies. If there is an actual edit to be discussed here then let's hear it. If not, this discussion should be over. Kahastok talk 18:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
In that vein, if my original suggestion lacked sufficient nuance, another option would be to reduce the current first sentence to "Gibraltar was included on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories when the list was created in 1946", which removes some of the possible misinterpretations I read from the current text. CMD (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately that would remove a critical nuance, its frequently claimed the "UN" put Gibraltar on the list, whereas it was the UK. Countries like the USSR did not nominate territories like Ukraine or the Baltic states that were in effect Russian colonies. This explains why some NSGT were listed whilst others were not; it was down to the state and as usual the UK played the game with a straight bat, whilst others didn't. WCMemail 11:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I understand the interest of that nuance, but I don't really see that as conveyed in the current text anyway for a reader with no background on the matter. CMD (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't make my point well, many assume it was the "UN" the article informs them it was the UK; in that respect it clears up a common misconception. WCMemail 11:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
No, I understood the point, you made it well. I'm saying that I think that the argument you put forward comes from the perspective of someone looking at the text with all that background knowledge in mind. The many who may assume the UN determined the list are (I suspect) far outweighed by the many whom lack knowledge of the situation entirely. For that majority, I find the current text more misleading than clarifying. CMD (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I think I'm going to have to disagree with you there, I'm failing to see how its misleading? I mean what misinterpretation is concerning you? WCMemail 14:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, the UN did put Gibraltar on the list. It's the UN's list. The UN created it and defined the nomination process for putting territories on it and accepted the nomination from the UK and responded by updating the list. But it's also true that just saying that would probably make a reader think a UN committee met and picked out territories and decided which ones to list. I believe that misrepresents the actual process that took place. So I like having the UK nomination information. But I can also see that when we follow that up by saying someone has opposed listing, it makes it sound like the UK has continuously defended the pro-listing side. That can be fixed just by adding a clue that it hasn't. As I recall, one of our sources is a report of House of Commons that concludes in strong terms that Gibraltar should not be listed. Could we just report that? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

As requested, source on UK Government's position:

  • Author(s): Mike Gapes (Labour, Ilford South), Chairman Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell, (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife ), Mr Fabian Hamilton (Labour, Leeds North East), Rt Hon Mr David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative, Wells), Mr John Horam (Conservative, Orpington), Mr Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central), Mr Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford), Andrew Mackinlay (Labour, Thurrock), Mr Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire), Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock), Mr Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn), Mr Ken Purchase (Labour, Wolverhampton North East), Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling),

Ms Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham Edgbaston),

  • Title: House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Overseas Territories, Seventh Report of Session 2007–08
  • Publication Number: [8]
  • Publisher: London: The Stationery Office Limited
  • Year: 2010


WCMemail 22:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The misinterpretation that concerns me derives from the text putting a lot of emphasis on the UK push for inclusion, and then noting Gibraltar is trying to have it removed. It puts the onus for list inclusion on the UK with no indication at all that this is merely historical and that the current position is the opposite, and it similarly places no timeframe for Gibraltar's opposition, which could suggest Britain put Gibraltar on the list over Gibraltar's opposition at the time, a position that has continued until now. CMD (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Well given that there are many misconceptions, it is probably beholden on us to try and clear them up. As I see it from reading the literature the key pertinent facts are:
  • UK listed Gibraltar as a colony in 1947 leading to its inclusion on the current list
  • UK policy has been to devolve Government onto dependent territories with a view to moving toward independence
  • UK views that the Treaty of Utrecht complicates Gibraltar independence
  • GoG disputes this but has so far not challenged the status quo
  • C24 was established in the 1960s to represent the people of dependent territories
  • C24 has never visited Gibraltar
  • Spain opposes delisting and continues to pursue a territorial claim started by General Franco
  • Both UK and GoG has proposed the ICJ to resolve territorial claim - Spain has refused
  • UK no longer co-operates with the C24 and considers Gibraltar should be delisted
  • GoG attends C24 and considers Gibraltar should be delisted
Think thats about it. WCMemail 09:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not it is beholden upon us to clear up any misconceptions, the current text does not do it. I was looking to see if this would fit better elsewhere, but none of our articles seem to have a section on this subject. CMD (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I was suggesting we work on improving it, I wanted to set some clear goals first. WCMemail 10:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

As it happens I tried to rewrite the section some time ago, unfortunately at the time it was frustrated. My suggestion at the time was:

It isn't perfect but could I suggest it as a starter for 10? WCMemail 16:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Gibraltar Profile" (PDF). UN. Retrieved 6 November 2016.
  2. ^ History of U.N. Decolonisation Committee – Official U.N. Website. Un.org (14 December 1960). Retrieved on 11 August 2013. Archived 26 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ^ "Gibraltar Territorial status" (PDF). United Nations Committee on Decolonization. Retrieved 28 June 2014.
  4. ^ Gibraltar: Time to get off the fence; Second Report of Session 2014-15; HC 461. Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee. Paragraph 83, p. 46
  5. ^ "Gibraltar Profile" (PDF). UN. Retrieved 6 November 2016.
  6. ^ History of U.N. Decolonisation Committee – Official U.N. Website. Un.org (14 December 1960). Retrieved on 11 August 2013. Archived 26 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  7. ^ "Gibraltar Territorial status" (PDF). United Nations Committee on Decolonization. Retrieved 28 June 2014.
  8. ^ Gibraltar: Time to get off the fence; Second Report of Session 2014-15; HC 461. Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee. Paragraph 83, p. 46
It may be worth putting the dispute in a subsection (like on Falkland Islands), as it doesn't seem to unduly impact the day-to-day issues of governance that the main body focuses on, yet hold significant individual notability.
Regarding specific wording though, I think the Spain claim could do with a bit more fleshing out. A bit more specificity about its claim to the isthmus etc., and a bit more clarity on its request for return.
The UK bit should have the citation of the principle of self-determination after the note about the inclusion of Gibraltar in the negotiations, and I would try to find different wording to "consent of the people of Gibraltar", which seems a bit pointed in such a high level summary.
The C24 information seems a bit long as it has little significance outside of the bilateral dispute, but I can't see a way to reduce it without removing the nuances you wish to convey (removing would also remove the nuances at that). CMD (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
In principle, I'd have no issue with a new section similar to that at Falkland Islands, but I suspect that the atmosphere may be not be good enough here at the moment for consensus to be possible on the detail. Kahastok talk 21:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I similarly support having a separate section giving as much detail as there is to give on the issue of Gibraltar's listing on the C24 list, and believe it will be very difficult to determine what the substance of those details should be. So for now, I would like to add just a few words to the one sentence, now two, we've been discussing in order to cure the one defect that CMD perceives: that we make it sound like the UK is still in favor of listing. I came up with this, based on the source WCM so helpfully provided:
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Bryan, I'm cool with your suggestion and agree with the comment that a new sub-section would be better. WCMemail 11:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that Bryan Henderson's suggestion is an improvement on the current text. If anyone has preferences for which sources are used, they should feel free to mention it. Otherwise, would that be a good change? Just the textual change; I don't think that's nearly enough for a new section and a new section should probably be based off a new discussion anyway. CMD (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I think we have enough consensus to add that one clause now, so I have done so. I changed the year to 2008 because that's what I saw in the document as its publication date. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Latest comment: 7 years ago61 comments9 people in discussion

There is a long standing consensus arrived at in the archives that the C24 list belongs in the politics section and not the lead. I trust that this will be respected and the editor responsible will not resort to personal attacks. WCMemail 16:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Without reading through the archives, I am not clear what you mean. However, the guideline for leads in the Manual of Style says any prominent controversies should be mentioned in the lead. The political status of Gibraltar is controversial in a way that most British Overseas Territories are not. TFD (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Its the way that its mentioned that has always been problematic, usually to state that Gibraltar remains a colony and the lead isn't really the place to explain the different nuances. WCMemail 16:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TFD, no such consensus exist. The territory's actual status is what is relevant and important and goes in the lead. Nuances and different opinions go in the main body of the article.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It exists and now I've opened the talk page discussion there is no need to edit war over it. WCMemail 16:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please show evidence of this consensus before deleting sourced information from lead. Gibraltar's status according to the UN and International Law is its most salient feature as a territory. Removing it from lead is POV censorship and (again) activism. Asilah1981 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Any change to the article needs consensus, except in limited circumstances which don't apply here. Even if it hadn't been discussed before, you would still need consensus to add your text. If you're claiming you already have consensus, please show it.
If the MOS says any prominent controversies should be in the lead, we already meet this rule. The entire third paragraph describes the dispute. There is far more to Gibraltar than the dispute, and we don't need to go on about the dispute in every paragraph. This is WP:Lead fixation in my view. Kahastok talk 17:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Guys: I understand the territory's actual status should be in the lead so long as the sentence ends in something on the lines of "although the Gibraltarian government has actively campaigned for its removal from this list". Otherwise the Gib perspective is lost from the lead which would be unfair since it is very relevant. I think that way it will be a short neutral summary of the situation which is explained in more detail further down in the article. Everyone agrees? Llanimami2 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Kahastok I moved it down to the third paragraph and added our government's position. What do you think?Llanimami2 (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not keen. We do have an entire article on the dispute, and we should be careful about turning this into another one. I note that most territories on the list do not mention that fact in the lede, and that the fact of the listing does not have a direct bearing on the dispute in the way that the referendums have. This paragraph should be a very short summary of the most important points about the dispute. I do not believe in that context that this point is important enough to go in.
To be clear, the actual status of Gibraltar under international law is British Overseas Territory. Nobody disputes this. Spain disputes the location of the border, argues that Gibraltar does not have some of the rights normally associated with sovereignty, and as a matter of policy tries to persuade Britain to hand over the entire territory. But Spain does not dispute the fact of British sovereignty in Gibraltar. Kahastok talk 17:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Thomas.W Mate, I don't want to go to an RfC. Just want you guys to stop edit warring, reason for which I'm testing compromise solutions so we can focus/move on to other stuff. As a local, I can tell you its exasperating to read these talk pages lately. Also you keep reverting me, wtf? Just tell me what you dislike about it and I'll change it accordingly. Kahastok, Asilah1981,W, TFD. Feedback? Llanimami2 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
(It would be helpful in discussing this if editors quote the text they dispute or want inserted and provide links if possible.) One sentence in dispute is: "As of 2016, Gibraltar is one of the nineteen territories worldwide that remain on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories and officially remain subject to a decolonization process,[9] although successive Gibraltarian governments have actively campaigned for its removal from this list."[10] Does anyone object to mentioning this information? Is further explanation necessary, such as why this has not been resolved?
Let's hold off an RfC until we have two clear alternatives or have resolved the issue.
TFD (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Depends where we're putting it really. Something like it is fine in a section in the article body, but I think it is too much detail for the lede. Kahastok talk 18:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Llanimami2: I don't give the proverbial rat's hindquarters about whether you want to "go to an RfC" or not, since it has been contested by multiple other editors you have to start an RfC, and get a clear support for it there, before you or your buddy Asilah1981 add the material again. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Both Llanimami2 and Thomas.W, you're at 3RR, and could be blocked if you revert again. Suggest we discuss this exclusively on talk and do not make any further edits unless consensus arises. I do not think we need an RFC at this time. Kahastok talk 18:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Kahastok I can't believe I got dragged into this and got so much hostility for trying to be helpful, when I was just planning to add some Gibraltarian traditional recipes to the article.Llanimami2 (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Kahastok Its not like my opinion counts for anything and this comes as no surprise. I personally don't think appending Gibraltar's position to the sentence is relevant to its actual status under international law and according to the United Nations, which is a fundamental reality of the territory as internationally recognized, regardless of the positions of different parties (including Spain's). I thought Gibraltar's status should be in the opening two sentences of the lead as a standalone sentence. What can be more important than the actual factual reality of a territory? Also, Kahastok if mentioning two referendums is not too much detail for the lead, then this certainly isn't either. I'm not too convinced by Llanami's proposed version - sticking it right at the end of the lead as if it were an afterthought to Spain's claim. But if the alternative is not even mentioning anything at all related to what Gibraltar actually is according to international law in the lead, then I will go with it.Asilah1981 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Kahastok, WP:LEAD says the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Do you not think this is a prominent controversy? It seems that most discussion of Gibrlatar by Spain, the UK and the UN is about the status, and the Gibraltar government spends time on the issue as well. Or do you have any reason why we should ignore the guideline? TFD (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The dispute between Britain and Spain over the future status of Gibraltar is certainly a prominent controversy and mentioned already prominently in the lede.
The dispute over whether it should be listed by the C24 is a side point, and I find it difficult to see how it is a "prominent controversy" separately from the wider dispute. Certainly, I don't think it is anything like important enough to merit inclusion in the lede as a "prominent controversy", except insofar as it is already included in the current version describing the dispute over the future status of Gibraltar. Kahastok talk 18:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Kahastok Inclusion in C24 defines the position of the international community to the Anglo-Spanish dispute. Were it removed from the list, the Spanish claim would cease to have any international legitimacy and would be akin to Hungary claiming Transylvania or Morocco claiming Ceuta or Tindouf province in Algeria. So it is more than a side point, it is core to the dispute. That's as far as I'm participating here for the moment. I will give my opinion in an RfC when required. Asilah1981 (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Lets take a look at how Wikipedia has approached this on other articles.
Of the 16 territories in the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, not one article sees the C24 list as so vitally important that it has to be mentioned in the lede. Not one. Emphasis added
The Four Deuces mentions that prominent controversies should be mentioned in the lead. I agree but the prominent controversy over Gibraltar is the sovereignty dispute, which is mentioned. It has a whole paragraph devoted to it.
Asilah1981 asserts that inclusion defines the position of the International Community. It does not, the international community is divided and individual countries have their own positions. He also asserts its core to the dispute, it isn't, its just another tool used by Spain to pursue its claim. Logically a sovereignty dispute should be down to the International Court of Justice, the UN GA and UN SC or any UN committee has no powers to mediate a territorial dispute only the ICJ does. When the UN GA notes the dispute, that's all it is doing, recognising that two countries have a dispute - it isn't taking a side.
So having seen this stupid argument flaring up repeatedly I will simply appeal to people to stop being so bloody melodramatic about it and if we are to form a new consensus on this or keep the status quo discuss it without pointing fingers, making accusations and argue on the basis of the merit of the content. As Kahastok noted and has been repeatedly noted in the past, this is a bad case of WP:LEDE fixation.
Oh and all the people who've suddenly taken an interest to edit war about this, we were actually trying to discuss how to improve coverage of the topic above. Perhaps you could have a look at the literature and come back with some constructive suggestions. WCMemail 19:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between the issue of non-self-governance and an unresolved territorial dispute as noted in "Oxford Public International Law."[11] Territorial disputes are between two nations, while this is an issue rightly or wrongly of the international community. Looking at other articles is not helpful, because in every other case except for the Falklands, there is an internationally recognized indigenous population that supports the status quo and hence no third party obstacles to resolution.

WCM could you please tone down the language. You are not likely to win arguments by insulting other editors and it is unpleasant.

TFD (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

We're back on to this again?
You've not so much got the wrong end of the stick on the C24 list, as got the wrong stick. The C24 list has very little to do with degree of self-governance. As I have pointed out several times now, even in theory all they are looking for is whether a territory has one of three pre-defined statuses.
The only concept in existence of an "internationally recognised indigenous population" is through the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is completely different to what you are describing. You are of course entitled to your own private theories about the world and international relations, but Wikipedia is not the place for them. Kahastok talk 21:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
WCM I don't fully get your logic for removing the sentence but it feels like you are putting words in my mouth which I have not said. The position of the international community is that Gibraltar is on the list of non-self governing territories subject to a decolonisation process because (surprise, surprise) it is on the list of non-self governing territories subject to a decolonisation process. Its not a question of which side each country takes on the dispute. Their position simply mirrors and acknowledges reality. A rather important reality at that which, for some reason, is not considered desirable on the lead by someone who accuses other editors of WP:LEDE fixation. If no solid arguments are provided (they have not, as of yet) we should take this to RfC. I would also like to remind WCM not to continue the pattern of misconstruing Wikipedia rules claiming (without providing evidence) that a "consensus" exists for edits he likes and abusing it to vet every single sourced edit made to this and other articles, as per WP:OWN.Asilah1981 (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Kahastok, the word "indigenous" appears to confuse you. It means native. It means people who are native to a territory, not to be confused with native people. See the quote from Peter Caruana I cited above: "Spain contends that the people of Gibraltar (which she refers to as "inhabitants") are not indigenous...." In other words he is saying Spain contends that the people of Gibraltar are not native to Gibraltar. He is not saying that Spain claims they are not indigenous peoples.
You are also wrong about the list of non-self-governing territories. It is a list of non-self-governing territories, hence the name. Gibraltar is not self-governing according to its constitution[12] and for different reasons according to Spain.
The three prescribed methods to get off the list all involve becoming self-governing: becoming independent even as an affiliated state or becoming part of a self-governing state.
TFD (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well if my comments have upset you The Four Deuces then I apologise. In my defence, I was astounded at how this had exploded in the few hours I had been away. But I also have to point out that Kahastok is indeed correct, the C24 list has no relationship to the self-governing nature of the territories on it. It is down to one of three states, the fact that the UK has devolved powers onto the GoG means that Gibraltar is self-governing except for foreign relations and defence. I've seen editors for POV reasons trying to stretch this to include the judiciary and internal security but Gibraltar has its own independent judiciary and internal security is down to the Gibraltar Police Authority; an independent local authority.

If you wish to start down the route of discussing what constitutes an "indigenous" people, that's a red herring. The UN has never, as Spain tries to portray, suggested that only indigenous people have the right to self-determination or its limited to "people" rather than "populations". There is no universally accepted legal definition of what constitutes a people, the nearest thing that exists is the Kirby definition adopted by UNESCO, which would definitely include the people of Gibraltar.

Now this is all very interesting academically but completely irrelevant for Wikipedia. Can I suggest once again we stick to the matters at hand? WCMemail 09:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The matter at hand is that Gibraltar remains on the list of non-self-governing territories because Spain claims "Spain contends that the people of Gibraltar (which she refers to as "inhabitants") are not indigenous," according to the leading expert on the status of Gibraltar. The fact that the UN has not accepted the Spanish argument is not a reason to ignore the issue. It has not accepted the UK's argument either, which is why it is remains unresolved.
Incidentally, the three ways of being removed from the list are all ways to attain self-government. However, other territories have been removed for other reasons. For example, Puerto Rico was removed when it became a "Commonwealth" of the "U.S.," while Hong Kong was removed when the UK agreed to return it to China.
TFD (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
If the government of a territory on the list were to be dissolved and all its powers moved to a distant central government, its voters absorbed into a much larger electoral division that elects a single member out of hundreds in the legislature of that government, would you consider that an increase in self-governance in that territory? Doesn't sound like it to me, but it's the substance of the argument.
It is perfectly possible to have two territories with exactly the same level of self-governance - even the same or very similar statuses - and for one to be on the list and one to be off. Hong Kong is a good example - from 1972 (i.e. long before the handover deal) to 1997, it had the same status as other British territories on the list, but was not itself on the list. Inclusion on the list says nothing at all about the degree of self-governance in the territory, except insofar as self-governance coincides with the three prescribed statuses and the whim of the UN.
I have never suggested that territories have not been removed for other reasons. Quite the opposite. Nor have I suggested that territories that meet the statuses identified are immune from being included. The UN has never made any serious attempt at consistency in the list and has always swung with the political breeze. I have pointed this out repeatedly here.
In terms of the word "indigenous", that's my point. Unless you're genuinely referring to indigenous peoples - and as I said at the time I doubt that - you're arguing for including this because a people don't have a status that doesn't exist. Other than indigenous peoples there is no "internationally recognised indigenous population" in any country or territory anywhere in the world.
Nobody is saying that we should ignore the list completely. It's already there in the article. But there is nothing here to suggest that the discussion of the C24 is, on its own, as important to the topic of Gibraltar as the Spanish claim - let alone more important - which is what is being argued here. Kahastok talk 19:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you're talking of two different things. As Kahastok has patiently pointed out, the UN C24 has not recommended removal as Gibraltar hasn't achieved one of the three states the UN deems acceptable. Separately Spain asserts that the people of Gibraltar do not have the right to self-determination as they are not "indigenous" but that has nothing to do with the UN position. WCMemail 11:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

WCM, as I just explained and Kahastok acknowledged, the UN may remove a territory for other reasons and I provided two examples: Hong Kong and Puerto Rico. The reason the UN removes states from the list when they achieve one of the acceptable states is that each one makes them self-governing. I don't know why you are arguing that by self-governing the UN merely means they have not achieved one of the three states. There are no other ways of becoming self-governing.

Kahastok, I already explained that you are confusing a specialized term ("indigenous peoples") with the normal meaning as defined in English dictionaries. Since you find it confusing that the same word can have different meanings in different contexts, why not use the term "permanent population?" The UN does not recognize either the Spanish people or Gibraltar residents as permanent residents of Gibraltar, although they recognize the indigenous population of the UK and Spain as their permanent populations.

Hong Kong was removed at the request of China because the UK agreed to return it to China and not defend the rights of the Hong Kong people to determine the future of their territory. The UN would similarly remove Gibraltar from the list if both the UK and Spain agreed.

You do not have to agree with the Spanish argument to acknowledge that it is what prevents resolution of the issue. However, returning Gibraltar to Spain would increase self-governance of the Spanish people. Similarly if it became part of the UK, it would arguably increase self-governance, because Gibraltans would then be part of the electorate and determine who governed their country, which would be the UK. (A similar case arose with Newfoundland, which was under direct rule from Whitehall until it agreed to become a province of Canada. Newfoundlanders became Canadian citizens and part of the permanent population of Canada.)

TFD (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"The UN does not recognize either the Spanish people or Gibraltar residents as permanent residents of Gibraltar." Care to source that? Explicitly, that the UN actively refuses to recognise them and that this is a significant reason why they are still on the list? I see none here so far. I see people describing the Spanish position, but not any UN position.
The UN only does not recognise Gibraltar residents as permanent residents of Gibraltar in the sense that it also does not recognise Spanish residents as permanent residents of Spain. The UN is not generally in the business of recognising people as permanent residents of anywhere - not its job, as a rule. Am I confused by the word "indigenous"? No. But the only way in which your sentence using the word could be accurate is if you are actually referring to indigenous peoples.
"Hong Kong was removed at the request of China because the UK agreed to return it to China...". Care to source that? Explicitly, that an actual agreement between the UK and China to hand over Hong Kong was the reason for removing Hong Kong from the list in 1972? Remember that that is 12 years before the Sino-British joint declaration and 7 years before the first currently-known informal discussions on the 1997 problem. The WP:REDFLAGs are definitely flying here, and I don't mean the Flag of China.
It is simply not true to say that "[t]he reason the UN removes states from the list when they achieve one of the acceptable states is that each one makes them self-governing", unless we accept that the word "self-governing" does not actually refer to the degree of self-governance. And as you try to make this out as a unique issue regarding the Spanish claim, remember that there are 10 British Overseas Territories on the list, all with the same legal status, and that Britain wants all of them removed for the same reasons. Kahastok talk 20:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
You have no provided any sources for your theories, and I have already provided lots of sources, and have better things to do than look things up for you. Rather than risk getting off topic, let's summarize: the continuation of Gibraltar on the list on non-self-governing territories is significant enough to keep in the lead. It continues on the list because of Spanish opposition to its removal. Spain's position (as summarized by Caruana) is that the people of Gibraltar are not indigenous. The UN has not decided one way or another but has encouraged both sides to continue negotiation. TFD (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Presumably Anguilla is also still on the list because of Spanish opposition to its removal as well?
So let's get back to the substance. What, in your opinion, about the C24 listing makes it as important to Gibraltar as the dispute between Spain and Britain? Let's be clear that the implication of your proposal is that it the C24 is at least as significant to modern Gibraltar as the sovereignty dispute. That's quite a claim. And I don't accept it for a moment.
If you've provided a source that demonstrates your other claims, I don't mind you pointing me at it. I haven't found it so far though. And remember that the burden of evidence is on you as the person who wants to add material to the article. Kahastok talk 21:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Kahastok What makes two referendums, which have no relevance or recognition by any party, as important or relevant as the territory's status under international, which is the core defining defining element of this dispute?Asilah1981 (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Without commenting on the referendums, the core elements of this dispute are the claims of Spain and Britain. I've never seen any source assert otherwise. CMD (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Am I the only person wishing that you would actually say what your edit proposal is The Four Deuces? WCMemail 12:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
See the statement you made when you opened this discussion thread. "There is a long standing consensus arrived at in the archives that the C24 list belongs in the politics section and not the lead." I have provided reasons why I think it should be in the lead.
Kahastok, I wrote above, "Looking at other articles is not helpful, because in every other case except for the Falklands, there is an internationally recognized...population that supports the status quo and hence no third party obstacles to resolution." Anguilla remains on the list because the UK and the people of Anguilla have not agreed to its independence, but there are no third party obstacles. TFD (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Looking at other articles is indeed helpful. As you note the Falkland Islands also has a sovereignty dispute but doesn't mention it, which kind of undermines your argument. French Polynesia, which was controversially re-added to the list doesn't even mention it. Not one article on a country on that list mentions it in the lead. We make the point that the political controversy is the sovereignty dispute, which is mentioned prominently in the lede with its own paragraph. Take a look at news reports, they report the sovereignty dispute but rarely if ever mention the C24 list (apart from when there are hearings). Effectively the C24 list is merely tangentially relevant on this particular topic and should not be in the lede - this is classical WP:LEDE fixation, the lede can't repeat every detail. And the rhing is you haven't actually presented a counter argument, to paraphrase the only argument you have is "I think it belongs there". Sorry but the weight of argument is against you. WCMemail 15:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster We can therefore remove the totally irrelevant and NPOV reference to not one but two referendums in the lead and have these and the sentence proposed by llanomami in the body of the article. Unless you have an argument for keeping the referendums in the lead which are not based on WP:STONEWALL tactics?Asilah1981 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you please address content, instead of constantly pinging me and singling me out for special attention. Your argument lacks merit, we already acknowledge that the sovereignty dispute is a significant political controversy and belongs in the lead. The two referendum have been significant events leading to major political change in Gibraltar. And if you look above, till this started we were actually talking about improving coverage in this area. The C24 list is not a significant issue and is mentioned with due prominence in the text. WCMemail 17:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Wee Curry Monster How were they relevant political events and what was the resulting political change? Did sovereignty change hands? Did the UN or EU or Spain change their stance? Can you point me to a single territory in the world where a referendum is included in the lead? How is a totally inconsequential event both locally and internationally more relevant to the lead than the territory's status under international law?Asilah1981 (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I have asked you politely on several occasions now to stop pinging me demanding I answer you, if you do it again I'll ignore you. I am not prepared to answer questions in the framework you demand. What is relevant to Gibraltar is not solely down to the sovereignty dispute. The 1967 referendum resulted in the movement to increase democracy in Gibraltar and the 1969 Constitution Order which pretty much still defines how the Government of Gibraltar is formed today. The 2002 referendum also lead to profound constitutional changes and a firm commitment from the British Government that it would not negotiate with Spain without Gibraltarian involvement. Both referendums have lead to fundamental changes in the relationship between the UK and Gibraltar. WCMemail 21:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Then it should be framed as such. In its current status, the way it is framed, the only reason it is included in the lead is to delegitimize the Spanish claim. If we include statements which aim to delegitimize one side of a dispute in the lead we should include those which legitimize it. Or, ideally, we should simply state in the lead that there is a territorial dispute, without POV qualifiers related to that dispute.14:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)
"Deligitimize"? Since when does Spain have a legitimate claim to Gibraltar? Unilaterally wanting to tear the legitimate international treaty, where Spain ceded Gibraltar to the UK for ever, up does not in any way legitimise Spain's claim... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Thomas.W If you cannot stay cool and have a rational discussion on this talk page I suggest you keep away from these articles. It is not for us to decide who is wrong or right on the Anglo-Spanish territorial dispute, but to calmly discuss how to improve this article and approach contentious issues neutrally. Where there is a divergence of opinions we can debate as normal human beings. You have even managed to recently chase away Gibraltarian editors from this article, who ironically shared your political views. All you are doing is confirming my point I made earlier about disruptive editing. I don't see any solution but to continue to bring this to the attention of Admins.Tide_rolls,Kudpung and EdJohnston, CambridgeBayWeather, HJ Mitchell, Bencherlite, Anthony_Appleyard, DrKayAsilah1981 (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I am perfectly cool, this is a rational discussion and you know absolutely nothing about my political views. The only thing that isn't rational here is your claim that Spain has a legitimate claim (i.e. a claim in accordance with international law) to Gibraltar, since ceding land in a legitimate international (peace) treaty can't be unilaterally undone according to any international law that I'm aware of. As for the rest, I suggest you stop commenting on other editors (behaviour exemplified in the hatted section below), and stick to commenting on things that are relevant on this article talk page. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W Yes the international community and the UN have requested Britain and Spain to resolve the issue of Gibraltar through a process of decolonization in | GA Resolution 2231 among other resolutions, as already mentioned in the article. I remind you that all colonial empires were acquired through "Treaties" following an armed aggression. Spain has a position which has its legitimacy, based on the UN principle of national integrity. Gibraltar's government's position also has its share of legitimacy and so does the UK's. That is why the UN and the international community call for a "resolution" rather than condemn or ignore the Spanish claim, as they do with most cases of irredentism. But this, again, is another example of Stonewalling/disruptive behavior. We are talking about a specific sentence in the lead and you are shifting the conversation to "whether Spain has the right to claim Gibraltar". Something which was not being discussed. It is a good tactic. This way the actual topic is not discussed, and in the process, a hostile climate is created which impedes consensus. Again, as I said, it is systematic.Asilah1981 (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Asilah1981: That's sheer hypocrisy considering that Spain doesn't give a rat's a**e about "national integrity" on the other side of the Straits of Gibraltar, stubbornly hanging on to Ceuta, Melilla and the other plots of land they have in North Africa, and the UN requesting that Spain and the UK resolve the issue through bilateral discussions through a process of decolonisation, based solely on modern moral views, is very far from the UN saying that Spain has a legitimate claim to Gibraltar, i.e. a claim supported by international law, as you claim they have... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Both WCM and Tom have shown no interest in discussing improvements to the page, and instead misrepresent other editors' posting, never refer to policy and argue the rightness of the UK position as opposed to the Spanish one. Neither refers to sources or Wikipedia policy or guidelines. I had hoped that we could at least agree what the disagreement about the wording in the lead was, so that we could take it to dispute resolution. WCC and Tom have prevented that opportunity through walls of text. I suggest we stop this discussion. I will prepare a recommendation for changing the lead and post an RfC without their input, unless they have constructive comments. As another editor mentioned, user conduct issues cannot be resolved on talk pages. However, I can conclude that based on experience, further discussion is unlikely to be productive. TFD (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on those who want to change things, wanting to keep things the way they are/were is as valid an opinion as wanting to change things, and proposing changes does not automagically entitle anyone to at least a compromise. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

TFD Thank you. I will comment/give feedback on RfC once it is in place. I sincerely wish enough editors were actively involved in this article to break this stonewalling situation, which by what I see has been going on for a couple of years. Wikipedia should have more efficient ways of dealing with disruptive editors. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

  • There you go again, dodging the relevant issues raised by me above, instead once again accusing all editors who don't share your views of being disruptive. For nothing other than not agreeing with you. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Whoever is pinging me to Gibraltar-related talk page squabbles (here and elsewhere), please don't. I'm flattered that you think I might have something to bring to the table but I have no time or interest in finding out what is going on, either as a fellow-editor or as an admin. BencherliteTalk 22:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Reset

Could someone wanting a change please make a clear proposal here so that we can determine what is actually being discussed here, and let's try and focus the discussion. Do not edit your change into the article, if it's proposed here we know that it's under discussion and there is no need for it also to be in the article at the time.

Note that the requirement as always is that there must be consensus for any particular change, and that everyone should work to reach a mutually acceptable consensus. If no consensus is forthcoming the most recent position to reach consensus (i.e. the status quo) remains. Kahastok talk 18:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok Yes I generally agree with you and so, I assume, will TFD. But just one thing: As per Wikipedia Policy, the status quo remains unless there is a situation of Stonewalling. This is what I was trying to explain. Where a strategy is used to sabotage any attempts at improving the article through the various tactics already mentioned, then we cannot be satisfied with an eternally frozen hostage article based on a constant climate of hostility and trench warfare. I am not personally accusing you of this, but it is a pattern here which cannot be ignored and that is why I copy pasted WP:STONEWALL on this talk page. Arguments have to be judged on substance and merit and everyone has to work towards not against consensus. Those who work against consensus and see other editors as "the enemy" to be quashed should be isolated by both factions in an edit dispute. Trust me, if there was some idiot Spanish nationalist being confrontational and destructive in this article, I would be the first to call him out on it. But I agree with you, we reset and assume good faith.Asilah1981 (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Accusing people of trying to "sabotage any attempts at improving the article" does not assume good faith, nor does any argument based on "Those who work against consensus and see other editors as "the enemy"". This is not off to a good start. You don't get to decide to just dismiss someone's comments, I'm afraid. If there is no consensus for change, there is no change. There are exceptions, but none of them refers to WP:STONEWALL. Kahastok talk 22:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok And your final point was valid, (you could have started with that). It is not in the body of the article. It should be though, IMO. Somewhere at least I think the sentence on "being nominated to be in the list of nonselfgoverning territories" should be removed from the end of the governance section and included in the modern history section, inserted chronologically (after WWII). So should the UN sentence I wanted to put in the lead straight after "the reactivation of the territorial claim by Franco". This way we have a smooth mention of the territorial dispute woven into the history, with no need for further discussion nor a "dispute" section. TFD what do you think?Asilah1981 (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. It is not clear to me that the UN list is significant to the history of Gibraltar, as opposed to the history of the dispute. Ultimately if we're discussing the history of Gibraltar we need to judge significance in the history of Gibraltar, and even if we accept that the UN listing is significant to the dispute, it is not obviously significant to the history of Gibraltar as a whole.
OTOH, I think the discussion above re: a new section on the dispute, which allows us to then focus on what is important to the dispute, is probably a better and more focussed way of discussing this. Kahastok talk 22:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes I see your point. But just to explain myself better: My rationale was that not that much has happened in Gibraltar to begin with and we could create a more solid article less prone to edit disputes if things were taken from a chronological perspective rather than a theme based perspective (or sides base perspective). I was even willing to stop pushing for have anything related to Gibraltar's status in the lead. Replicating a mini "dispute" section might be another nightmare in the current context, a second nightmare would be agreeing on how to summarize that section in the lead. That's my motivation, basically. Asilah1981 (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I can see what you mean, and I don't have a huge problem in principle with moving the point to the history section, if we're all agreed that that is the best place to put it. But there is a legitimate split between history and governance, but I rather think that the relevance of the UN list is closer to the latter than the former. To whit, whereas the British would like it if the interest was historical only, it is clear from Spain's position on the dispute that it is of modern-day significance to Spain.
So perhaps it would help therefore to find external sources on the topic of Gibraltar (I think we're clear on the facts, it's the WP:WEIGHT and context we need), to see where they put the UN list and see how much weight they give to the UN list in Gibraltar history. Kahastok talk 21:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
As has been discussed above, and ably demonstrated by WCM and others, if you're going to mention the C24 list in the opening section, there's so many other aspects to that controversy (which is already covered elsewhere in the article) that the section becomes about nothing more than Gibraltar's status. Gibraltar's territorial status is already explained sufficiently by the third paragraph as stands for the purposes of an introduction. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Respell needed?

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Giraffedata, what is your evidence to support "IPA is unintelligible to most Wikipedia readers"? --John (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

TBH its unintelligible to me, is there a reason for removing the alternative? I only ask as I found that does explain the pronunciation quite effectively. WCMemail 09:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Do we need two separate pronunciations? Every word in English can be pronounced in a variety of slightly different ways. It looks silly two me.Llanimami2 (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

In order to use this template, we would need to demonstrate a consensus that there exists a sizable group of users who a) do not know how to pronounce this word b) want to know how to pronounce it and c) are unable or unwilling to learn IPA. Can I see evidence of this please? --John (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
John, it would make more sense for you to prove the positive ("most Wikipedia readers do know IPA") rather than asking other people to prove the negative. The IPA isn't in particularly wide usage – even a lot of dictionaries still haven't adopted it. Having a legible transcription for readers non-fluent in a particular alphabet is standard practice on Wikipedia. If you object to this practice, please raise your objections at WT:RESPELL or some other venue, rather than going around surreptitiously removing the template from any article you come across (as you have been doing). IgnorantArmies (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Interesting idea, and I might well do that. Meantime, per WP:ONUS, I invite you to provide the evidence I asked for at 18:32 today. If you are concerned that my removing these templates where I feel they are not helpful to our readers is disruptive, you must feel free to run to an admin noticeboard and report me. Oh wait, you did that already, didn't you? --John (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:ONUS doesn't say anything about evidence. It talks about consensus that inclusion improves the article. That consensus could be based on common wisdom, gut feeling, or subjective opinion, as well as convincing evidence.
I suspect that all we need to achieve consensus that these few characters improve the article is a poll of people watching this page as to whether they can read the IPA personally and whether they think a typical Wikipedia reader can. No to both for me.
I agree that it would be much better for Wikipedia to get a consensus for articles in general, not just this one, but I would not hold up including respell in this article waiting for a broader consensus. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
This project exists for the readers, not to cater for the editors. I am still looking for some sort of evidence that this template aids a significant number of our readers. Are we saying that you aren't prepared to show it, that it doesn't exist, but that you and your pals are going to revert repeatedly to restore this anyway, based on a "gut feeling"? --John (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Can I ask, did I miss a memo? The one where reasoned discussion on content is replaced by personal remarks about other editors. I ask because I'm seeing a lot of it lately and its not helpful. [13] is interesting for me. First of all it states that beginners find respelling much easier to understand, secondly it makes the point that it has its limits in that certain sounds in other languages don't always have an equivalent. Which pretty much makes my point that a layman would find respelling easier, whilst a professional would prefer IPA. As most of our readers are not professionally qualified in phonetics, its not unreasonable to conclude that respell will serve most of our readers better; ie removing the template would be a disservice. I've no objection to including both to cater for the wider audience. Does that not seem reasonable John? WCMemail 08:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The IPA may as well be gibberish to me. Now, perhaps that makes me lazy, but I'm not going to ask for the alternative pronunciation to be included. Rather, I would ask, isn't there a MOS guideline for this? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
There isn't a policy as such WP:RESPELL offers advice and suggests we included both systems. WCMemail 10:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Responding to User:John: I thought I was clear on the evidence issue, but maybe not. So: I do not have evidence. I do not plan to try to present evidence. I don't believe it is relevant to this discussion because I suspect we can develop consensus that the respell is an improvement to the article without evidence. (Which is not to say I don't appreciate WCM's and anyone else's efforts to produce evidence).
I may be missing your point in mentioning that Wikipedia is for the readers, not the editors (a point I frequently make myself). Are you saying it's irrelevant whether the watchers of this page can use IPA, a fact I suggested polling, because we are editors? The reason it's relevant is that we are all also readers. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Just because you are claiming to be interested in pronunciation but ignorant of IPA, doesn't mean that there is a significant number of readers who share these attitudes. It's hard for me to believe that many people are unable to pronounce the name, desperate to find out, but unable and unwilling to learn IPA. Do you have evidence to support this assertion? --John (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

History Section

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

No reference to the Brussels Agreement, 1984, or what was agreed. No reference to the two UN resolutions addressing Gibraltar or what was stated. Why?Asilah1981 (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this the NPOV issue you're slapping tags on all Gibraltar articles for? WCMemail 18:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
W No. I'm slapping tags for the dozens of hours editors have spent arguing over this article over multiple issues without any conclusive agreement. I am now personally focusing on slightly less controversial matters where there is a small chance of consensus. These articles are insane, we have in the lead a direct quote from Caruana stating how despicable the Brussels accords are but the actual existence or content of those accords are censored from the article. It actually makes the whole thing gibberish. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
What's the POV issue then? Please try to focus on content not other editors. And if all I get is a personal attack I'm simply going to remove the tag as WP:POINT WCMemail 16:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Ceuta and Melila

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

A number of commentators mention the issue of Ceuta and Melila, pointing to the parallel between Spain maintaining enclaves in Moroccan territory and Gibraltar. That isn't mentioned in this article. Bringing it here for comment. WCMemail 13:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I hate this kind of "whataboutery" when it proposed by the usual suspects (boosters of the anti-British POV) so I'm not jazzed about including it here. On the flip-side, if it's notable . . . FOARP (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm easy either way, I'm tempted to suggest it belongs in the Dispute article but its omission is peculiar given its prominence in the literature. WCMemail 14:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a fine detail of the status dispute. I like fine details, so I think it would be an improvement to a Gibraltar article, but the dispute article is the right one. It is not significant enough to be part of the overview of the dispute here. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

How about a section on Istanbul, oh mighty defenders of the British Empire? There is definitely a parallel between Turkey maintaining enclaves in Bulgarian territory and Gibraltar... You guys are funny.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, talking about us as "mighty defenders of the British Empire" is sure to win us over. FOARP (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Winning you over is not exactly my intention. I just find your trolling amusing. So in this proposed section would Ceuta be considered a Colony in Portugal or in Morocco? Last I heard it passed to Spain from Portugal not from Morocco. How about a comparison between Pamplona and Gibraltar? Also a colony right? After all it became part of Spain over a century later than Melilla. Granada I think also qualifies as a Spanish colony in Morocco, Muslim city, conquered roughly about the same time.... Oh and Ronda was also part of Morocco for a longer period than Ceuta! Another better Spanish colony we can compare to Gibraltar! Excellent. This is fun...We have so many Spanish colonies in Morocco to choose from. :-D Asilah1981 (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
It is worth mentioning, depending on the amount of detail we provide on Gibraltar remaining on the list. At present we have none. Of course we cannot connect their status to Gibraltar ourselves, but must instead cite reliable sources that make the connection as well as those who reject that connection, explaining the degree of acceptance of both. TFD (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

TFD Ceuta and Melilla are not colonies. I hope you are aware that they are just parts of Spain? That they were part of Spain centuries before the Spanish colonial administration of Northern Morocco? That they were never under colonial administration? That no organization or body in the world considers them colonies? The only source comparing the two would be trash Murdoch owned British journalism (The Sun or the Telegraph or something like that). Was just wondering... A comparison of the two would be ridiculous. I would actually enjoy writing it.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I know they are not colonies and they have been part of Spain since before Morocco became a state. However the UK has drawn parallels between Gibraltar and them. Therefore we can mention the UK position, the other side and what experts say. What would violate policy would be write something like, "Despite its claim over Gibraltar, Spain continues to hold two territories in Africa." That would be implicit synthesis by Wikipedia editors. TFD (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The key question here is what the sources say. The comparison is relevant insofar as the sources tell us that it is relevant, based on the weight they give the point. On the face of it there is a parallel here, but on the face of it is irrelevant: if reliable sources don't make the comparison we don't make it. If they do, we give it the weight that they give it. I would be inclined to say that the Dispute article is more appropriate in general though.
So far as I can see we've reached the point where some here are actually just arguing the position of one side of the dispute. Those arguments must be ignored. Kahastok talk 22:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The argument of some editors is that Spain's position is wrong, therefore we should not mention it. There is no policy or guideline basis for that. I hope that no one takes the opposite position, that Spain's position is correct, and the UK position should be ignored. TFD (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
TFD Actually, that specific Spanish position is debatable. My family is originally from Morocco so I know its history well. Morocco has been a state well before the colonial period and it is unfair on the Moroccan position to say it only exists since it was decolonized (I think that is what you meant?). The Moroccan state can be traced as far back as the Merinids (1248-1468) or alternatively to the modern day Alaouties since (1659). We could say that earlier states such as the Almoravids and Almohad empires, which also included half of Spain, were also Morocco. Even the early Iddrisids. Parts of southern Spain were also part of Morocco during the Merinid period as well, Gibraltar included. In any case, this is the point: the only times really Ceuta has been part of Morocco were during times when other parts of mainland Spain were also under Morocco. Melilla, was conquered about the time when Spain was founded as a nation-state, and much earlier than other core geographic components of Spain such as Navarre. The basic point, Ceuta and Melilla were always Spain proper, much as the Canary Islands were. Spain and Morocco are neighbors with a common history and shifting borders that span millenia. The comparison is thus silly, but plenty of sources are available explaining how silly it is, so nothing to worry about if you want to create a draft consensus section on talk page to be added once everyone agrees on content. I will not block proposals here and will contribute with as much knowledge and sources at my disposal, in French, English, Spanish and Arabic if required.Asilah1981 (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Btw, shouldn't this proposed section be in "Disputed status of Gibraltar". Its evidently not relevant enough to be here. It could even be a standalone article by itself. "Comparisons between territorial Disputes of Gibraltar and Ceuta and Melilla". I have enough sources to provide a standalone article, so it might be interesting to have one. It might help to dispel a lot of myths about the topic.Asilah1981 (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

No mention in the lead that the 1967 referendum was specifically condemned by the UN General Assembly and not recognized by any international body or state

Latest comment: 7 years ago27 comments7 people in discussion

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23617910 Again, why? If the referendum is important enough to mention in the lead (quite extensively) so should the international community and the UN General Assembly's reaction to it, ideally within the same sentence.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

For God's Sake, I just noticed its even censored from the History section! This is insane! Asilah1981 (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"Oh look oh look oh look, my pet fact is not mentioned in the lede!" It's almost as if there's already a massive discussion about what should be in the lede and whether it is necessary to mention every single fact about Gibraltar's territorial status in it FOARP (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I was accused by this editor of censoring the inclusion of this in Disputed status of Gibraltar. Its worth noting its included, the same editor edited the text yesterday [14] and its been in the article since 2013 [15]. WCMemail 10:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Unless someone objects, I will include the fact with BBC source in the history section of the article which discusses the 1967 referendum.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I honestly think that is too much detail for an overview article, it belongs on Disputed status of Gibraltar not here. The significant fact regarding Gibraltar is the referendum and constitution order. We should resist the temptation that the sovereignty dispute is the only thing of interest about Gibraltar. WCMemail 12:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Then perhaps reference to the referendums on sovereignty should go. They permeate the article (in lead and body) and they directly address the sovereignty dispute. Otherwise it feels like having the cake and eating it too. We can't only have one side of the sovereignty dispute and not the other.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
No, because they are significant, the referendum is commemorated by Gibraltar Sovereignty Day and lead to a fundamental change in the way Gibraltar is governed. This isn't one side of the sovereignty dispute. This is why we have more detailed articles, this is an overview article and your favourite fact doesn't have to be included. You're creating a false dichotomy about neutrality that doesn't exist. WCMemail 12:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a good argument that the existence of the referendum should be mentioned in the article, but not that it should be in a sentence that starts, "Gibraltarians overwhelmingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty ..." in a paragraphs that starts, "The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention." For that, the substance of the international community rejection matters. If the community called the referendum fraudulent, saying it did not reflect the will of Gibraltarians, then I say you can't mention it here without saying that (and then the whole topic is too long for the lede). But if the international community only said the referendum was irrelevant to the sovereignty question, there is no need for that information here; the paragraph already says there is another side. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Responding to Giraffedata [16],[17] Apologies, being very familiar with the subject I forget others are not. 2353 criticised the UK for holding the referendum in contravention of 2231, it didn't declare it fraudulent, which would be difficult given the use of independent observers, basically that the referendum was irrelevant to solving the sovereignty question. Talks subsequently went nowhere culminating in the offer from the UK to take the dispute to the International Court of Justice in 1968, which was ultimately refused by Spain (which has refused all suggestions to resolve matters in the ICJ). WCMemail 20:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Giraffedata Actually the UN condemned the referendum as being in violation of the Principle of Territorial Integrity and the UN Charter. Why? Its quite the same issue as if Israel held a referendum for Jewish settlers on their settlements in the West Bank on whether they want to be part of Israel or not. For all its defects, Israel would never have to gall to do that. This is why neither the UN nor any international body recognize referendums held by the colonial power in this case and the UN consistently calls for the UK and Spain to resolve the situation bilaterally. Its not about being fraudulent or not. Its quite simply contrary to international law as the UN keeps constantly reminding the UK (last time last October 2016).Asilah1981 (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect, the UNGA cannot and does not rule on matters of International Law, if there is a matter of law to be considered then it refers the matter to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. WCMemail 21:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Always worth remembering that UNGA resolutions are not binding on anyone other than the UNGA. Kahastok talk 22:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, so it's the second thing. So the sentence, "Gibraltarians overwhelmingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in a 1967 referendum ..." is not misleading; indeed, it would be misleading to qualify it, suggesting Gibraltarians might not actually have rejected the proposal. It's directly after a sentence saying Spain still asserts a claim, so no reader could believe that rejection was universally respected. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
It is misleading to mention a referendum without mentioning that it was rejected by the international community. TFD (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
TFD Agreed. If it is demanded by editor x that no mention is made to the rejection by the internation community and UN, then we can keep the passing of the constitution, but not the referendum. Its one or the other, WCM, you can´t have it both ways.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually it would be misleading to simply say it was rejected by the international community. [18] equally significant would be the fact that Spain was offered the chance to put its own proposal but declined, that the C24 was invited to observe but declined and the resolution that was passed went strictly along the usual political lines of the UN with Resolution 2353 (XXII) supported by seventy-three countries (mainly Latin American, Arab, African and Eastern European countries), rejected by nineteen (United Kingdom and the countries of the Commonwealth of Nations), while twenty-seven countries abstained (Western Europe and the United States). This is why I suggest its not suitable for an overview article and I note my suggested edit has been reverted on grounds that have no place in Wikipedia's policies. Instead of personalizing matters I suggest you both feel free to start another RFC - this conversation seems to be going down exactly the same lines as the preceding discussion. If you find your proposals are not accepted, you should not resort to personal remarks about editors that disagree with you. WCMemail 12:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is misleading. All those little brown people infesting the UN were to blame for such a horrid UN Resolution. This must be explained or the bare facts censored. No civilized white man would support such a thing. That truly is relevant. You have fallen to new lows, WCM. I´m outta here. Its pathetic trying to have an online argument with far-right ***jobs. I´ll keep the articles on my watchlist and make sure no further damage is done, that´s it. Have a nice weekend to all.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
If countries do not recognize the referenda then they have rejected them. Note too there were two referenda, and the vote you mention was for the first one. Interesting that the only countries to vote against a resolution that said Gibraltar was part of the territory of Spain were the UK and less than half the Commonwealth and that was at a time when Spain was a fascist dictatorship. BTW there was a new resolution passed last month, see 4th Committee of UN General Assembly adopts Decision on Gibraltar by consensus. TFD (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
No they haven't, silence does not equal rejection. Referenda do not need to be "recognised" by other countries, the opinion of the people of Gibraltar, as expressed in a democratic, free and fair, referendum, is just as valid, regardless of whether it is "recognised" by other countries or not. The people of Gibraltar did not want to become Spanish. Period. And said the same again, in another referendum, about 40 years later... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
That's not a UN resolution, these are only passed by the UNGA or the UNSC. The IV committee recommends resolutions to be voted on in the UNGA. What you have linked to is a Spanish interpretation of the annual recommendation of the IV Committee which is adopted without a vote. It is a draft resolution for the UNGA to consider and has not been passed yet. The UN press release is here [19], which notes that the recommendation was accepted without a vote. Its not likely to be seen till 2017:
"Acting again without a vote, the Committee approved two draft decisions, on the question of Gibraltar (document A/C.4/71/L.5), and on the proposed programme of work and timetable for its seventy-second session in 2017 (document A/C.4/71/L.16), respectively."
WCMemail 13:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Think there is a typo in that press released as A/C.4/71/L.5 is on atomic radiation and not linked to Gibraltar. WCMemail 14:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

[20] It appears this didn't make it onto the agenda for the next session. WCMemail 14:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So, basically including this in any kind of prominence, when it's not clear what was to be debated and it won't be on the agenda anyway, would be the most naked form of POV-pushing FOARP (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Another UN Resolution to be censored by the lightning brigade then, this one from October 2016.

08/11/2016 4th Committee of UN General Assembly adopts Decision on Gibraltar by consensus

This Decision urges Spain and the United Kingdom to reach a definitive solution within the framework of the 1984 Brussels Declaration and in view of the corresponding resolutions and principles applicable to the UN General Assembly. It should be recalled that these resolutions comprise the United Nations doctrine on Gibraltar, which considers this territory to be a colony and which points out that this colonial situation infringes on Spain’s territorial integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asilah1981 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not a UN resolution. A UN resolution comes from the General Assembly or Security Council. The IV committee is neither. Kahastok talk 22:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't even a IV committee recommendation, that's a press release from the Spanish UN mission. The recommendation didn't even make it to the agenda. WCMemail 08:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar/Archive_25&oldid=1240455156"