![]() | Gibraltar was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Other talk page banners |
|
Sources
Source discussion
Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2021
Along side the mention of the Gibraltar Chronicle, the two main monthly print magazines should also be referenced: Gibraltar Insight and the Gibraltar Magazine. 2A02:C7E:FA1:CD00:11DC:6980:AF91:7BD4 (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not done, neither have their own wikipedia article, so unable to judge on their notability. Gibraltar Chronicle enabled me to verify for this publication. WCMemail 11:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021
is a disputed territory, considered a British Overseas Territory by the United Kingdom and a Non-Self-Governing Territory in process of decolonization by Spain and United Nations.
Gibraltar is a British overseas territory .Josh13211111 (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- The change proposed is effectively to reverse this, a change made today that is being pushed without consensus.
- This is certainly a good idea. The edit in question takes the article's POV far beyond even what the Spanish government is willing to claim. Notably, for example, it falsely claims that Spain currently claims sovereignty over Gibraltar. The Spanish government source that the editor relies upon actually says that Gibraltar is
a territory under British sovereignty whose foreign relations are conducted by the United Kingdom.
, and only makes a sovereignty claim over the isthmus, which is what we we describe. It also ascribes pro-Spanish positions to the UN that go far beyond what a neutral analysis would allow.
- This is certainly a good idea. The edit in question takes the article's POV far beyond even what the Spanish government is willing to claim. Notably, for example, it falsely claims that Spain currently claims sovereignty over Gibraltar. The Spanish government source that the editor relies upon actually says that Gibraltar is
- The same editor is attempting to make similar edits to Status of Gibraltar. Kahastok talk 22:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Spain claims the sovereignty of Gibraltar by considering it illegal, a colony. The UN considers Gibraltar a Non-self-governing territory in the process of decolonization. The sources are quite clear, and the dispute between Spain and the United Kingdom for Gibraltar is more than evident.
I understand that you are British and it is difficult for you not to be biased, but it is the reality. Gibraltar is one of the seventeen territories in the world that is considered a Non-self-governing territory by the UN. Venezia Friulano (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Gibraltar sovereignty
Gibraltar is a self-governing British overseas territory 84.71.48.141 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I am a Gibraltarian we have a unique culture and love our land and it makes me sad to see people like you make us seem like we don’t have a land to call home Spain is in discussions with the UK and Gibraltar over a Brexit deal which Means Spain except Gibraltar‘s existence i’m sorry if you don’t understand it’s like where you come from being said it’s not a true place it would make you sad and I’m not being biased I’m just going off what my government says we’ve had two votes on it and voted to stay British 84.71.48.141 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon.
Lassa Oppenheim (30-03-1858 – 07-10-1919), an authority on international law[1]
Edit war over British/Spanish points of view
I think it's time to stop the edit war and discussion via edit summary, so I am starting this section. It's not like we haven't been here before, but I guess every new challenge to the status quo deserves a hearing.
I'm also reverting the recent batch of changes emphasizing Spanish claim to Gibraltar and asserting a UN view on the matter because I believe the reliable sources, as understood by a consensus of editors, don't support them.
Ordinarily, I would try to preserve parts of the edit I think could be an improvement, but in this case I have a feeling that the time I spent editing would be lost in the middle of an edit war.
I don't believe there is any serious enough dispute over UK's sovereignty over Gibraltar to include it in the lead paragraph or short description.
I don't believe inclusion on the UN's list of non-self-governing territories means the UN believes Gibraltar is in the process of decolonization or that it should not be a British Overseas Territory, but if I missed that in the sources, someone please direct me to it.
I'd support some of the details about why Spain or the UN don't recognize the results of the sovereignty referenda in Disputed status of Gibraltar, but is too much detail for this article, and definitely too much for the lead. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- We need a neutral description of the status. Spain ceded Gibraltar to Great Britain. The UK listed Gibraltar as a non-self-govnerning territory that had self-determination and therefore should be part of the de-colonization process. However, Spain and the UK disagreed over who the population was. Spain saw the population as Spanish people who were expropriated by Britain while the UK saw it as the people living there. That's why referenda were disputed. No resolution on the matter has ever been made. There have been similar disputes over referenda in the Falklands, the Sudetenland, Crimea, Hawaii and Alasks. TFD (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- The current status of the article almost completely ignores the status of Gibraltar for Spain and for the UN. Anyone reading the article will think that Gibraltar is a completely normal territory, when it is not. I am not Spanish, nor do I have any personal interest in Gibraltar, but the status of the article is not neutral or complete, it is completely the British view of Gibraltar. Venezia Friulano (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- And the UN defines Gibraltar as a "non-autonomous territory that must be subjected to a process of decolonization".[2] The UN doesnt recognize these referendums, they have no international validity, and that is completely omitted here.
- My proposal is:
- >Add that for Spain and the UN it is considered a "non-autonomous territory that must be subjected to a process of decolonization"[3][4]
- >Spain claims the sovereignty of Gibraltar[5][6]
- >Neither Spain nor the United Nations recognize the legal validity of the referendums in Gibraltar.[7] Venezia Friulano (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The Spanish government source that Venezia Friulano cited actually lays this out quite clearly. If you read it, you will find that it does not anywhere claim, suggest, imply or otherwise indicate that Spain currently disputes the existence of British sovereignty in Gibraltar. On the contrary, it actually says explicitly that Gibraltar is under British sovereignty.
This is not some private organisation trying to explain a difficult situation and being clumsy. This is the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, directly discussing the dispute. Bluntly, if Spain were ever to go to an international court and suggest that they had always claimed Gibraltar, the British would be able to point to this document and refute that claim. If Spain did in fact claim Gibraltar in its entirety, publishing such a document would be a catastrophic blunder - possibly even terminal to Spain's chances of getting any international tribunal to accept that view. All I suggest is that we should believe it and not trying to second guess it with, effectively, yeah but what they really meant was....
Venezia Friulano's interpretation of the modern UN position is also inaccurate. The UN does not actually back Spain as Venezia Friulano argues. Venezia Friulano's edit presents only a Spanish POV of what the UN says, which is not the NPOV. I would note in this context that the Special Committee does not speak for the United Nations as a whole, and that the only body with the right to make decisions that are binding on states is the United Nations Security Council. I would also add that the UN is not, as a rule, in the business of recognising referendums and so the fact that it didn't recognise a particular referendum does not mean anything in particular.
I would add that The Four Deuces is mistaken in saying Spain and the UK disagreed over who the population was
. Spain argues that there is no population at all who has the right to determine the future of Gibraltar, because they argue that the principle of self-determination does not apply. Kahastok talk 17:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- A few points:
- The status quo article definitely says it's not a normal undisputed territory. The lead says, "The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations, as Spain asserts a claim to the territory." That's pretty clear.
- The reference to the referenda is not an argument, it's an answer to the burning question any reader will have: What do the people who live there think? Are they oppressed people? Are they occupiers? Since it comes right after a statement that Spain asserts a claim, no reader could think these referenda were accepted by all parties and settled the dispute. The referenda are also mentioned in the History section, but only as events that led to the events described next; there's no need to talk about their relevance to the sovereignty issue there.
- It looks to me like the bare fact that Gibraltar is on the UN decolonization list does belong in the lead. Some detail on that is in the Governance section.
- I think the Special Committee does speak for the UN on matters within its purview. That's what committees do. Nothing as formal as a resolution, of course, but still worthy of the wording, "The UN says ...". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- If you're referring to the Special Committee, then you're referring to the Special Committee, not the UN as a whole. The only ways the UN as a whole speaks are through the resolutions of the General Assembly or Security Council, and only the Security Council can make decisions that are binding on anyone other than the UN itself. By claiming Special Committee opinions as the authoritative voice of the UN you imply far greater significance than actually exists.
- There are eleven British Overseas Territories that are on the NSGT list, and not a single one of them has that status listed in the lede of their Wikipedia article. This is not an article on the dispute. Status of Gibraltar does mention the NSGT list in its lede. But this is an article on Gibraltar, and NSGT status is no more significant to Gibraltar as a whole than it is to any of the other ten BOTs on the list. Kahastok talk 11:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- There are eleven British Overseas Territories that are on the NSGT list, and not a single one of them has that status listed in the lede of their Wikipedia article. This is not an article on the dispute. Status of Gibraltar does mention the NSGT list in its lede. But this is an article on Gibraltar, and NSGT status is no more significant to Gibraltar as a whole than it is to any of the other ten BOTs on the list. Kahastok talk 11:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Being under the sovereignty of the UK (or more specifically the sovereign), can mean that it is under its control which is not in question. The SNP for example does not claim that the UK government does not exercise control of Scotland, but that they should not do so.
- The territorial dispute is a significant fact about Gibraltar but not about any other UK territory other than the Falklands. Hence the entry Encyclopedia Britannica says in the lead paragraph Gibraltar, "The sovereignty of the territory has remained a source of constant friction between the United Kingdom and Spain, though residents voted in 1967 to remain part of Britain. Spain lifted its border blockade in the mid-1980s. Formal talks that began between the governments of Britain, Spain, and Gibraltar in 2004 helped to further ease tensions."
- Spain of course adheres to the principle of self-determination. Their argument is that Spain has self determination and should have control over all their territory including Gibraltar. They do not recognize Gibraltans as having self-determination, except as British citizens, who have the right to self-determination of the UK.
- While i realize you dismiss the Spanish claim, it has a bearing on relations between Gibraltar and Spain.
- TFD (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- And between the UK and Spain. Btw, you can add Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus to the list of disputed Crown Colonies.
- I found TFD's argument quite convincing and, for me, it made clear that the dispute here is about semantics rather than a fundamental principle of international law: I don't believe anyone disputes that. So we need to find a different word than sovereignty to express what the dispute is about, and we need to do that before requesting an RFC. I admit to being stumped as all the other terms I've come across are a lot more belligerent than is the case here (or in Cyprus). Anyone else? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Would it help to split the #Governance section so as to introduce a subsection like Akrotiri and Dhekelia#Dispute and controversies? Because I really cannot see how we can find an alternative word than 'sovereignty' since that word itself appears to defy definition (xref the quote box above). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- If someone can suggest a neutral wording for the lead that mentions the dispute then we can have an RfC that draws in uninvolved editors. TFD (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- The NSGT listing was not triggered by the dispute and is not related to the dispute. There is no reason why the dispute should mean that it should be listed at the top of a general article on Gibraltar.
- I quote the Spanish government source again:
the principle of self-determination is not applicable but rather that of restitution of the Spanish territorial integrity
. Spain explicitly, directly and unambiguously argues that the principle of self-determination does not apply in this case at all. It is not possible to reconcile this with your claim that "Spain of course adheres to the principle of self-determination". No, it doesn't.
- I quote the Spanish government source again:
- Whether Spain is right or wrong to argue that self-determination does not apply is not for us to say. The fact is, they do argue that self-determination does not apply.
- I note that you seem to fail to draw any distinction between the statements, Spain believes it should have sovereignty and Spain believes it already has sovereignty. Spain clearly does believe it should have sovereignty over Gibraltar. That is why Gibraltar sovereignty is a source of friction in Anglo-Spanish relations as per your Britannica quote. But it does not therefore follow that it believes it already has legal sovereignty.
- And to be clear, the Spanish government source says this, directly, explicitly and unambiguously. If the Spanish government puts their position, we should not be in the business of turning around and saying, ah, but they really mean the opposite. Kahastok talk 15:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
unproductive off-topic diversionary discussion concluded |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I recommend that we give very little to no mention of Spain's claims on Gibraltar. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- The dispute is about the basis of the Spanish claim, not sovereignty directly. Surely all we need to do is arrange the wording accordingly. That dispute is relevant enough, IMO, for a subsection on it and a sentence in the lead, but no more. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. I suggested above something like Akrotiri and Dhekelia#Dispute and controversies, which reads about the right amount to me. The problem of course is to write a dispassionate account. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- IMHO we don't to do anything with the article as currently written as it already gives due recognition of Spanish claims to the territory. I would also respectfully suggest the title of this thread is rather incorrect. We aren't seeing an edit war over contrary points of view, we are seeing edit warring to dramatically tilt the POV toward an extreme nationalist viewpoint. The article is already neutral and complete and every time I see an edit warrior complaining loudly about censorship I am reminded of the editor Antandrus' observations on Wikipedia behavior. Kahastok is correct, Spain doesn't dispute who the rightful population for the purposes is, it simply claims they don't have the right to self-determination but notably has always refused the suggestion to test that claim in the International Court of Justice. So I would respectfully suggest leave well enough alone. WCMemail 12:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- I sympathise broadly but right now the article has a bit of an 'elephant in the room that everyone pretends is not there' feel to it. The lead has
The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations, as Spain asserts a claim to the territory.[8][9]
but there is no explicit matching body content other than a reference in the Contemporary history section. I suppose what I'm looking for is a succinct summary of Status of Gibraltar that someone could find quickly and easily should there be an International Incident. (Oh wait, there is a 'full and frank exchange of views' going on there as well. Sigh.) - Maybe it would be best just to kick this question into the long grass at least until the Schengen access 'arrangement' (whatever it is) gets resolved. Given the frosty state of relations between the UK and EU at present, that won't be this week or next. Personally, I don't see value in pursuing this debate further right now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have written such a summary in the past, it was neutral, it was accurate but it's not in the article. It's not in the article because when it was added certain editors felt the need to ensure their own nationalist viewpoints were represented. And so the section grew out of all proportion to dominate the article. Nationalism in all it's forms is a pox on wikipedia. WCMemail 14:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- I sympathise broadly but right now the article has a bit of an 'elephant in the room that everyone pretends is not there' feel to it. The lead has
- IMHO we don't to do anything with the article as currently written as it already gives due recognition of Spanish claims to the territory. I would also respectfully suggest the title of this thread is rather incorrect. We aren't seeing an edit war over contrary points of view, we are seeing edit warring to dramatically tilt the POV toward an extreme nationalist viewpoint. The article is already neutral and complete and every time I see an edit warrior complaining loudly about censorship I am reminded of the editor Antandrus' observations on Wikipedia behavior. Kahastok is correct, Spain doesn't dispute who the rightful population for the purposes is, it simply claims they don't have the right to self-determination but notably has always refused the suggestion to test that claim in the International Court of Justice. So I would respectfully suggest leave well enough alone. WCMemail 12:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Lassa Oppenheim, International Law 66 (Sir Arnold D. McNair ed., 4th ed. 1928)
- ^ https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/brexit/gibraltar/Paginas/index.aspx
- ^ https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/nsgt
- ^ https://www.unsecretariat.net/sections/issues-depth/decolonization/index.html
- ^ http://www.exteriores.gob.es/Portal/es/PoliticaExteriorCooperacion/Gibraltar/Paginas/Historia.aspx
- ^ https://www.europasur.es/gibraltar/Espana-ONU-soberania-Gibraltar_0_1621938117.amp.html
- ^ https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/202992#record-files-collapse-header
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Maec
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "History and Legal Aspects of the Dispute". The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation. Retrieved 23 July 2018.
Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2021
Gibraltar is also a swear word meaning bozzer. Eg You are a bozzer.{ 92.28.73.100 (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)