Jump to content

Talk:Status of Gibraltar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorting article out

[edit]

Gibraltar and its position with regard to Europe will be a hot topic over the next two years and I wish to see the article explain the position clearly to readers. I could find no mention of the UN 2016 report and have used that as an unbiased report to try to set out the key issues in the dispute over sovereignty and whether Gibraltar has the rights to self determination. I have carried on to sort the article into a more logical order and removed a couple of un-cited comments. I hope I have treated all sides fairly but please feel free to comment here. It would be nice to remove the bias warnings from the article. - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution was very much welcome, thank you. I have changed a few minor points - eg Gibraltar does not consider itself a colony anymore so one sentence was a little strange. Please don't let others put you off. Regards, WCMemail 07:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ânes-pur-sàng Latest edit war was about including this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/02/theresa-may-would-go-war-defend-sovereignty-gibraltar-says-michael/ and this https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/02/britain-and-eu-worse-off-without-brexit-deal-says-michael-fallon. Apparently, "not notable enough". Good luck with this article. You will end up wanting to jump out of a window.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asilah19811 It is this year's piece of media clutter that will probably fade fairly quick. The WP:10YR is a pretty good marker for fast moving current affairs. I too wish Ânes-pur-sàng well in trying to improve this article. When I first read it, it did indeed come across as barely disguised drum rolling and bugling. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
haha Roger 8 Roger well yes if you look at it that way, 99.99% of Gibraltar-related news don´t even make it out of Gibraltar´s local papers - let alone fade away. Considering the only recent Gibraltar-related event which made global headlines "non-notable" is quite comical, but there you go.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ânes-pur-sàng I will support any good faith editor attempting to fix this article, although I won't do any editing of my own. Hopefully we can eventually get rid of the NPOV tags etc... But i warn you, you will run into trouble and eventually be hounded out of here as so many other editors have before you.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Asilah, would it really challenge you that much to make the vaguest attempt to assume good faith in those who disagree with you?
Roger 8 Roger is quite correct. This point clearly failed the 10-year test as it stood so we don't include it. If events transpire that change that assessment, as always we can reconsider at that time. Kahastok talk 17:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissal of Margallo

[edit]

Might be good to mention somewhere, interpeted as Rajoy's dislike of his rather bombastic statements, including regarding Gibraltar.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. WCMemail 13:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, its not news. But is interesting in context of Brexit negotiations. Read here http://www.vozpopuli.com/buscon/Margallo-almuerzo-Rajoy-Theresa-May_0_962304393.htmlAsilah1981 (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt this will pass the 10 year test, you need to be able to recognise what is irrelevant and tangential information to the main subject. You keep being reverted because of WP:RECENTISM but don't learn from it. WCMemail 14:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean reverted? I haven't even edited here, was just on talk page. Anyways. I'm out. Banned from "political topics" (pissed off the wrong people I guess) means no point this account existing. Time to take an extended break from wikipedia. Maybe a year or so.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0FF:A6E0:11D5:30B2:2C4A:D987 (talk) [reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Disputed status of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts (lede rewrite)

[edit]

As discussed at Talk:Gibraltar, the edits proposed here by User:Venezia Friulano are full of half-truths, POV statements in inaccuracies. The effect is to remove all discussion of the British POV from the lede and replace it with lengthy discussion of the Spanish POV, uncritically accepting Spanish government claims as factual (e.g. about the UN) and refusing to even acknowledge those from the British side.

Notably, in a critical aspect it actually goes much further than even the Spanish government is willing to go. Spain does not in fact claim that it currently holds sovereignty over Gibraltar. On the contrary, it argues that British sovereignty exists, but that it is limited in important ways. Spain also argues that it has legal sovereignty over the isthmus between Spain and Gibraltar. This is demonstrated by Venezia Friulano's own source, which says - in so many words - that Gibraltar is a territory under British sovereignty, and which limits its explicit claims of sovereignty to the isthmus. Kahastok talk 17:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About the UN's position, it is quite clear: A- Gibraltar is in their list of Non-Self Governing Territories, see here. The issue is methodically discussed every year, a report is issued by the General Assembly, and every year the first sentence is: 1. Gibraltar is a Non-Self-Governing Territory administered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. as you can see in this year's report. This is a fact, and a very relevant fact. And then B- Gibraltar is a subject of the UN's Decolonization Committee, also reviewing the situation every year, and is currently on as can be seen here, also issued by the General Assembly. This is also a fact. It is not a Spanish Government claim or a POV statement. --Megustalastrufas (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the status quo. PS - Last time I checked, Gibraltar voted in the Brexit referendum. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gibraltarians cannot vote in general elections, they don't get to elect members of parliament nor the government that ultimately rules them, because Gibraltar is not a part of the UK, but a possession of the UK. Anyway, that's not the point, the point is that the UN issued the above resolutions, and that's a fact, not a POV--Megustalastrufas (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A correction to your statement. Gibraltarians do not vote in the UK general election, because they are not part of the UK. They do in fact vote in their own general election to elect their own Parliament. The UK does not rule Gibraltar, Gibraltar is under the Government of Gibraltar, elected by the people of Gibraltar under universal suffrage. The UK provides for defence and foreign relations of Gibraltar only. Those are facts, not a POV. As regards UN resolutions, the only body that can issue a UN resolution is the UN Security Council, UN General Assembly resolutions are advisory only. Minor bodies of the UN such as the C24 cannot and do not issue resolutions, they can only recommend a resolution to the IV committee, which if adopted goes to the General Assembly for a vote. Only if successfully voted on do such recommendations become resolutions, most never even get to the IV committee and as regards the C24 it hasn't had a successful resolution since 1988. WCMemail 10:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying then is: Gibraltar is fully independent, and the UK only "provides" (your choice of words) some services, as if the UK were some kind of contractor. It is an interesting theory, but there are some issues: 1- The Governor of Gibraltar is chosen by the UK government, not by Gibraltarians, and represents Her Majesty. 2- Almost every relevant section in the Constitution of Gibraltar ends with tag lines like without prejudice to the power of Her Majesty to amend or revoke any provision of this Chapter or words to that effect, e.g. laws have to be assented to by Her Majesty or by the Governor on behalf of Her Majesty. So the parliament of Gibraltar is free to decide anything, as long as the UK government goes along with it. 3- The "services" that the UK "provides" happen to be Defence and Foreign Affairs, as you say, but also internal security, including (..) the police (and I'm still quoting the Constitution) - those three "services", and the figure and powers of the Governor, kind of undermine your statement that the UK does not rule Gibraltar.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're putting words in WCM's mouth there. Your suggestion that Gibraltar might be independent is a strawman. But at the same time Gibraltar is not ruled by the UK. The UK provides for defence and foreign affairs, the government of Gibraltar does the rest.
It is entirely normal in British constitutional theory that the rule as written down is heavily constrained in practice by convention and history, i.e. the way things have always been done. This is no exception. Kahastok talk 20:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that Gibraltar was independent, that is entirely a strawman of your own making. The UK and it's BOT have since WW2 being moving towards modernising their relationship. In practise this has meant devolving self-government in an ever increasing degree aiming to encourage independence. Thus Gibraltar has become self-governing relying only on the UK for defence and foreign relations; though even in the latter it is not entirely dependent since the GoG presents for itself at the UN. As regards the governor, they are not the UK's representative but in fact represent Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as head of state and whilst officially appointed by HMG, the governor is in fact appointed in consultation with the GoG. Similarly, Australia and New Zealand have a governor as head of state representing Her Majesty but they are very much self-governing and act as a notional figurehead. Whilst the Queen may be head of state, the role is entirely symbolic and in practise she has no powers. Internal security is not provided by the UK, Gibraltar like the UK has an independent judiciary, which is separate from government. Internal security is not provided by the UK, rather it is provided by the Gibraltar Police Authority, which is an independent body from government provided by the Gibraltar Constitution order of 2006. Gibraltar has had an independent judiciary and policy force since 1830 and it was always the practise in the former British Empire that individual colonies had their own, distinct governments, finances, and judicial systems. The monicker BOT is not a fig leaf for colony, it reflects the fact that the relationship with the UK's former colonies has fundamentally changed with the UK devolving powers to the maximum extent and tailored to the needs of individual territories. As Kahastok notes literal interpretation of a written constitution in the UK, Crown Dependencies or BOT is misleading, since government is as much constrained by custom and practise. WCMemail 08:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect concerning New Zealand, Australia & the other Commonwealth realms, the governors-general (assuming that's the offices you speak of) are not heads of state. They represent the head of state, in this case Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct and that is basically what I meant to say but did it in a bit of a rush and my wording was clumsy. WCMemail 08:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your expressions "aiming to encourage independence", "relying only on the UK for defence and foreign relations" are fig leafs indeed, it's Foreign Office jargon. The facts are as per my list of issues above. In your comparison with Australia etc. you've gone a bit too far, as GoodDay kindly points out. It is true that there is a formal tutelage which is never invoked - British officials tend to underline it as you do, much to the annoyance of Canadian officials - but the Governor-Generals of Australia, Canada, etc. do not have the constitutional power that the Governor of Gibraltar does have. The Commonwealth G-Gs are the literal equivalent of HM in the UK, presiding without power. Your dismissal of the written constitution of Gibraltar is insulting. In Wikipedia we stick to the written word, and we do respect original sources.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are once again incorrect, GoodDay corrected when I mis-spoke and I have already acknowledged his correction. What I wrote is entirely accurate, if you wish to check the Governor-General of Australia and New Zealand do have the theoretical power to dissolve Parliament, however, custom and practise mean this only occurs at the request of the government of the day. Gibraltar and other BOT are exactly the same, whilst the governor has theoretical powers under the constitution in practise these are not exercised by the governor except at the request of government. And again, it is your strawman that I dismissed the constitution and you are also incorrect to assert that on Wikipedia we interpret original sources. We don't, we rely on secondary sources to interpret primary sources, precisely to stop editors doing what you are trying to do in misintepreting a primary source to present a distorted version of reality. WCMemail 09:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gibraltar did vote in the UK's 2016 EU referendum. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it didn't?--Megustalastrufas (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that they did, as a part of the United Kingdom. Spanish claims over Gibraltar are just that, claims. GoodDay (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to contradict you, but Gibraltar voted on that referendum as part of the European Union, not as part of the UK. Note that Gibraltarians did have a vote in the European Elections, but not on the British Elections. Gibraltar is not a part of the UK. --Megustalastrufas (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They're a British Overseas Territory. GoodDay (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point but in a quirk of the electoral system, Gibraltar voted as part of a UK constituency for the purposes of EU elections. Their votes were included in South West England (European Parliament constituency). WCMemail 08:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, though Gibraltar voted to remain. They had to leave, along with the UK. GoodDay (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you guys figure this all out. I'm going through an RFC headache right now. GoodDay (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capture

[edit]

As it happens, some time ago, I wrote a neutral summary of the capture, I still have a copy in a subpage.

The edit [1] is inaccurate, albeit sourced to Peter Gold an academic author I hold in some respect. The population marched out en masse a few days after the capture, rebuffing attempts to recruit them into the Hapsburg cause. They left citing their loyalty to Phillip. The population was not forced out, which was the exact opposite of what the Hapsburg side wanted, nor did they flee during the battle; it was a calculated decision based on multiple factors. WCMemail 14:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your well written summary of the capture and I find it valuable in many ways but I have some major objections. One, it is rather long and detailed for an article on the Status of Gibraltar, not a History of Gibraltar. For instance, I do not think it is necessary to try and excuse the behaviour of the sailors on the basis of bad living conditions on British ships; there has never been a valid excuse for rape.
I think the point of this section, to fit the title of the article, should be to understand the reasons why the population left. The reasons certainly include some of your statements: "(the British forces) were contemptuous of Spaniards, hated "Popery" and were extremely addicted to alcohol. (...) Once the wine stores were broken into discipline broke down and there was extensive looting, catholic churches were ransacked, religious artefacts destroyed and there were instances of rape." Also, "in a letter to Philip the city fathers cited their continued loyalty to Philip" and "The conduct of the allies during the capture aroused great anger in Spain and once again the chance of winning over Andalusians to the cause of the Grand Alliance was lost." "A counter attack to retake the rock was expected, which would enable the population to quickly return to their homes and rebuild their lives after the violence following the capture."
All that cannot be summarised with such a simple "After the battle, almost all of the inhabitants decided to leave."
On a different note, I am also concerned with a number of smaller points, e.g. where you say: "and several of the drunken rioters (were) hanged as examples to others" - an uninformed reader may think that the worst offenders were chosen; in fact, and as you probably know, the serious offenders were so numerous that it was unthinkable to hang them all, short of unmanning the fleet, so a macabre lottery was drawn to chose the exemplary few.
I propose that we substitute this sentence in the current version:
"During and after the battle, all but 70 of the 4000 inhabitants fled across the isthmus."
with these words:
"After the battle, the capture sailors and marines ran amok, broke into the wine shops, and engaged in a drunken orgy of looting, pillage, desecration and rape. British officers eventually restored order with brutal discipline, but the angry population was too aggravated to consider paying allegiance to the pretender of the throne. In a letter to Philip the city fathers cited their continued loyalty to Philip, and, expecting a counter attack to retake the rock, which would enable the population to quickly return to their homes and rebuild their lives after the violence, they opted to leave with the remains of the Spanish garrison that had been granted freedom in the terms of surrender."
...this would be neutral. Megustalastrufas (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previous version was neutral, you have chosen to replace it with a non-neutral and inaccurate text; and are now advocating one favouring a nationalist narrative. I have earnestly tried to engage in discussion rather than simply reverting. As I see you don't propose to reciprocate, I will revert to the long standing consensus text that existed before. WCMemail 21:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was reciprocating. In fact, in my proposal, I used mostly your own words, which do describe the facts quite accurately. I do not understand why you have reintroduced the false statement: After the battle, almost all of the inhabitants decided to leave which, you must agree (your subpage text shows that you are well aware of the facts), is extremely POV and should be corrected. Megustalastrufas (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This whole article is still a jumbled mess and needs a fairly substantial restructure. It notably fails entirely to describe the basic nature of the of the dispute (such as the fact that Spain recognises the existence of British sovereignty in Gibraltar, albeit not to the extent that the British assert). However, this is not helped by your proposal that we start endorsing nationalist perspectives.
The status quo is broadly neutral and gives the point the weight it would seem to merit in the context in which it is found. Perfect? Far from it. As I say, the entire article needs a lot of work to before it can even adequately explain the issues to the reader. But that isn't helped by adding more nationalist POV. We should be aiming to fix the areas where this article is failing, not making them worse. Kahastok talk 10:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask, what nationalist POV are you referring to exactly? Megustalastrufas (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You were not reciprocating, you took a neutral text and rewrote it in overly emotive language reflecting a nationalist POV. You were looking to escalate tension rather than engaging in a talk page discussion. The current text isn't POV, it could be improved but I rather suspect you are not the editor to do so. The article has long suffered from nationalist editing and remains a bit of a dogs breakfast, I've tried to rewrite it in a neutral tone but what always prevents progress is POV editing based on nationalist memes and tropes. WCMemail 07:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Status_of_Gibraltar&oldid=1210547445"