Talk:Political development in modern Gibraltar/Archives/2024/February

Disputed issues

I had given up editing Gibraltar articles, and was very happy with it, but it seems that Wee Curry Monster after his repeated bans and retirement announcements wants to start all over. So I have decided to return (I hope that only for a short time) and try to help out. I hope that this time round we all have learned from past experiences and will not waste too much time and patience.

Given the sensibility of the Gibraltar articles, I think it's better if we discuss things here instead of reverting edits.

It seems that there are several disputed facts, so let's see if we c. Refer to find a consensus solution:

1) One of the disputes is related with the connections from Gibraltar to the outside world during the Spanish boicot: It seems that Wee Curry's preferred edit (please correct me if I am wrong), says that "For the next 16 years Gibraltar was reliant on an air-link with Britain for formal access to the outside world." On the other hand, according to Ecemaml, it seems that "the outside world" had more connections besides the air-link during the blockade, at least a ferry line connecting Gibraltar and Tangier.

Myself, I think that there is an error in Wee Curry's version: what the source says is that the only connection between Gib and Spain (not the "outside world") was an air link Madrid-London-Gib. In fact I think that what Gold really means is that the most direct (not the only) route between Madrid (not all of Spain) and Gib was via London: you could always go by car-ferry-plane from Spain to London and then take the flight to Gib, or -as Ecemaml says- take a ferry from Spain to Morocco and then back to Gib...

To solve this dispute: does Wee Curry really think that the ferry line or other connections between Gib and the outside world did not exist besides the Madrid-London-Gibe air route? Or would he accept to say that all direct connections between Spain and Gib were severed (not necessarily mentioning one or possibly several indirect routes that could connect Spain and Gib)?

2) Another dispute is related to the "independent judiciary" in the 1830s. Wee Curry says that Jackson explicitly mentions the independence of the judiciary, while Ecemaml says it is only an interpretation. Could someone please cite the exact words where Jackson mentions -explicitly or not- the independence of the judiciary?

There are other things that could be discussed, but I propose to start with these two. Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL and desist from Personal attacks

1. This is irrelevant to the point in the article, which is that Spain closed the border. The article doesn't say that the air link was the only route, merely that Gibrltar was reliant on the air link to the UK for formal access to other destinations, with a supporting cite. This is a tangential issue, the article is not about transport links to Gibraltar.

2. Jackson does say that explicitly, he states that the judiciary was independent of the executive. There is no interpretation and the material is accurately cited. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

1) The article says: "For the next 16 years Gibraltar was reliant on an air-link with Britain for formal access 'to the outside world'." No source says that (Gold only says that the air link was "the only communication between Spain and the Rock") Do you have other sources? Ecemaml has edited the article saying there was at least a ferry to Tangier and you have reverted it. Are you sure that there weren't any more connections with the outside world? Can you cite any sources?

2) OK, so can you please cite the exact words where Jackson states that the judiciary was independent of the executive?

Thanks!!! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Comment is cited to Dodds - which you can find online to verify for yourself. Why are you raising an irrelevant reference to a completely different source? Again the source is not saying that is the sole access to the outside world but for onward destinations Gibraltar relied on the air link. Again the relevant point is that the Spain closed the border. This is an irrelevant tangential matter and essentially a semantic argument, this isn't an article about transport links. I've addressed the same point twice, if you return with the same irrelevant argument again I will not respond.

2) Yes I can. You frequently cite Jackson as a source, please verify for yourself. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as the two points are resolved, I'm removing the tag presently. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Well, it seems that either Dodds is wrong or you have to correct at least one article in wikipedia: "1969 8 June – In response, Spain closed the border with Gibraltar, and severed all communication links. For about 13 years, the land border was closed from the Spanish side, to try to isolate the territory. The closure affected both sides of the border. Gibraltarians with families in Spain had to go by ferry to Tangier, Morocco, and from there to the Spanish port of Algeciras." I seriously doubt that no regular sea line was able to enter the port of Gibraltar for 16 years... If you want, I can look for sources but ask yourself whether it seems plausible that the port of Gibraltar was closed with all the British Royal Navy boats going in and out...

2) I am not able to find any words that explicitly support the concept that the judiciary was independent. Can you cite Jackson's words that according to you support your version? Please? Thanks!!!!! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Dodds is correct, effectively to get anywhere in the world from Gibraltar you pretty much had first to fly to London, then fly to an onward destination. Yes there was a ferry to Tangiers, where you could catch a ferry to Spain but you really couldn't access anywhere else. Could you explain why you feel this additional information would help the reader understand Gibraltar's isolation by Spain closing the border. Please try to do so without sarcasm or taking the piss as that would be appreciated. I really don't see why you feel those remarks are helpful, since I've acknowledged above it was not the only access to the outside world but the only route for onward destinations. And a suggestion of how this information could be incorporated into the article, without overburdening the article with tangential information would be helpful.

2) I can of course provide more later but as I'm at work and you've just referred to your copy of Jackson, it would be very much appreciated if you could copy the penultimate and final paragraph from p.229 to a quote here, as I believe you'll find it supports the text in the article. Many thanks in advance. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And whilst we're discussing it, is there a need for the dispute tag? This will disrupt the DYK nomination and as we're discussing the matter to resolve in an amicable manner, the gesture of removing it would be appreciated by me. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

1) So if you agree that the main point is that Spain severed all direct connections, that the air link through London wasn't the only connection with the outside world, and that the several indirect connections (the air link through London, ferries, ...) are not the main point, then I see a very simple solution to keep that part of the article factually accurate: let's just say that Spain severed direct connections between Spain and Gib etc. and let's not talk about the other connections with the outside world.

2) I guess it's not so difficult for you to just cite the words where Jackson supports your point, could you please do it? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Actually after calm reflection, I think I may have been wrong and there are several points to make, which is why I suppose Dodds made the point that he did. A) Spain closed the border and B) as a result people were forced to adopt a circuitous route to overcome those restriction and C) this created a division between two populations that was unnatural as noted by Jordine. So in the spirit of compromise I will restore the comments about the Tangiers ferry, suitably abbreviated and copy edit to make the situation clearer.

2) That doesn't surprise me in the least. I do hope you're not going to continue with your previous practise of claiming to have access to sources, whilst not actually having them and then using google snippets to second guess other editors. You don't have the reference do you and you didn't check, as you claimed, did you?

First of all Dodds(2004) p.19

“ ...the 1830 Charter of Justice may have given Gibraltar a Supreme Court of Justice and independent civil judiciary ”

Backed up by Jackson(1987) p.229

“ Appeals had been to governor in the first instance; under the new charter they were to the privy council. There was thus a clear-cut division between the judiciary and the executive of Government. ”

And before you embark on your usual practise of semantic argument disputing whether a division of executive and judiciary is an "independent judiciary" see Judicial independence. A division between executive and judiciary defines what is an "independent judiciary".

Having addressed both points I will be bold and remove that tag. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Now that we've gone over the issues that were first raised by Ecemaml, let's work with the other issues.

UNINDENT

I've made some changes trying to improve (a little bit) the structure and the content of article. You have reverted them with the explanation "rv those changes destroy the readability of the article please discuss". I don't understand what you mean. Could you please explain? Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Those changes affected the article structure and made it less readable, you also removed a quote fro m a reliable 3rd party source that explained why the people of Gibraltar have developed a separate political identity. You separated the background of the Lisbon agreement and plopped it in the middle of the constitution. It didn't fit. Your changes detracted from article quality and were a less logical layout. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, regarding structure, to be honest, it is a bit strange to talk about the immediate consequences of the 1969 Constitution not in the part about that Constitution but in the one called "Lisbon Agreement, 1980".

Regarding the comments, have you realized that you only quote opinions that reflect the British POV of the question? That's certainly non-NPOV. We should either add quoted comments from equivalent parts in the Spanish POV... or eliminate those opinions altogether and leave only the pure facts... Actually, it's the last option which I propose: the article is about the development of Government in Gibraltar and not about the Brit-Spanish dispute.

Finally, even though those selected and unbalanced quoted opinions are the most obvious example of non-NPOV, the article in general is quite non-NPOV in its language ("in a fit of diplomatic pique", Spain "lobbied",...) and also in the selection of facts (you explain Britain's position in the dispute, but not Spain's, etc.)

It would probably be better to focus in the development of Government in Gibraltar and less in the dispute. There's already an article about the dispute and another about the History of Gibraltar, and you know how hard it is to reach agreement in issues regarding the dispute. Why not focus in the main theme of the article and leave the detail of controversial issues to the dispute articles?

Please tell me whether you want to include other opinions and facts or try to reduce the importance of controversial opinions about the dispute in the article. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I did wonder how long it would be before the accusations started. No, I reflect the opinion of neutral 3rd party academic sources, which is how a NPOV is achieved. You fall into the trap of many who edit based on POV that their own narrow nationalist POV simply has to be mentioned. I am happy to include reference to neutral 3rd party academic sources where relevant, I quote them to avoid accusations that I'm reflecting any particular national narrative. I have only referenced the dispute where it is relevant to the development of the GoG, with the minimum of detail on tangential matters. Btw Jordine is American, Dodds is German they,re not "British" POV. If you're making an accusation of POV editing i am happy to have this article exmined at WP:NPOVN, as i believe it will stand up to scrutiny, i simply ask you do not repeat your usual practise of deterring opinions with reams of tendentious argument. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210223735/http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_12996.shtml to http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_12996.shtml

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)